06-23-2010, 02:28 AM
[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']
I was amazed actually, that the 24L Mk I came out tops... . It must have been really good IOW <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
[/quote]
These were all shot with the 24L MkI wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewri...motorshow/
Wide open, the Mk I that I had was a hair sharper than two 24L IIs (incl. my new one) I compared it to. In the corners, the 24L II was a bit better.
[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']
I do find it has a remarkably flat image field for a 24 mm, though, certainly much more so than the 24L Mk I. AF accuracy is also a lot better. The 24L Mk I did miss occasionally, especially close to MFD. I have no such problems with the II, and the I kept on doing that even after two calibrations.
[/quote]
From the testing that I did, the 24L MkI had very slightly less field curvature than the two 24L IIs I compared it to. I thought of the added curvature as a compromise they made in Mk II to get the added sharpness. Again, I never had trouble with field curvatures in real world shooting. If anything, it makes things interesting. I think the field curvature bashing should be limited rangefinder lenses (where you have no other option other than to focus in the center and recompose) and telescopes for precision astro work.
I agree about AF... I think that was the biggest improvement. Also found the bokeh being a bit smoother.
[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']
Hey, that's an opinion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I reckon it doesn't get much better for a fast 24, unless you are prepared to pay 10X or more as much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
[/quote]
I don't think there are any other options at all, to be honest! The two wide Summiluxes are far worse than the N or the C from what I've seen.
GTW
I was amazed actually, that the 24L Mk I came out tops... . It must have been really good IOW <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.[/quote]
These were all shot with the 24L MkI wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewri...motorshow/
Wide open, the Mk I that I had was a hair sharper than two 24L IIs (incl. my new one) I compared it to. In the corners, the 24L II was a bit better.
[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']
I do find it has a remarkably flat image field for a 24 mm, though, certainly much more so than the 24L Mk I. AF accuracy is also a lot better. The 24L Mk I did miss occasionally, especially close to MFD. I have no such problems with the II, and the I kept on doing that even after two calibrations.
[/quote]
From the testing that I did, the 24L MkI had very slightly less field curvature than the two 24L IIs I compared it to. I thought of the added curvature as a compromise they made in Mk II to get the added sharpness. Again, I never had trouble with field curvatures in real world shooting. If anything, it makes things interesting. I think the field curvature bashing should be limited rangefinder lenses (where you have no other option other than to focus in the center and recompose) and telescopes for precision astro work.
I agree about AF... I think that was the biggest improvement. Also found the bokeh being a bit smoother.
[quote name='wim' date='23 June 2010 - 12:10 AM' timestamp='1277215858' post='656']
Hey, that's an opinion <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I reckon it doesn't get much better for a fast 24, unless you are prepared to pay 10X or more as much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.[/quote]
I don't think there are any other options at all, to be honest! The two wide Summiluxes are far worse than the N or the C from what I've seen.
GTW