Lens Discussions - DxO Lab test etc ...

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

[closed]

Lens Discussions - DxO Lab test etc ...

(70 posts) (19 voices)

Tags:

12 3 Next »

Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

While looking for a new lens as always for my D300 , I checked DxO Labs page to compare my current $150-250 lenses ( 50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8, 18-135mm ) with what is supposed to be a dream lens - the $2000 17-35mm f2.8D IF-ED . What I saw is below .

We had a "not so good" argument on the sharpness issue between cheap/expensive glass in NR a while ago . My purpose is not to start the same argument and try to crush each other again but I honestly don't know what to think after a result like this which says don't spend any money on expensive glass if YOU ARE ON a 12 Mpixel APS-C ( The 17-35mm hits full mark with a FF D3x - the site allows comparison with different lenses on different bodies ).

Any opinions ? And I say let's keep it to APS-C only ...

Posted 2 years ago #
Testing123

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 232
offline

Paperman said:
Any opinions ?

Yea, they're all about equal in IQ. Do you want speed, or zoom range? Pick one extreme or the other or the middle ground.

You're very unlikely to see a great deal of sharpness difference between 40 and 45 line pairs per mm which is the greatest part of the score, and the zooms' DxOMark Scores are being penalized for distortion (easily correctable for the 17-35 on DX, don't know about the 18-135) and Transmission (apples to oranges, zooms vs a 1.8 prime).

The only real story here is that the VA "kit shit" zoom is sharper @ f/4 than the FA "pro" zoom.

Wake me up when we're talking a 50 line pair lens to a 35 lp one. 10% is only going to be noticeable at 100% zoom.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

DxO Labs - way overrated and I never look at them unless I'm looking for distortion on zooms.

You picked/showed 3 very different lenses that have very different feels, uses, and expectations of use.

I'm left with, what is your new lens going to be used for, and what are you looking for?

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

I shoot landscapes 95% of the time and the only thing that counts for me is sharpness. The primes 50 & 28 are mostly used shooting my family/kids etc. I chose the 2 lenses on the left since they are among the ones I already own - just to compare the expensive glass with my current lenses . I could have chosen an 18-55mm which gave similar results instead of the 50mm prime - that's not the point. All I wanted to show was the similarity of results of the cheap and expensive lenses on a D300.

Spending a few more minutes on the DxO site , I actually realized that the 17-35mm f2.8 result on a 12 Mp FF D700 was crappy as well . So it is not a sensor size but mostly a resolution issue . The expensive glass showed itself only in a D3x resolution sensor hitting top marks.

I did the same DxO comparasions on similar Canon lenses ( cheap vs expensive ) - same results for same range lenses on the Nikon comparasion.

- Expensive ( $2000 ) glass makes no difference in sharpness in APS-C sensors
- Expensive ( $2000 ) glass makes no difference in sharpness in 12-14 Mp sensors.

Or the DxO guys don't know what they're doing as many people suspect :-)

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

Paperman said:

- Expensive ( $2000 ) glass makes no difference in sharpness in APS-C sensors
- Expensive ( $2000 ) glass makes no difference in sharpness in 12-14 Mp sensors.

Or the DxO guys don't know what they're doing as many people suspect :-)

For my money (and for me it is), there is an old phrase worth noting: "Garbage in = Garbage out" and of course, that's an over-simplification, but compose the shot, get the light right as all the traditional skills count at least as much as lab tests...

In fact, as for the lab tests, in my view, they certainly can point to where strengths and weaknesses are in any product, but in my view, the more you use your gear in a lab setting, then the more relevant lab tests are (get it?)...

So my take of it: What real world results do you get with your gear? Does it match what the labs tell you the numbers should indicate?

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

bjrichus said:
So my take of it: What real world results do you get with your gear? Does it match what the labs tell you the numbers should indicate?

