Your eye to compare the same shot with 3 different lenses (Page 3): Thank you to all that stopped by to comment. It gives me something to think about as I find some shooting situations...

bleirer

Thank you to all that stopped by to comment. It gives me something to think about as I find some shooting situations to test the lens with.

OneShot1 Loc: Wichita, KS, USA

3,2,1 based on the fuzz on the edge of the pistils.

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

When I look at these on my iPad, it is difficult to see any difference.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

The lens difference is not worth having 3 lenses that ate the same, unless you are an equipment collector.

bleirer

Picture Taker wrote:

The lens difference is not worth having 3 lenses that ate the same, unless you are an equipment collector.

One is a macro so I get 1:1 magnification, one is 24-105, the other is 100-400, so 100 was the only overlap.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

When pixel peeping I give a slight edge to #3, but not necessarily enough for it to be the only criterion to choose that lens over the others. Things like focal range, maximum available aperture and focus speed would all come into play.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

When pixel peeping I give a slight edge to #3, but not necessarily enough for it to be the only criterion to choose that lens over the others. Things like focal range, maximum available aperture and focus speed would all come into play.

After seeing what each lens was I would keep all three because they all look good and all three lenses fill different needs.

Malco

bleirer wrote:

Hi All, br br I will give you the big reveal abou... (show quote)

I vote for #2

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

They all look the same to me.

agillot

number 1 would be it , number 2 and 3 are almost same , but not far behind .

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'm not sure this is a valid test.... The leaf above and to the left of the flower in the first image shows sharp detail, while the other two images show it strongly blurred. That suggests that the point of focus was quite different, depth of field fall off occurring much sooner in 2nd and 3rd images, than in the 1st. It's a bit hard to tell comparing in this size, but due to the way DoF falls it appears the flower anthers in the 1st image are slightly soft, while they are sharp in the other two images.

In other words, the plane of focus is significantly different between 1st image versus the 2nd/3rd images.

Aside from that, there isn't any significant difference in the sharp areas of the images or in color rendition. All three lenses appear to be capable of making very usable images. I also don't see any chromatic aberration or distortion in any of these images... but the scene may not be prone to that.

I might have voted for #2 or #3 based upon their background blur. But because the plane of focus/DoF isn't the same, I am not ready to rule out #1. If it were focused the same as the other two, it might equal their background effects, too.

And I'd never judge lenses based upon just a single test shot like this. I'd also want to see a lot more images made with them... how they handle flare... shots at greater distances... unprocessing images to compare optical vignetting and distortion effects (turning off any auto lens correction in camera and software)..... shots of stars or lights at night to look for coma at the edges.... etc.

Plus, although image quality factors such as the above are important, there are other considerations with lenses... cost, size, weight, focus speed and repeatability, sealing for dust/weather resistance, features like focus limiters and image stabilization, availability of a tripod mounting ring (if lens is large enough to call for that), size and effectiveness of lens hood, size of filters the lens uses and more.

EDIT: I just read what lenses were used for the three shots....

Some more rather obvious stuff to consider....

The 100mm macro lens can't shoot at 24mm or 200, 300, 400mm, but it's a full stop faster than the 24-105 and up to two stops faster than the 100-400.

The 24-105 can't shoot at 200, 300 or 400mm.

The 100-400 and 24-105 can't shoot anywhere near 1:1 magnification without additional accessories (i.e., macro extension tubes).

bleirer

amfoto1 wrote:

I'm not sure this is a valid test.... The leaf above and to the left of the flower in the first image shows sharp detail, while the other two images show it strongly blurred. That suggests that the point of focus was quite different, depth of field fall off occurring much sooner in 2nd and 3rd images, than in the 1st. It's a bit hard to tell comparing in this size, but due to the way DoF falls it appears the flower anthers in the 1st image are slightly soft, while they are sharp in the other two images.

In other words, the plane of focus is significantly different between 1st image versus the 2nd/3rd images.

