pfogle
Well-known
I was curious to see how different the 12mm on the R-D1 might be from the EF 17-40 f4L on my Canon 5D. The Canon shots are in-camera medium jpgs, so they were 3120 pixels against the R-D1's 3008 pixels wide.
Here's a link to a small comparison, all shots at f8. You have to select 'zoom' to see the crops at 100%.
Here's a link to a small comparison, all shots at f8. You have to select 'zoom' to see the crops at 100%.
georgef
Well-known
Interesting comparisson Phil. More so as I was going to do a comparison between my CV 15mm on my RD-1 and the 17-40 on a 1Ds. I am still not happy with the sharpness of my 15, and I started a thread with a lot of input, all of it opposite to my experience; I think my copy is a bad one 
Your shots look very good, but given the mp difference, the difference should be evident in the details. Under comparable magnifications though, they look close.
What do you think, having seen the actual full results?
george.
Your shots look very good, but given the mp difference, the difference should be evident in the details. Under comparable magnifications though, they look close.
What do you think, having seen the actual full results?
george.
pfogle
Well-known
Well, I don't go into the pixel-peeping level too much, but the main conclusions I drew were:georgef said:Interesting comparisson Phil. More so as I was going to do a comparison between my CV 15mm on my RD-1 and the 17-40 on a 1Ds. I am still not happy with the sharpness of my 15, and I started a thread with a lot of input, all of it opposite to my experience; I think my copy is a bad one
Your shots look very good, but given the mp difference, the difference should be evident in the details. Under comparable magnifications though, they look close.
What do you think, having seen the actual full results?
george.
Canon: sharper in the center, pretty good out to the edges by f5.6 except the extreme corners, which are a bit mushy at 17mm. Not visible in these shots is the barrel distortion, which is quite strong, IMO.
CV: better corners, less sharp center, but pretty even across the frame. Some vignetting. Very low distortion. Colour a bit flat, very nice for black and white.
However, my main conclusion is that the quality is comparable, and good enough for 12 x 16 inch prints, which is as large as I usually go. The Epson files need a bit more sharpening, but can easily get a bit ragged, especially around strong highlights. The Canon files need a more subtle sharpening, but do come up very well. To me they look more '3-D' than the Epson files. I think I like the Canon better. It also has a bit wider angle of view on the 5D...
I should stress though, that both these lenses are absolutely useable for me. I'm happy to have two good wide-angle lenses