Samuel H
Major Contributor
I have to decide between APS-C and full frame, and one of the things to look at is sharpness. Apart from checking that full frame is sharper than APS-C, I wanted to know how good my lenses would be on a full frame camera. I love them, but so far I've only used them on APS-C, so I borrowed a 5D2 and tested my set of vintage Leitz primes against some modern Canon glass. And I also wanted to know if the Tokina 11-16 was any good on full frame, so I threw it into the mix too.
Results here:
21 mpix stills: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstestsff/lenstestsa.html
2K video: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstestsff/lenstestsv.html
Conclusions and additional thoughts:
* Tokina 11-16 f/2.8: Not only does it work on full frame (as a 15-16mm f/2.8, unless you want a hard vignette in your image), but it is actually pretty sharp! My test chart is not huge, so with such a wide angle lens this is a very short focus test. In these conditions, it's not the sharpest lens in the test, but even in the extreme corners it is better, for example, than the 24mm f/2.8, and similar to many other lenses, including my beloved 35mm f/2.8 (which I regard as a very sharp lens even in the corners). Trouble is, a lens can be very sharp when focusing one foot away, but blurry when you focus at infinity. I'll have to test the Tokina in the field, but based on these results, I'm already quite impressed. If it keeps its sharpness when focused at infinity, this may be the best bang-for-buck 16mm f/2.8 prime you can buy for a full frame camera.
* I love my Leitz lenses: yes, in some cases even these not-so-expensive modern primes end up being sharper than my beloved Leica-R oldies, but the bokeh is still better on the Leitz side, and I don't have to put up with lots of other issues that modern glass seems to have:
- focus by wire: the Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake is an awesome lens, really sharp, really small, really cheap; and its focus ring will bring you crazy in less than 5 minutes; not only because it's small and cumbersome, but because it is focus-by-wire and seems to have a mind of its own; focusing this thing manually is a nightmare. Other Canon primes seemed to have weird manual focus behavior too, but none as bad as the 40mm. Still, none can match the precision and smooth action of my Leitz 35/50/90/135mm.
- short focus throw: only an issue on the 70-200 f/4L IS, all the other lenses I tested had short focus throw compared to the Leicas, but not so short that it would worry me
- breathing: some of those modern canons breathe like crazy! the first time I started focusing on the 70-200 f/4L IS, I thought I had reached for the wrong ring and was actually zooming. The 24mm f/2.8 is pretty bad in this respect too.
* But vintage glass has its problems too:
- focal length sweet range: for 24mm and below, and for 150mm and above, I'd go for modern glass: all the vintage lenses I've tested outside the 35-135 range were soft; between 35 and 135, though, lots of gold all around
- hard focus ring on big lenses: my 180mm and 300mm have such stiff focus rings that a follow focus may not work with them, and lots of vibrations and torsion will be transmitted to the camera rig when I adjust focus
Results here:
21 mpix stills: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstestsff/lenstestsa.html
2K video: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstestsff/lenstestsv.html
Conclusions and additional thoughts:
* Tokina 11-16 f/2.8: Not only does it work on full frame (as a 15-16mm f/2.8, unless you want a hard vignette in your image), but it is actually pretty sharp! My test chart is not huge, so with such a wide angle lens this is a very short focus test. In these conditions, it's not the sharpest lens in the test, but even in the extreme corners it is better, for example, than the 24mm f/2.8, and similar to many other lenses, including my beloved 35mm f/2.8 (which I regard as a very sharp lens even in the corners). Trouble is, a lens can be very sharp when focusing one foot away, but blurry when you focus at infinity. I'll have to test the Tokina in the field, but based on these results, I'm already quite impressed. If it keeps its sharpness when focused at infinity, this may be the best bang-for-buck 16mm f/2.8 prime you can buy for a full frame camera.
* I love my Leitz lenses: yes, in some cases even these not-so-expensive modern primes end up being sharper than my beloved Leica-R oldies, but the bokeh is still better on the Leitz side, and I don't have to put up with lots of other issues that modern glass seems to have:
- focus by wire: the Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake is an awesome lens, really sharp, really small, really cheap; and its focus ring will bring you crazy in less than 5 minutes; not only because it's small and cumbersome, but because it is focus-by-wire and seems to have a mind of its own; focusing this thing manually is a nightmare. Other Canon primes seemed to have weird manual focus behavior too, but none as bad as the 40mm. Still, none can match the precision and smooth action of my Leitz 35/50/90/135mm.
- short focus throw: only an issue on the 70-200 f/4L IS, all the other lenses I tested had short focus throw compared to the Leicas, but not so short that it would worry me
- breathing: some of those modern canons breathe like crazy! the first time I started focusing on the 70-200 f/4L IS, I thought I had reached for the wrong ring and was actually zooming. The 24mm f/2.8 is pretty bad in this respect too.
* But vintage glass has its problems too:
- focal length sweet range: for 24mm and below, and for 150mm and above, I'd go for modern glass: all the vintage lenses I've tested outside the 35-135 range were soft; between 35 and 135, though, lots of gold all around
- hard focus ring on big lenses: my 180mm and 300mm have such stiff focus rings that a follow focus may not work with them, and lots of vibrations and torsion will be transmitted to the camera rig when I adjust focus
