Is there a reliable site for lens testing?
May 2, 2015 11:59:05 #
mcmm
Loc: Kansas
Where would I find the instructions for Sharp Shooters $Dollar Bill test? I would like to try it with a couple of my lenses. Thanks for the information in advance.
Photocraig wrote:
I just did the Sharp Shooter $Dollar Bill on the wall test of my old EF 35-105. Seems like any softness is coming from UKNOWHO! I'd love to retrofit with IS, but that's the direction I'm looking. The currency engraving is very fine and sharply printed, even my wrinkled sample gave me a really good look at what my lens was doing.
Now, I'd prefer, if I had to choose shooting Dollar Bills than DXO charts anyday.
Now, I'd prefer, if I had to choose shooting Dollar Bills than DXO charts anyday.
May 2, 2015 12:43:24 #
rtcary wrote:
I currently use the HEAVY Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 for general event images. After checking out the 18-120 f/4.0 lighter lens, I was disappointed in one site's report on chromatic aberration.
Maybe I need to carry a couple of lenses e.g. 35, 50 and 105 like the old days.
Todd
Maybe I need to carry a couple of lenses e.g. 35, 50 and 105 like the old days.
Todd
Nikon does not make an 18-120 f 4.0 lens. If you are referring to the 24-120mm F4 I have taken thousands of pictures with mine and not noticed any issue with chromatic aberration. I am very pleased with the lens. When looking at lens testing sites, you should look at several, or
even many, as the sites have their strong and weak points.
May 2, 2015 13:51:51 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
pmackd wrote:
Nikon does not make an 18-120 f 4.0 lens. If you are referring to the 24-120mm F4 I have taken thousands of pictures with mine and not noticed any issue with chromatic aberration. I am very pleased with the lens. When looking at lens testing sites, you should look at several, or
even many, as the sites have their strong and weak points.
even many, as the sites have their strong and weak points.
I believe there have been at least two (maybe more) 24-120mm Nikkors... one with a variable aperture and the other, more premium version with the f4 aperture rating throughout. I've seen some shots from both that seem pretty good, though the cheaper, variable aperture version might have some more minor "issues".
I find myself turning to the-digital-picture.com more often than not, when I want to compare lenses. In addition to exhaustive reviews and analysis that are pretty carefully and consistently done, they post test shots made with each lenses at various apertures (and various focal lengths, in the case of zooms), and those can be compared side-by-side with another lens to be able to see for oneself the differences.
Someone else mentioned and I agree, the lens reviews by Lensrentals.com can be helpful too. I wish they'd do more. Theirs is more "real world", hands-on, because they deal with more than just a single copy of a lens (a lot more, in some cases even dozens). They also regularly test and service their lenses, so can give you a much better feel for durability of any particular lens, too.
For example, their reports on the Canon 24-70/2.8L's tendency to wear and lose calibration might have been a contributing factor or at least and influence in what appears to be more durable design in the Mark II version (only time will tell if their teardown of the new lens and speculations about the improvements hold true over time).
Other lenses that have been around a lot longer and have "known foibles", they might confirm or refute"Internet rumors". For example, the Canon 50/1.4 has been around for 20+ years and has probably sold in the hundreds of thousands, is widely known to have a weak autofocus mechanism. Their experiences with it suggest that - yes - the problem is there. But it's not as pervasive as some might suggest, and seems to run in batches. Overall they found about 20% of the lenses eventually developed AF issues. But, since they buy them a dozen or more at a time, there were batches that had little or no problems, while others had a far higher percentage of failures.
Finally, Lensrentals reviews are valuable because their stuff likely doesn't get very special care by it's users... and it inevitably spends a lot of time going through a special form of "torture testing"... I.e., riding around in the back of a UPS or FedEx truck!
May 2, 2015 16:41:18 #
rtcary wrote:
After checking out the 18-120 f/4.0 lighter lens, I was disappointed in one site's report on chromatic aberration.
Just about every reivew on this lens I've read reports minimal chromatic aberration, or at least well within acceptable levels. I just don't think there's sufficient reason to be alarmed. Although there are zoom lenses out there with serious chromatic aberration problems throughout the zoom range, this one certainly does not fall into that category.
May 2, 2015 17:14:10 #
CA is unavoidable and the easiest thing to correct in postprocessing.
May 3, 2015 08:34:03 #
CA can be corrected, but the sharpness lost at edges where CA was present cannot be recovered.
May 3, 2015 08:35:11 #
May 5, 2015 10:19:45 #
Thank you for the suggestion of slrgear.com. It definitely answered my questions about the Nikon 24-120 f/4.0 vs. the 24-70 f/2.8: you pay for the increase in quality through $$$ and weight. Though my 28-70 f/2.8 was not specifically tested, the reviews at slrgear and elsewhere indicate that the quality justifies the weight. So, if I want to travel "light and compact" with my D700 and/or D750, it is hard to beat a 50mm f/1.4 with 35mm f/1.8.
May 11, 2015 13:14:32 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
rtcary wrote:
I currently use the HEAVY Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 for general event images. After checking out the 18-120 f/4.0 lighter lens, I was disappointed in one site's report on chromatic aberration.
Maybe I need to carry a couple of lenses e.g. 35, 50 and 105 like the old days.
Todd
Maybe I need to carry a couple of lenses e.g. 35, 50 and 105 like the old days.
Todd
nothing beats prime lenses, that's for sure!
May 11, 2015 15:29:16 #
wj cody wrote:
nothing beats prime lenses, that's for sure!
Actually that depends on the prime and the zoom. The best primes do beat the best zooms, but often not by much. And the best zooms beat many primes, including some of the pricier ones.
May 12, 2015 10:18:15 #
wj cody
Loc: springfield illinois
kymarto wrote:
Actually that depends on the prime and the zoom. The best primes do beat the best zooms, but often not by much. And the best zooms beat many primes, including some of the pricier ones.
there is no zoom lens made, at any price point, which is sharper than prime lenses at all focal lengths.
and yes, primes are superior, and by much.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.