That's the point . I am not satisfied with the sharpness of my cheap lenses but the lab tests tell me it won't get better on a D300 even if I pay 10 times as much for glass and that this is "as good as it gets" . Even if I find a 17-35mm f2.8 avaiable for rent to test, how can I get a sharpness out of it which is proven " not to be there " ?

Many people say my D300 deserves better lenses than a 18-135 mm but I don't see any facts/tests supporting it. Being an engineer , I can care only about what I see in numbers.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

Paperman said:
That's the point . I am not satisfied with the sharpness of my cheap lenses but the lab tests tell me it won't get better on a D300 even if I pay 10 times as much for glass and that this is "as good as it gets" . Even if I find a 17-35mm f2.8 avaiable for rent to test, how can I get a sharpness out of it which is proven " not to be there " ?

Many people say my D300 deserves better lenses than a 18-135 mm but I don't see any facts/tests supporting it. Being an engineer , I can care only about what I see in numbers.

If you don't like the D300 as it's not "sharp" enough, I'll take your of your hands for $80. LOL!!! Only joking, I'm sure you'll want at least $90 for it....

:-)

But seriously for a moment, have you tried mounting the camera on a tripod? If you see a real difference doing that, then perhaps the problem is not the camera or lens combo... I know I use my monopod MUCH MORE than I thought I would ever need to... and at marginal to low light conditions, it really does help. Just saying it might be worth experimenting with is all, and I know how engineers (being an IEEE member myself) like to experiment! ;-)

Reviewing your original posting, it kind of makes me think you are ripe for FX format only and the more expensive glass... Cue a Nikon salesman to help lighten your bank account... ;-)

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

bjrichus said:
If you don't like the D300 as it's not "sharp" enough

Hey,it's not the D300 I'm complaining - just the lenses I have . I love / adore my D300 :-)

bjrichus said:
But seriously for a moment, have you tried mounting the camera on a tripod? If you see a real difference doing that, then perhaps the problem is not the camera or lens combo... I know I use my monopod MUCH MORE than I thought I would ever need to...

Reviewing your original posting, it kind of makes me think you are ripe for FX format only and the more expensive glass... Cue a Nikon salesman to help lighten your bank account... ;-)

30 yrs in photography so it is not a tripod issue - believe me. Monopod/tripod - one of the two is usually on. Anyway , it's the test results that confirm it - they surely must be taken on a tripod :-)

I think the reason most people like me don't go FF is not the cost of a FF camera - D700 is quite affordable - but each lens you have to buy afterwards that will cost as much as a camera .

And the funny thing is , according to DxO ,expensive glass gives the same result as kit zooms on the 12 Mp FF D700 (It looks like the only camera that makes it worth using a $2000 lens is a D3x ( says the tests - not me ! ).

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Paperman said:
I wanted to show was the similarity of results of the cheap and expensive lenses on a D300.
- Expensive ( $2000 ) glass makes no difference in sharpness in APS-C sensors
- Expensive ( $2000 ) glass makes no difference in sharpness in 12-14 Mp sensors.
Or the DxO guys don't know what they're doing as many people suspect :-)

(BTW I have a D300 also.)

DxO has it's place but it is not the holly grail to determine a lens purchase. As a numbers guy and a lens junkie myself, I love reading the numbers, but I have found that all of the tests are so close that it seems they are just playing to the choir and don't want to make anyone mad at them. All they have done is to move the multiple factor and testing degree so that everything is "the same". They also change their methods and thresholds regularly and re-simulate tests to update them from the past. They have been called under the rug many times for re-testing lenses and could not replicate their own test results.

"Expensive glass makes no difference in sharpness in APS-C sensors"
This statement can't be any further from the truth. People don't want to hear it since it does make every thing much more expensive, but it is true. Using different lenses, (I have used 24 that were made in the last 5yrs to date) there is a huge, and I mean huge difference. Put a 18-55mm against a 17-55 and your jaw will drop how much better the 17-55 is. There are some great buys like the 50's and 85's F1.8s but the more expensive lenses are better. Some of it is build quality of course but there is also considerable more effort put into lens construction etc.
---
I can tell you to stay away from the 28mm - that notoriously is a soft lens. The 24mm is leagues better if you want a prime on the simi-wide side on DX. The other notoriously is a soft lens that comes to mind is the 24-120mm VR F3.5-5.6. I have had 3 copies and am finely upgrading to the F4 which is amazingly better.

