RustyBug wrote:
Got my hands on a pair of 24mm lenses.
Tripod shot, same focal point, same aperture (2.8), same exposure, same light (don't let the diff in vignette fool ya).
Note the diff in falloff at the mailbox and LLC. Also, the diff in the amount of ASPH contribution ... same focal length, same perspective (i.e. tripod position).
I also find the aspect of the tree branch TRC acuity, similar to the LLC variance.
Seems to be a pretty big difference in T-stop here despite the same aperture and for me makes comparing the lenses for 3D difficult.
RustyBug wrote:
Got my hands on a pair of 24mm lenses.
Tripod shot, same focal point, same aperture (2.8), same exposure, same light (don't let the diff in vignette fool ya).
Note the diff in falloff at the mailbox and LLC. Also, the diff in the amount of ASPH contribution ... same focal length, same perspective (i.e. tripod position).
I also find the aspect of the tree branch TRC acuity, similar to the LLC variance.
To me the "3D" effect is stronger in the first sample.
My guess it's a prime, maybe a Voigtlaender lens, while the second one might be the Zoom lens that can be seen in the first picture - is it a Sigma?
Before comparing the lenses too closely and attributing different characteristics to them, there is one issue that needs to be addressed:
The lens used for the second image is probably considerably longer than the one used for the first. As a result, the camera–lens system is positioned closer to the subject. This, in turn, means that the foreground in the first image is not stretched apart as much as it is in the second image (try overlaying the images as separate layers in Photoshop, for example).
As a consequence, the foreground in the first image appears slimmer and more elongated, creating a greater sense of depth. It also means that the second image generally exhibits more background blur, simply because the subject distance is shorter.
Therefore, if one wanted to compare these two lenses fairly, the front element would need to be positioned at the same distance from the subject in both cases.
This effect is, of course, particularly noticeable when working close to the subject, because the physical length of the lens then makes a meaningful difference. At greater distances, however, the effect is likely to be much less apparent.
