05-19-2011, 08:00 AM
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1305789340' post='8583']
I wonder why Canon have not copied it. Maybe they feel their outdated 35/2 is fine. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
Well, actually it IS fine, Yakim. Try to valuate the results carefully:
Distortion wise:
The Nikon does show some visible barrel distortion, the FF Canon is almost distortionless.
Vignetting:
With the Nikon D3x compared to the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, the D3x' different tonal curve makes the 5D mk II appear to vignet when you compare the numbers than it does in reality. Not sure if that is the case between the D7000 and EOS 50D too, only Markus and Klaus can figure that out.
If that is the case, the Nkon 35mm f1.8 vignets quite a bit more. If that is NOT the case, and both tonal curves are comparable, the Nikon still vignets a tad more than the Canon.
Resolution wise:
The Nikon Is a bit sharper, especially wide open. The extreme corners are a bit less sharp, wide open and past f4.
Both lenses are very sharp anyway.
CA wide:
The Canon has the advantage here.
Bokeh:
Tricky subject as it is not measurable easily, and it triggers brand loyalty discussions. But in my experience/perception, the Canon 35mm f2 has an unusual, but smooth bokeh. The Nikon has a nervous bokeh.
Highlights: the Nikon has rounded highlights, the Canon has 5 sided highlights when stopped down. This 5 sidedness can make for unusual or unruly effects, concerning highlights or back light.
So, both have their plusses and minusses concerning bokeh, and both are not even close overall with 35mm bokeh wonders like the Zeiss 35mm f2's.
Size and weight wise:
Both are comparable here.
The Canon has the added bonus that it is not APS-C only (which also explains the bit better correction and vignetting figures.
So, when compared to the Nikon, I do feel the old 35mm f2 is "fine".
The lesser CA, the smoother bokeh, the not really visible distortion, I would not want to trade it for the Nikon's optics.
The Nikon on the other hand has the silent AF-S and the more modern coatings, making it more contrasty with back light.
I wonder why Canon have not copied it. Maybe they feel their outdated 35/2 is fine. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
Well, actually it IS fine, Yakim. Try to valuate the results carefully:
Distortion wise:
The Nikon does show some visible barrel distortion, the FF Canon is almost distortionless.
Vignetting:
With the Nikon D3x compared to the Canon EOS 5D Mk II, the D3x' different tonal curve makes the 5D mk II appear to vignet when you compare the numbers than it does in reality. Not sure if that is the case between the D7000 and EOS 50D too, only Markus and Klaus can figure that out.
If that is the case, the Nkon 35mm f1.8 vignets quite a bit more. If that is NOT the case, and both tonal curves are comparable, the Nikon still vignets a tad more than the Canon.
Resolution wise:
The Nikon Is a bit sharper, especially wide open. The extreme corners are a bit less sharp, wide open and past f4.
Both lenses are very sharp anyway.
CA wide:
The Canon has the advantage here.
Bokeh:
Tricky subject as it is not measurable easily, and it triggers brand loyalty discussions. But in my experience/perception, the Canon 35mm f2 has an unusual, but smooth bokeh. The Nikon has a nervous bokeh.
Highlights: the Nikon has rounded highlights, the Canon has 5 sided highlights when stopped down. This 5 sidedness can make for unusual or unruly effects, concerning highlights or back light.
So, both have their plusses and minusses concerning bokeh, and both are not even close overall with 35mm bokeh wonders like the Zeiss 35mm f2's.
Size and weight wise:
Both are comparable here.
The Canon has the added bonus that it is not APS-C only (which also explains the bit better correction and vignetting figures.
So, when compared to the Nikon, I do feel the old 35mm f2 is "fine".
The lesser CA, the smoother bokeh, the not really visible distortion, I would not want to trade it for the Nikon's optics.
The Nikon on the other hand has the silent AF-S and the more modern coatings, making it more contrasty with back light.