For landscapes, distortion can be an issue. The 18-135mm has tons of it compared to others.

If you like wide for landscapes look into Tokina's 12-24, 11-16, and even the 16-50mm. They are all very sharp, well built and in a better price range. I personally love the 12-24mm F4 - It is sharp and has a great 18-35mm equiv range.

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

Many thanks Tao for sharing your experince with lenses and advices .

The 28mm f2.8 ,even though it is the newer version has been my worst lens so far . The 18-135's main problem as you state is the distortion but I keep it a notch above widest angle ( 20mm instead of 18mm ) and it improves considerably in all aspects.

TaoTeJared said:

"Expensive glass makes no difference in sharpness in APS-C sensors"
This statement can't be any further from the truth. ...

I really do have respect for what you say but why it does not appear on tests is beyond my comprehension . I just added the 17-55mm f2.8 you suggested to the DxO equation below and looking at it , it is not sharper than a 18-55 mm kit lens or my current 18-135mm . It's got almost same vignetting issues and funny enough , it performs worse when it comes to distortion and CA .

Replace the camera choice with a D3x and the resolution jumps from 43 to 57 lp/mm - a 33% mega increase in sharpness ! ! It is basicly saying " you won't see the difference when you are on a 12 Mp camera " .

I honestly don't know what to think after hearing all your expertise with lenses . I still can't convince myself to believe the D300 sharpness will improve with pro lenses when the figures say it won't matter ( I saw similar resolution/MTF results in other sites ).

You must be saying " why ask if you're not gong to believe " :-))

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

Who ever said expensive = sharper? The only thing I know holds true is that faster = expensive. Faster = more glass. More glass = more dispersion. Faster, wider, longer, bigger--all kinds of trade-offs are made in lens design. Then there are those anomolies: Why is the AF 35mm f/2.0 soft? The AF 18mm f/2.8D, and AF 28mm f/2.8, also soft? The AF-S 50mm f/1.4G--from a number of reports (including my own), softer than the 1.4D? Lots of variables.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

You are lost in the numbers my friend. I have been an operations analyst designing performance metrics for years now and seeing you are an engineer, I can appreciate your desire for "show me the numbers". Designing metrics also give me great insight how to tear them down, see the short comings and just shake my head. You are putting allot of trust in someone else's numbers. I would be willing to bet that you don't sign off on anything untill you run the numbers yourself in your job.

If DxOs tests were really the only comparison of lenses, nothing would need to be improved in the last 50 years. Multiply all of their results by x1000, then look at it with fresh eyes. The difference becomes more evident. It is a decent guide, but it really lacks in capturing a real world results.

You are also looking at Resolution and assuming that equals Sharpness which is not a direct correlation. Resolution is more of a test of a camera sensor and not a lens and deals with the ability of a sensor to gather and render light from a printed piece of paper. All they are doing is testing an ability to capture straight lines printed on a piece of paper. Lenses are not made of lines of an image, but sensors are. That is not to say, this is a good test of sensors also.

Obviously you are left "wanting" otherwise you would not be asking the question. I have used the 18-135, personally I really like the range, made some great images with it, but the IQ was less than any of the pro glass I have used or owned.

You are searching for Numerical data and really, DxO are the only people who have been able to market lens tests successfully. No one has ever been able to put all those numbers together to give a score that a user can experience. The best tests are Empirical - observation, experience, and experiment.

Think of it this way; If you were to compare underwear using mathematical equations, test them in a lab on a piece of cardboard, and pick only 6 or so tests to show your results, do you think the numbers would be all that different? Would that sway you in a direction to make a purchase or would you want to try them first?

