MRHooker2u Loc: Kingston, WA

In doing research on Canon lenses I came across the DxOMark website where lenses and cameras are scored using certain criteria. The DxOMark scores for the Canon L-Series lenses I am researching range from high of 35 (Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM) to a low of 24 (Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM) with a 2 to 3 point difference for the four lenses in between. I have read reviews where the Canon L-Series lenses are some of the best available. For a non-professional photographer are these numbers meaningful or can only a discerning few photographers pick up the differences between a 35 score and a 24 score? Or, do I go with the fact that the Canon L-Series lenses are manufactured to the highest standards and create great photographs and just forget about the critical lab specs? Thanks for your input!

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

It's up to you, I myself do not pay a lot of attention to many numbers, but go by the results I personally get from my lenses. Once I have a lens and I like the results I get, I keep it, and don't care if it gets bad numbers (because by then I already know better)!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Unless the lab is certified to be unbiased in their reporting, I'd be skeptical. I'm not sure about DxOMark, as they tend to be Nikon/Nikkor biased.

Your best bet is the rent the lenses in which you are interested and test them yourself. If you like the results, what does it matter what someone else reports?
--Bob

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I think that you are giving Canon far too much credit. I own several Canon L lenses so I am not a hater but Canon by its own admission has been lagging in development. Both Tamron and Sigma have made great strides in their efforts to be competitive with manufacturers like Canon and Nikon. When you read the DXO mark scores one thing that I pay attention to is how the lenses score and I have to admit one of the most important things to me is the sharpness because the newer bodies are demanding of sharper lenses. Sigma Art lenses are proving to be some of the best out there but Canon has some stellar lenses also. Of the lenses that you seem to be considering the Canon 24-70 II seems to be a great lens if you don't mind shelling out $2000, than that personally I would go with the Tamron 24-70 because it out performs the original Canon 24-70 and has image stabilization and can currently be purchased for under $800. The new Canon however resolves at 32 Mpx vs 24 on the Tamron, the 24-105 at 18mpx. I would not consider either of the Sigma's in this focal range simply because the Tamron offers a more attractive deal for the money.

repleo Loc: Boston

The explanation of the DXO scores is a bit hard to find. Go here. https://www.dxomark.com/dxomark-lens-camera-sensor-testing-protocol/#sharpness
The DXO Score is a weighted combination of sub scores under resolution (sharpness), distortion, vignetting and Light Transmission. The scores are biased towards low light performance.

The final score is a linear scale related to the largest print size that provides excellent image quality. Doubling the size of the print requires doubling the DxOMark score. A score difference of less than 10% can be considered irrelevant. In other words, a lens with a score of 35 could be expected to produce an excellent print approx 50% larger than a lens with a score of 24. Note the scores are also related to the camera that the lens is mounted on. Change the camera and you change the score.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Try to keep in mind what DxOMark does. They test sensors and lenses in a lab. If you tend to shoot in a highly controlled environment (like a studio) they will have more meaning to you than to someone who shoots live action and wildlife. In a studio the ability of the lens, when focused, to gather all the visual information you need is of supreme importance. If you are shooting action, then the ability of the lens/camera combination to acquire focus and capture the moment is the most important thing. DxOMark tests for one but not the other.

Neilhunt

If you are frustrated by lenses that don't quite make your images as sharp as you would like, the dxo score is a good way to steer clear of lenses that may disappoint. My favorite lenses, I discover after the fact, all get great sharpness scores. Especially the Sony ef 90mm macro, which I find makes great images. By comparison, the Sony ef 24-240 is frequently disappointing in sharpness, and scores quite low on dxo sharpness scale.

