Upload & Sell: Off
I have a tendency to always take into consideration the worst view of anything, I know it should not be like that, but anyways, one bad review and I start looking for alternatives, even if all the others say that thing is great.
Well, the reviewers at photozone seem to be pretty harsh when it comes to analyzing canon lenses on a FF body, even the so called “holy trinity” of primes has received some criticism
I do not know why the same lenses get much better reviews for crop sensor cameras (they post two reviews of each lens), but as he posts all the test results one should assume they have some credibility, even though I think for a moment that the same results could be taken as “better” simply because you have a crop, so for a crop shooter it’s ok, you should be thankful, but for a full frame you deserve more…
I was pretty convinced that FF was the way to go, but now I kinda have that doubt, an example: the 70-200 2.8 II is near perfect for FF, and flawless for Crops, the same goes to many other lenses, some are ok for FF, but very good for 1.6x cameras, like the almighty 85 1.2, which, according to them, is not so good for FF
I am well aware of the field of view differences, which can be a good or a bad thing, depending on your style
but there always seems to be more distortion, and all sorts of problems on the corners, like vignetting, light falloff, ca, and what frightens me the most = loss of sharpness
so for me the question is
To crop or not to crop?
One thing to keep in mind is that the photozone guy has an unhealthy obsession with assigning lens star ratings for optics based upon f/1.0-1.4 ratings at the far edges, if the lens offers the chance. So despite the 24 1.4 II utterly destroying the 24-105L and other lenses when comparing them at the same apertures, even going by his results as well, he goes crazy on the 24 1.4 II for having very soft edges on FF AT WIDE OPEN and he rates it with less stars for optical quality than stinker of a zoom and even his good of that zoom doesn't touch any of his data for the 24 1.4 II! Ridiculous. I mean show us a 24mm lens that has sharp FF edges at f/1.4? Where is this magical lens? It doesn't even exist, at least not for less than some tens of thousands of dollars, if even.
That said I find his results, the numerical ones, not necessarily his overall star ratings (and I have to say it seems on most sites it's the charts not the overall ratings that are most useful) to more often match what I've seen myself that the TDP results which seem to very often not match what I've seen myself all that much.
So if he says the 85 1.2 is trash on FF he probably means that like almost any 85 1.2 it will have a bit soft far edges on FF even if it is all the same one of the sharpest lenses ever made by f/2.5 and probably has mad sharp edges by f/3.2 or f/4 even on FF.
So I say look at this plots for distortion and CA and lens sharpness and ignore his overall ratings and some of his text. I find his data to more often match what I've seen than probably any single other site. Of course not everything is a match. Lens testing requires ASTONISHING precision and it's sooooo easy to get wrong and then copies really do vary and he mostly relies on copies people send in which could lead to biases. And you know whether distortion matters or not at all, whether longitundal CA matters, whether you need sharpness at edges when stopped down or not, etc.
Distance to target matters too, he once went outdoors to get good distance for his 300 2.8 test and with the distance and outdoor air shimmer effects he got it to score some of the worse 300mm scores of the entire canon line hah before he tossed out the result a short while later.