Re: Voigtländer COLOR SKOPAR 20mm F3.5 SL II Aspherical
Geplaatst: vr mar 20 2009 2:33 pm
Vangen, Johan 
Toch heel merkwaardig als je die Contax 17-35 tov de 14-24 vergelijkt.
De Contax oogt hier echt wel beter in dat linkje van Johan, echter ga toch echt vermoeden dat de resultaten zijn omgewisseld als je dit ziet:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon142 ... 17mm1.html
Nu is toch écht die 14-24 overall het best
"It's hard to convey in these 100% crops the absolute 'rightnesss' and transparency of the Nikon captures at 14mm and 17mm. Thanks to its superb microcontrast and pure colouring there's a limpid sense of 'being there' that I always associate with the best Zeiss and – to a lesser extent – Leica glass.
In conclusion, then, the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G would appear to dominate the 17mm focal length as surely as it does the 14mm. And that means that it's dominance is unchallenged right up to 21mm where we encounter the benchmark-of-benchmarks Zeiss Distagon prime. Owners of the Olympus 18mm or Leica 19mm may protest, but remember that tests on the less demanding 5D and 1Ds II showed significant weaknesses in each case: at the time of writing, I've never seen a Zuiko 18mm that can match the centre frame performance of a Zeiss 18mm or Leica 19mm, which in turn was very closely matched by the 16-35mm L II we see so comprehensively bettered above. Unlike the Leica 19mm, the Olympus has a very sweet C Zone – but it's no better than the Contax N's which – again – we see thoroughly trounced by the Nikon above.
For sheer resolution, contrast and colouring – all the important elements of 'drawing style', tested in the fiercest crucible yet devised, the 14-24mm G is a long, long way ahead of anything below 21mm. Even if it covered 14-20mm and cost $4000 it would be the best possible ultrawide for a 1Ds III – but it doesn't: it costs less than half that, and it goes to 24mm, where it comes into conflict with the mighty Distagon . . . coming soon! "
Toch heel merkwaardig als je die Contax 17-35 tov de 14-24 vergelijkt.
De Contax oogt hier echt wel beter in dat linkje van Johan, echter ga toch echt vermoeden dat de resultaten zijn omgewisseld als je dit ziet:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon142 ... 17mm1.html
Nu is toch écht die 14-24 overall het best
"It's hard to convey in these 100% crops the absolute 'rightnesss' and transparency of the Nikon captures at 14mm and 17mm. Thanks to its superb microcontrast and pure colouring there's a limpid sense of 'being there' that I always associate with the best Zeiss and – to a lesser extent – Leica glass.
In conclusion, then, the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G would appear to dominate the 17mm focal length as surely as it does the 14mm. And that means that it's dominance is unchallenged right up to 21mm where we encounter the benchmark-of-benchmarks Zeiss Distagon prime. Owners of the Olympus 18mm or Leica 19mm may protest, but remember that tests on the less demanding 5D and 1Ds II showed significant weaknesses in each case: at the time of writing, I've never seen a Zuiko 18mm that can match the centre frame performance of a Zeiss 18mm or Leica 19mm, which in turn was very closely matched by the 16-35mm L II we see so comprehensively bettered above. Unlike the Leica 19mm, the Olympus has a very sweet C Zone – but it's no better than the Contax N's which – again – we see thoroughly trounced by the Nikon above.
For sheer resolution, contrast and colouring – all the important elements of 'drawing style', tested in the fiercest crucible yet devised, the 14-24mm G is a long, long way ahead of anything below 21mm. Even if it covered 14-20mm and cost $4000 it would be the best possible ultrawide for a 1Ds III – but it doesn't: it costs less than half that, and it goes to 24mm, where it comes into conflict with the mighty Distagon . . . coming soon! "
