11-10-2010, 03:40 AM
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1289227885' post='4048']
Actually its not as bad as I thought it would be.
[/quote]
People are quite quick to misunderstand the purpose of ultra fast lenses. We never shoot IQ critical shots (e.g. landscapes) at f/1.4 or even at f/2.8. With fast apertures, it makes sense only to shoot near by subjects for shallow DOF. The differences in the resolution/blur between the in-focus and out of focus areas is so high that we perceive even very soft lenses as being very sharp. Also the spatial area of the image that is actually in focus is very tiny, making edge-to-edge resolution figures almost insignificant. It's only if you keep the two shots side by side you'll notice differences. Even then, it's not fair because shots with more DOF always look sharper because of that increased area that's in focus.
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1289227885' post='4048']
In fact it seems to hold better than the canon 24LII on FF?
[/quote]
This should answer your question better:
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415"]Canon 24mm f/1.4L II vs. Nikon 24mm f/1.4G - Both on a 5D Mark II at f/1.4[/url]
![[Image: 4698284415_53ecb51f01_d.jpg]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4698284415_53ecb51f01_d.jpg)
More recently, I even compared the two lenses stopped down. It's extremely difficult to do this but I managed to roughly estimate the f-number at which [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_%28optics%29"]coma[/url] becomes negligible for both lenses. Again it's fairly close for both and it tends to happen around f/3.2-f/3.5. One thing I did notice is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration"]CA[/url] in the 24 1.4G was higher than on the Canon at these apertures.
Long story short: if you want better sharpness, go for the Canon (I have to disagree with photozone's measurements, as I have visually demonstrated). If you want better bokeh, go for the Nikon.
GTW
Actually its not as bad as I thought it would be.
[/quote]
People are quite quick to misunderstand the purpose of ultra fast lenses. We never shoot IQ critical shots (e.g. landscapes) at f/1.4 or even at f/2.8. With fast apertures, it makes sense only to shoot near by subjects for shallow DOF. The differences in the resolution/blur between the in-focus and out of focus areas is so high that we perceive even very soft lenses as being very sharp. Also the spatial area of the image that is actually in focus is very tiny, making edge-to-edge resolution figures almost insignificant. It's only if you keep the two shots side by side you'll notice differences. Even then, it's not fair because shots with more DOF always look sharper because of that increased area that's in focus.
[quote name='allanmb' timestamp='1289227885' post='4048']
In fact it seems to hold better than the canon 24LII on FF?
[/quote]
This should answer your question better:
[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415"]Canon 24mm f/1.4L II vs. Nikon 24mm f/1.4G - Both on a 5D Mark II at f/1.4[/url]
More recently, I even compared the two lenses stopped down. It's extremely difficult to do this but I managed to roughly estimate the f-number at which [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma_%28optics%29"]coma[/url] becomes negligible for both lenses. Again it's fairly close for both and it tends to happen around f/3.2-f/3.5. One thing I did notice is the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration"]CA[/url] in the 24 1.4G was higher than on the Canon at these apertures.
Long story short: if you want better sharpness, go for the Canon (I have to disagree with photozone's measurements, as I have visually demonstrated). If you want better bokeh, go for the Nikon.
GTW