Sunday, July 27, 2008

now the comparison between the 17-55 and the 19-35mm is a little bit different. Here we can clearly see differences between these two lenses.

The Nikon is definitely superior at F/3.5 and F/4.5 since the Tokina is very soft at this apertures. But since the focal length are used for landscape pictures anyway, well it doesn't really matter. And you also don't really use this for potraits. Well you use 35mm for potraits, but for this I would just order a Nikon 35mm F/2 or Sigma F/1.4 which cost less than 300$ these days.

But once you hit F/8 the lenses are pretty much equal again and the tokina holds it's stand very well and even seems to have better CA values. Once you hit F/11 both lenses start to get soft again, thanks to difraction, but the Tokina seems to be a touch faster.

Well the message is clear. Return the 17-55mm, buy a 35mm F/2, which can be used on full frame in the future and put the rest of the money towards your saving account for a nice trip.

I could test my sigma 10-20 now against it, but this is getting pretty pointless after I already know that I return it.

The pictures of the 17-55mm vs the 50mm speak for them self. The 50mm looks much better at F/2.8 than the 17-55mm F/2.8 at the same aperture.

How are the pictures prepared?

  • tripod
  • same exposure settings
  • two flash setup
  • taking pictures at F/2.8, F/4,F/8
The prime is at this point already stopped down, but to make clear. I do not want to proof that a prime is better than a zoom. This is obvious.
I want to make clear for my self, if I can justify to keep the zoom or if the prime is good enough.

Well the pictures make clear, I'm more happy with the 50 and can live with the inconvenience of swapping lenses for my goal. It's also so much lighter to carry several primes with you than this zoom.

conclusion
  • the prime is much sharper
  • the zoom has a nicer out of focus rendering, but the prime is pretty close, but not as smooth
  • the prime has much better CA values (at F/8) and the CA is the same at F/1.8
  • the zoom has better contrast
There is no reason to use the zoom at 50mm instead of the prime. So the prime wins.

well after taking about 400 pictures in the last 48h and also some more bunny shots...

...I know they are stupid, but hey they provide nice results and are a good lesson to learn how to keep the lighting constant between several shots. (More or less, my exposure was mostly 0.1 stop off between shots)

Now what did I actually compare and does it make sense todo this?

  • 1 x Nikon 17-55mm F/2.8, for 1200$
  • 1 x Nikon 50mm F/1.8, for 110$
  • 1 x Tokina 19-35mm F/3.5 - F/4.5 for 149$
The result of the test should show how much better the Nikon 17-55 is wide open and stopped down compared to the other lenses.
One thing is sure the build quality and focus speed is far superior to the other lenses, but how much better is it optical? It is also very convenient to have one lens instead of two.

The next post is about the 17-55 F/2.8 vs the 50mm F/1.8 and the post after wards compares the 17-55 F/2.8 against the Tokina at 19mm and 35mm

...let the games begin...