Group picture with 4 lenses
|Group picture with 4 lenses is an attempt to judge optical performance of different UWA zoom lenses.
I already [post id=1015]compared[/post] the Canon 16-35/4.0 IS L with the 17-40/4.0 L , where the 16-35/4.0 L IS made the first place, not really a surprise. In a older [post id=634]article[/post], where the EF-S 10-18mm did a good job, at least in terms of optical performance. Usage is very good, except you don’t have a distance scale any more.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76c18/76c184dd5774c47729c563444d19fbd0d7048f0a" alt="Group picture with 4 lenses"
My [post id=813]mFt equipment[/post] was completed by a UWA lens, the Olympus 9-18/4.0-5.6 which is very compact and not expesnive as the Panasonic 7-14mm.
As long as i owned the Canon 17-40/4.0 i just wanted to know how the Olympus and the very priced EF-S 10-18mm compare and if they can reach the optical performance of the 17-40 or maybe the 16-35mm.
Talking about prices it looks like this at the moment (i didn’t calculate Canon Cash Back)
Objektiv | Preis |
---|---|
Canon EF-S 10-18mm/4.5-5.6 | 230,-- € |
Olympus 9-18mm/4.0-5.6 | 490,-- € |
Canon 17-40mm/4.0 | 650,-- € |
Canon 16-35/4.0 L IS | 900,-- € |
To make sure this comparism (and i don’t talk about a test) does a real comparism, i took the images under the same conditions like i did for the [post id=1015]17-40/16-35[/post] article and made additional picture with the Olympus and the EF-S 10-18mm lens.
Lets start with the cheapest lens, the EF-S 10-18mm/4.5-5.6 at 10mm (i made 5 images even though the difference between f 4.5 and 5.6 is insignificant)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a7178/a71785a777d068421d9fd08ecf17c25c3162c88b" alt="Group picture with 4 lenses"
And now at 18mm:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/31c57/31c5755bb5ddadcfb2f32aca7782fd86d4413a9e" alt="Group picture with 4 lenses"
The situation is comparable to the 17-40/4.0, the center is pretty sharp, while the corners are weak at least at 10mm. Closing the aparture helps a little bit. The difference is smaller at 18mm, probably due to the longer focal lenght and the maximum aparture of 5.6 only.
And now we’ll take a look at the Olympus lens, first at 9mm (equals to 18mm on full frame)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d2086/d2086dc82dcdaefba344466c12001b712532057c" alt="Group picture with 4 lenses"
And at the maximum focal length 18 mm (equals to 36mm on full frame)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/77897/7789712e74d9eb88d166df4df05e3c0f3cba3573" alt="Group picture with 4 lenses"
Comparing these results the Olympus seems to be a bit sharper than the EF-S 10-18mm, and comparing the corners are defitnitly better, so the Olympus wins this comparism.
Taking the results of the comaprism between the 17-40/4.0 and the 16-35/4.0 into consideration this gives the following ranking:
- Canon 16-35mm/4.0 L IS
- Olympus 9-18mm/4.0-5.6
- Canon 17-40/4.0 L
- Canon EF-S 10-18mm/4.5-5-6
Even though the EF-S 10-18mm is on rank 4 it still a beautiful lens for APS-C cameras with a almost perfect price/performance ratio and i’ll keep it for sure. Compared to the 16-35/4.0 L IS we are talking about a lens with a price tag almost 4 times a high. And even the 17-40/4.0 L still is a good lens, especially if you try a good used lens, which should cost only arround 400,– €. I owned it 4 years and over this times it produced very nice architecture and landscape images.
Do you agree with my results? Just leave me a comment and i would be happy to get questions from you.
ciao tuxoche
I see only 2 lenses compared Canon 10-18 and Olympus… where are the others??
Used very good 17-40 vs 10-18? Landscape is my focus for a trip to Iceland.