Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless
<samcc@v...> wrote:
> 
> But I'm agonizing between Canon's two "ultra-wide" 16-35mm f/2.8 and 
> 17-40mm f/4.0 L zooms. Because all I've heard is that one is better 
> at the lower end while the other is better at the higher end. 

Sam,

It seems that things related to lens performance is changing with the
advent of digital photography. Not too long ago, the MTF curves for
lens performance were what was needed to choose a lens. (www.photodo.com)

Now, the DXO Analyser from www.dolabs.com is revealing that lens
performance is tied to the camera body on which it is used. The same
lens on different camera bodies will return different results as to
vignetting, chromatic aberration, geometrial distorsion, sharpness and
noise (s/n ratio).

The results I have are from the French magazine Chasseur d'Images
(March 2004). I have not followed on it since I still use a film camera.

Both the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2,8 L USM and the Canon EF 17-40 f4 L USM
tested higher on the Canon EOS 300D and 10D than on the Canon EOS 1 Ds. 

The Nikon AF-S DX 12-24mm F/4 G tested higher on the Nikon D2H than on
the Nikon D100 and the Fuji S2 Pro.

The higher priced professional dslr bodies do benefit from the highest
quality lens. Michael Reichmann of the Luminous-Landscape also uses
the DXO Analyser for his camera-lens test. More info about the DXO can
be found on his site.

How things used to be simple. Now everything is complicated!