Aside from that, there isn't any significant difference in the sharp areas of the images or in color rendition. All three lenses appear to be capable of making very usable images. I also don't see any chromatic aberration or distortion in any of these images... but the scene may not be prone to that.

I might have voted for #2 or #3 based upon their background blur. But because the plane of focus/DoF isn't the same, I am not ready to rule out #1. If it were focused the same as the other two, it might equal their background effects, too.

And I'd never judge lenses based upon just a single test shot like this. I'd also want to see a lot more images made with them... how they handle flare... shots at greater distances... unprocessing images to compare optical vignetting and distortion effects (turning off any auto lens correction in camera and software)..... shots of stars or lights at night to look for coma at the edges.... etc.

Plus, although image quality factors such as the above are important, there are other considerations with lenses... cost, size, weight, focus speed and repeatability, sealing for dust/weather resistance, features like focus limiters and image stabilization, availability of a tripod mounting ring (if lens is large enough to call for that), size and effectiveness of lens hood, size of filters the lens uses and more.

EDIT: I just read what lenses were used for the three shots....

Some more rather obvious stuff to consider....

The 100mm macro lens can't shoot at 24mm or 200, 300, 400mm, but it's a full stop faster than the 24-105 and up to two stops faster than the 100-400.

The 24-105 can't shoot at 200, 300 or 400mm.

The 100-400 and 24-105 can't shoot anywhere near 1:1 magnification without additional accessories (i.e., macro extension tubes).

I'm not sure this is a valid test.... The leaf abo... (show quote)

Thank you for the reply and thanks again to those that participated.

ShooterRod

#2 then #3 then#1

That's actually kinda fun to do..thanks for the post.

bleirer

amfoto1 wrote:

I'm not sure this is a valid test.... The leaf above and to the left of the flower in the first image shows sharp detail, while the other two images show it strongly blurred. That suggests that the point of focus was quite different, depth of field fall off occurring much sooner in 2nd and 3rd images, than in the 1st. It's a bit hard to tell comparing in this size, but due to the way DoF falls it appears the flower anthers in the 1st image are slightly soft, while they are sharp in the other two images.

In other words, the plane of focus is significantly different between 1st image versus the 2nd/3rd images.

Aside from that, there isn't any significant difference in the sharp areas of the images or in color rendition. All three lenses appear to be capable of making very usable images. I also don't see any chromatic aberration or distortion in any of these images... but the scene may not be prone to that.

I might have voted for #2 or #3 based upon their background blur. But because the plane of focus/DoF isn't the same, I am not ready to rule out #1. If it were focused the same as the other two, it might equal their background effects, too.

And I'd never judge lenses based upon just a single test shot like this. I'd also want to see a lot more images made with them... how they handle flare... shots at greater distances... unprocessing images to compare optical vignetting and distortion effects (turning off any auto lens correction in camera and software)..... shots of stars or lights at night to look for coma at the edges.... etc.

Plus, although image quality factors such as the above are important, there are other considerations with lenses... cost, size, weight, focus speed and repeatability, sealing for dust/weather resistance, features like focus limiters and image stabilization, availability of a tripod mounting ring (if lens is large enough to call for that), size and effectiveness of lens hood, size of filters the lens uses and more.

EDIT: I just read what lenses were used for the three shots....

Some more rather obvious stuff to consider....

The 100mm macro lens can't shoot at 24mm or 200, 300, 400mm, but it's a full stop faster than the 24-105 and up to two stops faster than the 100-400.

The 24-105 can't shoot at 200, 300 or 400mm.

The 100-400 and 24-105 can't shoot anywhere near 1:1 magnification without additional accessories (i.e., macro extension tubes).

I'm not sure this is a valid test.... The leaf abo... (show quote)

I already own and intend to keep the 100 macro and the 24-105, it's the 100-400 I have two weeks to change my mind on.

bertloomis Loc: Fort Worth, Texas

They are all the same.