rwoodvira

I use a couple of different sources for reviews. The two I count the highest is a British publication on Canon called PhotoPlus and the reviews on Fred Miranda. I use the online version of PhotoPlus but you can usually get the current issue at Barnes and Noble. In the rear of the magazine they have a section summarizing their review of various Canon cameras and canon-compatible lens. They have a sale periodically that allows you to get prior issues pretty reasonably. The summary page tells you of the issue where the lens was reviewed. I have to walk daily and I wanted a walk around lens that was light but good. The Sigma 18-250 lens was rated pretty high and I bought a used one at a great price. Very pleased. Also look at the Fred Miranda reviews that are done by photographers. P.S. the Tamron 24-70 is rated very high by Photo Plus. Good luck

leftj Loc: Texas

DXO labs is in bankruptcy.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Apparently, DxO Labs, the bankrupt entity, and DxOMark are now separate entities.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-525628-1.html#8929799

dmeyer Loc: Marion, NC

Post processing can correct some issues like distortion and vignetting, but sharpness doesn't correct that well in PP without becoming pixelated. DXOMark has such an easy-to-visualize demonstration of corner-to-corner sharpness at different focal lengths and aperture combinations, that finding the right lens for your specific application is made much easier. If you have already utilized the more deeply embedded features on sharpness, you know what I mean. But, if you haven't fully explored the sub-categories on sharpness, I urge you to do so. Under the 'Measurements' tab, click on 'Sharpness', but don't stop there. Go to 'Field Map' to see how sharpness varies across the entire sensor area. It may better explain the grading of lenses for you. One lens may perform with excellence at wider focal lengths, but fall off as the focal length increases, while another lens might perform just the opposite--better as focal length increases. What you seem to be needing is a tool to tell you which lens performs best for YOUR applications.

Logan1949

I highly agree with using the DXOmark sharpness score as evidence of relative sharpness between lenses on specific sensors. I loved my Sony 24-240mm lens, but it was slightly fuzzy in the corners when the picture was blown up to 24x36 inches. Then I bought the Sony EF 90mm macro lens and was amazed by its sharpness. At that time DXOmark rated the sharpness of the 24-240mm lens at 9, and the 90mm lens at 32 on an APS-C sensor camera. I decided that all of my future lenses should be rated 32 or better; but then DXOmark reran its Sony lens tests on the Full Frame Sony A7Rii sensor at 42 megapixels. The sharpness scores changed to 15 for the 24-240mm and to 42 for the 90mm macro lens. Now I have nowhere to go for a sharper lens; but I have decided that any lens rated higher than 25 on a 40 megapixel (or better) sensor is sharp enough for 24x36 inch prints. The viewer will not usually be able to tell the difference between DXOmark sharpness scores between 25 and 42, unless the pictures are blown up to 32x48 inches. This is assuming that we nailed the focus in the shot.

photohelp

i agree that it is best to do a search for all reviews of a lens, and not just rely on DxOMark, as you will usually find several, which sometimes are not consistent. I have a related question about sharpness and the number of pixels. I read recently that a lens will appear less sharp with a high pixel camera like a Sony a7Riii than with a lower pixel camera like a Sony a7siii. One of the posts above found the opposite result at least with respect to DxOMark scores. Could someone explain this? Thanks.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The info can be useful if you really understand what the individual test scores, (not the over all scores) mean and how they're derived. But generally you shouldn't loose any sleep over them. Better to rely on the many other lens reviews out there for overall lens performance. The individual scores are useful for comparing chromatic aberration, distortion, vignetting and sharpness, and especially for low light shooters like me, light transmission.

Light transmission scores indicate the maximum amount of light a lens actually transmits using tStops rather than what we often assume is transmitted via the widest fStop. It tells me that, for instance, my Canon EF 35mm f/2 Is USM prime lens gathers almost as much light as many 35mm f/1.4 primes which theoretically should gather double the light of my lens, and gathers as much or even more light than some f/1.8 primes! But as I indicated casual perusal of their overall lens ratings, which can vary dramatically depending upon which body they're mounted on, can be a futile exercise.

the f/stops here Loc: New Mexico

MR, I don't really care for others number's as I have no idea under what circumstances they arrived at them. As an example, I have and use the 24-105 L mark I and find it superb. As a retired forensic photographer my standards for equipment are high and the lenses have to be able to create tack sharp images. With that particular lens, I've taken an image of the back of a semi trailer, hand held at 1/40th, and had it printed life size. One could see the rivets, it was so sharp. Please see the attached image of the print. If that lens has a rating of 24, image what a 36 would do. Not necessary for me.

(Download)