Go out and try the lenses for yourself and you will start to see the differences.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

studio460 said:
The AF-S 50mm f/1.4G--from a number of reports (including my own), softer than the 1.4D? Lots of variables.

Studio you are killing me on your point on the 50mm's - my G is sharper than my 1.4, manual and D lens. By much, no, but it is not certainly softer. Out of focus areas are softer which I love. :)~

I completely agree with you on the trade-offs. If you want a zoom, that is light and small, you get plastic, distortion, slow glass and usually sharpest at F8-F11. Considering about 90% of my images are taken at F5.6 or lower (40% F2.4-2.0) those trade offs are too much for me and my style of shooting. For other it won't be. Personal choices all the way around.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Although I can attest that the 18-135 is a sharp lens, I have also noticed that the 105 macro that I got, when used for general photography, seems to be sharper than the 18-135. I don't remember using the 18-135 at 105, so that might be skewed, but perhaps because the combination of faster glass, lower ISO, and color rendition makes the 105 macro better than the 18-135 is at 105mm.

I'm not saying don't look at the numbers, but I certainly am pleased by the lens' performance- not so much by the price though. :D

I can say that DxO made no influence on my purchase- I know I wanted macro, good working distance and a Nikkor lens. The choices are limited, to say the least. :D

Nor do I think it will- if I want to see if it's a good lens, I scour the internet for reviews and test shots, not charts.

Besides, I have no money to buy another lens this soon anyway.

But honestly, unless I know ahead of time I'll be doing macro work or perhaps a bit of sports photography, I know I'll be walking out the door with just the 35mm and the 18-135. The flexibility of that lens is greater than any other lens I own.

Besides, my camera bag won't fit all of them at once.

Paperman, did your spouse or loved ones do anything to you? You won't be lusting for impossibly expensive lenses anymore!

Imagine the money you'd save by buying an 18-200 instead of a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200!

I know my parents would be ecstatic!

Posted 2 years ago #
Spleen

junior member
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 6
offline

For myself i consider photography as an art, so in that way of thinking test numbers are nearly nothing... I want to see real pictures, that's on what I base my decision to buy optics. For a same camera, same location, same weather, I can clearly see which one was taken with my kit lens and which one was taken with better glass, and then make my choice. And then I sell the kit and buy the better one...

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

TaoTeJared said:
You are lost in the numbers my friend.

I can agree with you maybe in that but I will say I am a man of numbers rather than state that I am "lost in numbers" . I've probably driven many people crazy with that( including my wife ) but what better proof than just simple numbers. I really wouldn't call it a bad habit and it has never hurt me to be too suspicious .

I bought my last notebook in 10 minutes , the big screen TV maybe in 20 . I did not put more than an hour or two's thought in buying my last car . I did not read into charts or numbers when I bought them because they did not cost " 5 to 10 times more " than the average quality ones around .

If I am supposed to pay 10 times more for a ( 5-10% better results ) lens and the option of trial/error is too costly for me , what else do I have other than numbers & test results ?

TaoTeJared said:
You are also looking at Resolution and assuming that equals Sharpness which is not a direct correlation. Resolution is more of a test of a camera sensor and not a lens and deals with the ability of a sensor to gather and render light from a printed piece of paper. ....

I am not so sure . The pro lenses are fantastic as easily proven when tested on a FF 25 Mp camera - so no doubts there. But there is a lab out there who has spent maybe a few hundred grands on testing equipment to give you results for sensor & lens combinations . I don't know how correct it is to say "trust your eye" and not their unbiased figures . What is tested is a piece of electronic & optical equipment and not some unmeasurable thing like human behavior or animal psychology . If we are not going to trust numbers in tests of electronic/mechanical devices , what test are we ever going to believe in ?.

