skibum5 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
nothing
And I say this as someone who is NOT a DxO sensor plot naysayer. But I don't really get their lens test at all. First of all even their lens data plots have had some VERRRRRY weird results in the past so I don't know that I even trust the raw data. Second, they make it harder to get to the good data for lenses and their overall scores are just....
Apparently they try to put a single number on a lens, nevermind f/1.4 vs f/10 and 16mm vs 300mm performance on it might be very different (never mind there are no 16-300mm f/1.4 lenses, but you get my point) and it's weird since they rate them by effective perceptual megapixels (which is it's own can of worms) at what they consider to be the ideal best point for the lens. The latter sounds reasonable enough until you find that that means they decide to rate the 50mm 1.4 at 1.4, because, umm, yeah, everyone knows that is where THAT lens performs the best . But even that might be one thing, compare them all wide open then. But.... some lenses are f/4 and some f/1.0 wide open so how fair is it to compare f/1.0 to f/4? Even for the same type of lens, say 50mm prime, they have done stuff like compare one at f/1.2 to another at f/2?!! And then add in zooms and they may compare a 24-105 at f/5 50mm to a 24-70 f/4 IS at 24mm f/4 or whatnot, it doesn't make sense. So they may be comparing a 50mm 1.2 at 1.2 to a 24-70 II at 24mm f/2.8 to a 24-105 at 50mm f/5, etc. (don't recall exact numbers, just using hypotheticals there).
Apparently they love near wide open performance and actual light gathering and they seem to find that focal length and aperture lets the most light through while maintain some minimum score relative to the lens overall or something or other. All nonsense IMO. Sometimes the scores might make sense for most purposes, many of times not as much.
|