(This is another in a series of articles based on posts I shared elsewhere. This one is based on a reply to a post concerning how important it is to move to a newer, improved sensor with higher photo site density. The immediate question had to do with how often the improvements would be significant enough to be seen, and the writer had correctly pointed out that there can be advantages to higher “MP count” when making very large, high quality prints.)
It is useful to try for a realistic understanding of how and when a higher MP sensor may show its advantages. This post tries to not take a position on brands and models, but rather to lay out a comparison of some relevant technical stuff — from which we can all draw our own individual conclusions.
There is a point below which you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between prints made from 22MP and 36MP cameras and above which you might be able to.(1) For example, virtually everyone would agree that the difference is typically completely invisible in small web images, and virtually everyone would agree that it could be visible if you closely inspect a print that is six feet wide. Since we could debate just where the boundary is — and, frankly, it is somewhat subjective — you could pick any point on the print size scale that you want and the principles will be the same.
Some Comparisons
Just for fun, let me use completely arbitrarily use two print sizes and base the comparisons on the 22MP Canon 5D Mark III and the Sony/Canon 36MP sensor cameras. Continue reading Concerning Megapixels→
(This article has been slightly updated since it was originally posted i 2014.)
Canon has released a new ultra-wide zoom lens, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 L IS lens.* There has been a lot of excitement about this lens among Canon photographers since it addresses some weaknesses in previous Canon lenses of this type, including the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II and the venerable EF 17-40mm f/4 L. Each of those can produce fine photographs, but each also has its issues, mostly related to corner resolution. Early tests of the new 16-35mm f/4 L IS suggest that it performs much better in the corners. (In the first months following introduction, there were some issues with corner performance on some copies, but those have been addressed.) The lens also adds “IS” (image-stabiliztion), which is useful if you use it for handheld photography.
With this in mind, I did something I rarely do, and I purchased a newly-released lens right when it came out. Mine arrived last week, but I did not have a good opportunity to put it to real photography use until several days later when I took it out for a morning of redwood forest photography at the Muir Woods National Monument. (I did snap a few promising handheld shots right after I unpacked it, but such things rarely tell the whole story.) I did something else that is a bit unusual for me — I stuck the ultra-wide zoom on the camera at Muir Woods and shot with only that lens instead of the longer focal lengths that I more typically use.
Ocean View Trail
Corner performance has been one of the main issues with the older Canon ultra-wide zoom lenses. The 17-40mm f/4 is known for soft corners at the largest apertures. It is always sharp in the center, but I most often shot mine stopped down, often at f/16 for landscape photography when maximizing depth of field. At smaller apertures the corners improve a lot, but they are never as good as what we see on more recent lenses with short focal lengths. Canon’s f/2.8 16-35 L II starts out fairly well at f/2.8 — in fact, its performance at f/2.8 is arguably its chief virtue compared the previous f/2.8 version — but performance stopped down isn’t any better than that of the less expensive 17-40. The promise of the new 16-35 f/4 lens, and the assessment in many early articles about it, is that it offers significantly better corner performance. Many who used early copies reported that it provides good resolution all the way into the corners, even wide open at f/4 and at all focal lengths. So I wanted to try it out in real-world shooting of the sort I’m most likely to do with such a lens, and see how it stacks up against my 17-40 lens on my full frame camera.
I have updated my blog post: “Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L Lens.” It might seem a bit strange to update an article on that subject on the heels of Canon’s introduction of a new lens that may be more interesting for many photographers, but read on…
I have ordered a copy of the new 16-35mm f/4 lens and I’ll report on that once I have had a chance to use it a bit. But given the altered terrain for those considering the purchase of a Canon ultra wide zoom, I thought that updating the review of the 17-40 was important. This lens is still a viable option for lots of photographers, especially those who are price-sensitive or who want smallest and lightest possible Canon ultra wide zoom for full frame cameras.
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more. Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
Without a whole lot of fanfare, today Canon announced a new EF 16-35mm f/4L IS wide angle zoom. While actual copies are apparently not yet “in the wild,” judging by reports and information from Canon and elsewhere, it sounds like a lens with some very interesting possibilities.
Canon 16-35mm f/4L IS
At first blush, one might imagine that it is simply a less expensive version of the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II lens that has been out for some time now. (That is a fine lens for many purposes, notably for full frame shooters doing handheld ultra-wide photography in low light.) It shares the same focal length range, but the maximum aperture is not quite as large. (There is a similar relationship between the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II and the less expensive EF 24-70mm f/4L IS.)
However, the new lens has some distinctive features that set it apart from the f/2.8 16-35, and also from the venerable 17-40mm f/4 L.
Unlike either of the two ultra-wide alternatives, this lens is equipped with image-stabilization (IS). Some presume that IS would not be useful in a wide angle lens, but there are a number of situations in which the extra 3-4 stops of low light handheld shooting capability will come in handy. It is also likely to appeal to those shooting DSLR video.
The MTF charts (a way of graphically representing lens performance) for the new lens look very good. While the existing 16-35mm and 17-40mm Canon ultra-wide lenses have been very important to many photographers, they are not known for outstanding resolution, especially in the corners. The charts for the new lens indicate that it should be significantly sharper overall, and especially in the corners and at the largest apertures.
It may seem like a small thing, but the new lens uses the common 77mm diameter filter threads—the same that are found on a number of other L lenses, including the f/2.8 70-200mm zooms. (The previous f/2.8 16-35mm lens uses a larger 82mm diameter.) For photographers who already have 77mm filters—including some who might consider moving to this lens from an existing 17-40mm lens—this is a factor to consider.
The price is actually quite good. The lens is not cheap at a projected list price of $1199. However, by comparison to some similar recent Canon lens releases this is not bad at all, especially when you consider that it is an IS lens.
Who may want this lens? I suspect that quite a few landscape photographers and those shooting similar subjects will like this lens more than the older 17-40mm L lens. I’ve used the 17-40 for a long time and it is a very useful lens, especially for shooting at smaller apertures from the tripod with a full frame camera. However, the new lens seems to improve on its performance in significant ways, particularly in the area of corner performance. In addition, while most of us really think of the 17-40 as pretty much just a landscape lens, the improved wide-open performance and image stabilization will extend the usefulness of this lens in low and for handheld photography.
I’m impressed enough with early reports that I’m giving serious consideration to picking one up myself. The lens is not yet available for purchase, but you can pre-order a copy from B&H. At the moment, I’m “that close” to doing so!
G Dan Mitchell is a California photographer and visual opportunist whose subjects include the Pacific coast, redwood forests, central California oak/grasslands, the Sierra Nevada, California deserts, urban landscapes, night photography, and more. Blog | About | Flickr | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | 500px.com | LinkedIn | Email
Photographer and visual opportunist. Daily photos since 2005, plus articles, reviews, news, and ideas.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