I am sure of your sincerity Tao and you are just trying to help me out here with experience. ( I just wish there was just a bit of scientific support :-) ). Nevertheless ,after all you say ( and 23 lenses ) I do believe there must be an "unmeasurable" general superiority - something that can't be seen or felt in test figures - in photos taken with expensive glass . I just don't know if it is enough to convince me to buy one.

----------

@studio ... You seem like the man I won't get tired of listening to ; we might have some thoughts in common . You should speak more :-)

------------

@NSX ... The 18-135 mm sucks at the tele end - luckily I don't need anything over 28mm in landscapes . My next lens will have to be a short wide/ultra wide zoom .

Spleen said:
... For a same camera, same location, same weather, I can clearly see which one was taken with my kit lens and which one was taken with better glass .....

I wish I could have such a blind test either done on me or on others . That would clearly be a decision maker.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

Paperman said:
@studio . . . You should speak more . . .

Well, thanks. Most of my friends wish for quite the opposite!

I don't think there's anything wrong with studying DxO data, but I think your own tests (I know, not always practical) will provide even more insight. A few months ago (right after joining NR), I started to test some of my own lenses, because I noticed that some of my images appeared "soft." Perhaps getting a new, larger monitor contributed to this scrutiny. So, I threw up a chart and started testing. The results were a bit of a shock. I was surprised at the variability in sharpness among my various copies of Nikkor glass.

Even after careful study DxO data, I think it's wise to perform your own tests with any newly purchased lens. Try to do this before your return period expires. Even brand new Nikkor lenses can have unacceptable amounts of variability. Also, since I hadn't tested any of my lenses in the past, some of the used Nikkors, purchased years ago, I only recently realized are soft (e.g., AF 180mm f/2.8, AF 80-200mm f/2.8D, etc.), which was probably why they were selling them. There was some "good" news as well, like when I found that my cheap-o, 18-55mm VR blew away my $600 AF 18mm f/2.8D Nikkor (actually, that was bad news).

I noticed that (with the exception of the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, which I returned), all of my newest lenses tended to be the sharpest (in no particular order):

1. AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
2. AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR
3. AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR I

I have a fairly diverse collection of Nikon lenses, including pre-'D' AF Nikkors, AF-D Nikkors, and AI-S, manual-focus Nikkors (my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2D AI-S, I purchased brand new, just last year). Most surprising is how sharp the two new Nikon zooms are (80-400mm and 70-200mm). These lenses are sharper than many of my older AF and AF-D primes. I don't mean to imply that older Nikkors tend to be less-sharp (I have a 20-year old AF 105mm f/2.0 DC-Nikkor, purchased used, that's sharp as a tack), this just indicates that there's more variability in Nikkor glass than I had expected to find.

My soft wide-angle lenses are most annoying, because wide shots often include a lot of detail, and it's immediately apparent that their images lack "snap." The longer lenses are less of a problem. While both my 80-400mm and 70-200mm clearly out-resolves my used AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8, it's far less noticeable in real-world photos (see below).

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

Sample Test Images:

I was actually testing the VR capability of my AF 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR in the images below, so the shutter speeds are actually quite slow, but these also show the lens' excellent sharpness:

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR @ 220mm; f/5.3 @ 1/13th.

AF Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D VR @ 200mm; f/5.3 @ 1/20th.

My AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D (below), while a bit soft on a chart, looks fine when shooting real-world images:

AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D; f/2.8 @ 1/400th.

Unfortunately, that isn't the case with my 18mm f/2.8D. While not as easy shot for any lens, the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D (below) falls visibly short in edge-to-edge sharpness, which is far more objectionable in wide-angle shots. Had I the identical shot from my 18-55mm VR, this image would've been visibly sharper.

AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D; f/8 @ 1/200th.

AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G; f/11 @ 1/200th.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

Paperman said:
I can agree with you maybe in that but I will say I am a man of numbers rather than state that I am "lost in numbers" . I've probably driven many people crazy with that( including my wife ) but what better proof than just simple numbers. I really wouldn't call it a bad habit and it has never hurt me to be too suspicious .

I am sure of your sincerity Tao and you are just trying to help me out here with experience. ( I just wish there was just a bit of scientific support :-)

Sorry I don't spend my free time creating test charts, images, or tearing down all of DxOs tests just to show people on NR. :)~ I can easily rip into their "scoring" systems and write it all up for you but to be honest, it is really not worth my time. Other have and if you do a good search you will find them. They pander to manufactures so they can get sent free equipment.

Your trust in just one site's review is confusing to me. I'll never understand the justification you are looking for as I'm sure you could never understand mine - which is perfectly fine as long as we both keep shooting images. I do think expanding your review sites and more importantly testing equipment at a camera shop or at a club would benefit you.

Best of luck with your search.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

@studio460 - I found allot of the same things you have. The copy of the 18mm I used was soft as well. The 20mm was much better. 180mm is a dream! I rarely use it since I got my 70-200mm but I can't let it go since it is so sharp. Just phenomenal.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@Paperman : I can understand your conclusions. I like DXO for what they have done. but numbers are numbers and yes of the 6 parameters or so that the measure you can get a very good idea of the technical performance of a lense. But I think its a bit like putting a Stradivarius through similar tests. I seriously doubt that 6 parameters or so will show much more than 1 or 2 % difference between that and $1000 violin.

You really need to look through the lens yourself to see the way the lens deals with the light. See that even if its not as sharp how the slight unsharpness is rendered and adds to the mood that can be conveyed. See how the shape of glows of light sources not in frame is hinted at. I dont think these and many other very subjective attributes can be measured in 6 parameters.

PS: Nice shots studio.

Posted 2 years ago #
Testing123

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 232
offline

TaoTeJared said:
Sorry I don't spend my free time creating test charts, images, or tearing down all of DxOs tests just to show people on NR.

Yet you're the dominant voice on this thread. Clearly you have time to bash dxo. How about some backing for the repeated claims?

The dxo "score" always causes controversy, and always will. It is a weighed combination of all the individual technical metrics, and what they value with weight need not reflect what you would value with weight.

The individual metrics, though, are solid and I have NEVER seen them dismissed with anything other than hand waving.

Look at paper's first screen shot.
Tao: Are you saying the 18-135 doesn't have 45 lines per mm of resolution at 24mm and f/3.8? That its worst vignetting isn't 0.8 stops down in the corner? Are you similarly challenging the validity of the other measurements? I pray not. It would be an arrogant thing to do for someone who doesn't have time for tests.

What needs our time and attention is how people INTERPRET these numbers. What conclusions are people wrongfully drawing from them, for there are some doozies out there!

So I'll take back the dismissive part of my first post and start again.

Paperman: What conclusions have YOU drawn from these numbers, and why do they "trouble" you? Let's make sure you're drawing supported conclusions.

Posted 2 years ago #
Testing123

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 232
offline

heartyfisher said: I seriously doubt that 6 parameters or so will show much more than 1 or 2 % difference between that and $1000 violin.

But there isn't more than a 1 or 2% difference. Likely far less.
The reason a Stradivarius is so expensive is because of those minute differences. When you're an elite player at the "top of your game" and so far into the long tail of the bell curve each incremental percent improvement is more than exponentially harder to gain. The fact you can do ANYTHING and get an improvement when you're so deep in the tail is extraordinary, and demands an extraordinary price simply due to supply and demand.

I'll be bold and say I doubt many (any?) of us are better than our lenses and NEED new glass.

Stop looking at resolution unless you're swinging big brass ones and telling people you can't get the sale because your lens is too soft. There are lots of reasons to buy a new lens other than resolution.

Posted 2 years ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

Testing123 said:
Stop looking at resolution unless you're swinging big brass ones and telling people you can't get the sale because your lens is too soft. There are lots of reasons to buy a new lens other than resolution.

Ah ha! Much better put than I did earlier in this thread.

If I am not mistaken, the OP (Paperman) feels he needs lots of sharpness/resolution, kind of like the prints that a good large format landscape photographer/artist - I'll use William Chrstianberry as an example - gets for his large format prints (typical or the best of 10x8 film landscapes), but from a 35mm format and is resorting to engineering measures to try and guide his next purchase decision and yes, I know Christianberry also uses 35mm Kodachrome, but those results are not quite as good as his 10x8 prints (to my eyes anyway).

In defense of the numbers game, and in the absence of free access to all the items we are actually going to actually use, we can only compare products side by side and buy what we prefer, using metrics (however faulty) and input from other users.

In defiance of the numbers game, Paperman: As the OP have *YOU* tried out any of these lenses yet? What results do *YOU* get with them using your preferred real world subjects, *NOT* shooting test targets?

Posted 2 years ago #
Paperman

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 297
offline

Being on Pacific time surely doesn't help with catching up with all the answers:-)

TaoTeJared said:
Your trust in just one site's review is confusing to me. I'll never understand the justification you are looking for as I'm sure you could never understand mine - which is perfectly fine as long as we both keep shooting images. I do think expanding your review sites and more importantly testing equipment at a camera shop or at a club would benefit you.

Best of luck with your search.

Let me repeat once more that I don't take your opinion lightly ; I truly believe there must be a different overall " feeling " in photos taken with pro glass .

But does it mean they are sharper ?? That is what I am currently after - after all ...

Taking the Stradivarius example , is the sound really better or is it actually the feeling of playing a few hundred years old violin that makes the difference ? I am no musician but I hardly find it possible that the same sound can not be created with today's technology and all developments in material science. However , I am also sure I wouldn't change the feeling of owning and playing a Stradivarius to a better end result.

Same is true for me in photography ; I do indeed take more pleasure during the time I spend shooting photos than looking at/sharing the end result. And if I buy pro glass , it might be more for the sake of having that "feel"/ confidence rather than the fact that it may produce sharper photos.

TaoTeJared said:
Your trust in just one site's review is confusing to me.

It is not one site (DxO) Tao ; all resolution/MTF results are similar in other test sites.

And one last thing ... We both agree the 28mm f2.8 D is crap . It cost me $ 175 to see that. Had I done my homework ( rather than get excited on ebay ) and looked at a resolution test , I would never have bought the lens .

@studio .... I do run my own lens tests though probably not as detailed as you . I have a carpenters ruler which I bend to cover center/borders/corners . I started doing them after I found it hard to believe some primes could not be as sharp as my simple kit 18-135 zoom . I'm sure it must have felt funny for you to see the $100 18-55mm kit being sharper than most :-) .

Testing123 said:
Paperman: What conclusions have YOU drawn from these numbers, and why do they "trouble" you? Let's make sure you're drawing supported conclusions.

As I said earlier , I only shoot landscapes and I'm purely an amateur.( I have 50 photos on a stock site which brings me $10/month :-)) ). I share my photos online but it can be said I am just trying to satisfy myself with the result.

Coming to what "troubles" me ; I stated many times it is the sharpness in my images . I started believing this is as good as it gets with a kit zoom so I started looking . The more I looked , I saw that there weren't many sharper lenses around .

If you are talking about what "troubles me in the test figures " - nothing is ... It is "surprising " rather than "troubling" to see a $200 kit zoom surpass the 10x more expensive pro glass in sharpness ( and also in CA/vigneting as seen example #2 ).

The only conclusion I can reach looking at these lens tests is that this is as good as it gets with the 12 Mp APS-C . Since I don't plan to part with my D300 , I must live with it and at maximum should invest in a 12-24mm .

I am looking to see if there are others that feel like me and also if I can be proved wrong - with concrete "measurable" results other than personal perceptions/feels which can always be biased . I am talking only about sharpness - let's not forget ( even though the CA & vignetting also seem to be no better in the 17-55mm f2.8 )

Is there any other conclusion that can be reached looking at these 2 sets of results ?

Posted 2 years ago #