Today has been very boring and I am too lazy to go out shooting. I just tested 6 of my lenses and want to see for myself how much a difference do they really make. I have heard and seen tests showing some of my lenses are junk and want to verify.
The 6 lenses are: Canon 70-200f4, 70-200IS, 28-138IS, 100-400IS, 135f2 and Sigma 50-500. All shots were taken with tripod, mirror lock up, remote release, AF, IS off, raw converted to jpeg with PSCS, no post processing except cropping, save as Jpeg in quality 10.
Please guess which image was taken by which lens (e.g. A- 70-200f4,; B - 100-400IS, etc.). Also, please tell me if the images from the 'cheap' lenses are really that unacceptable.
PS. I will post the answer later and forget about cheating by checking the EXIF .
A Sigma
B 28-135
C 135
D 70-200/4.0
E 70-200/2.8
F 100-400
I'd say you have six very decent options for shooting 135 mm at f/8.
Lot's of guesswork on my part, but what the heck, you were bored and I'm interested in the results.
SLEdwards wrote:
The lens quizzes on FM are becoming too difficult. This one makes my brain hurt.
Steve
Steve,
The idea of my 'test' is not really to show which lens is the 'best', but to show none of them is really a dog even shooting at wide open. Of course, one lens is sharper, more saturate, more contrast than the other. So, if all of them are acceptable, I shouldn't have any problem using any one of them, L or no L lens. That is the point I am trying to make.
I just hope people will be a bit more careful posting results and/or comments to put certain lens down, with or without pictures to back up the 'statement'. The problem may not be the lens, or even the camera .
Lately the 135f2L seems to be THE lens to be had. If you are one of those people drooling for or live and die by the 135f2L (or 70-200IS for some people), you can just point out which image you think is from your favorite lens. MOST IMPORTANTLY, please let me know that if any one of them really a piece of s#$%.
to be honest, it doesn't matter which lens was used as they all look great if you are comparing at a size that the camera and lens used was designed for.........everyone compares at 4 times the size of what a normal print is......which is at 100% size.......hardly a realistic print size correct?
i mean when was the last time you looked at a photo magazine or photo album and had to look across 3-4 pages to see a whole image shot from our cameras?
even PopPhoto doesn't list the appropriate print sizes from their lens test at 100%..............ALL THE SAMPLES FROM YOUR LENS COLLECTION ARE MORE THAN CLEAR AND CLEAN ENOUGH TO DO 20 X 30 PRINTS!!
It's a very good "test" and a few good points. I will be awaiting for the results, don't want to do any guesswork.
The only note is that, of course, the point of shooting with 135/2 is not to obtain sharp images at f/8 and not even at f/5.6 but at f/2. But it's outside of the the scope of your exercise.
A at f/5.6 is quite soft...I know my 28-135mm has a significant amount of blooming wide open at 135, but gets better when stopped down, so I'm guessing A is that one. It's usable, but only with processing to minimize the blooming.
mark1958 wrote:
A is the sigma
b is 28-135
c is 135mm
d is 100-400
e 70-200/2.8
f 70-200/4
a and b might be reversed and c and e might be reversed
Mark,
Thank you for participating in this little game . You (and DavidP) are the ones in this forum I really look up to, as both of you have more lenses than me, not only in quantity but also in quality . We will see how good is the guess from a real gearhead
Photon wrote:
A Sigma
B 28-135
C 135
D 70-200/4.0
E 70-200/2.8
F 100-400
I'd say you have six very decent options for shooting 135 mm at f/8.
Lot's of guesswork on my part, but what the heck, you were bored and I'm interested in the results.
Jess,
You have hit the nail right on the head. IMO, they are all decent images even at wide open. Consider some of those images were taken with lenses that have been consistently pissed on in this forum. I think I have proved at least to myself that none of them is as bad as some people put them to be. May be my standard is way too low .
Hawkeye wrote:
to be honest, it doesn't matter which lens was used as they all look great if you are comparing at a size that the camera and lens used was designed for.........everyone compares at 4 times the size of what a normal print is......which is at 100% size.......hardly a realistic print size correct?
i mean when was the last time you looked at a photo magazine or photo album and had to look across 3-4 pages to see a whole image shot from our cameras?
even PopPhoto doesn't list the appropriate print sizes from their lens test at 100%..............ALL THE SAMPLES FROM YOUR LENS COLLECTION ARE MORE THAN CLEAR AND CLEAN ENOUGH TO DO 20 X 30 PRINTS!!...Show more →
gfiksel wrote:
It's a very good "test" and a few good points. I will be awaiting for the results, don't want to do any guesswork.
The only note is that, of course, the point of shooting with 135/2 is not to obtain sharp images at f/8 and not even at f/5.6 but at f/2. But it's outside of the the scope of your exercise.
Thanks for you time,
Gennady
Gennady,
Thank you for your support. Yes, you are right about the consistency of the 135f2L image quality at any aperture (ok, you can see a touch NOT as sharp at f2 and I can prove it to anyone who wants to see, as I did a series of shots with the 135f2L too). The 135f2 is one of only a few Canon lenses has that quality.
A at f/5.6 is quite soft...I know my 28-135mm has a significant amount of blooming wide open at 135, but gets better when stopped down, so I'm guessing A is that one. It's usable, but only with processing to minimize the blooming.
Undefined One,
Do you really consider image A is "quite soft"? I would say that it is RELATIVELY soft but IMO quite respectable in quality. We will see the results hopefully tomorrow. I would like to give a few more people a chance to play this game.
slau wrote:
Undefined One,
Do you really consider image A is "quite soft"? I would say that it is RELATIVELY soft but IMO quite respectable in quality. We will see the results hopefully tomorrow. I would like to give a few more people a chance to play this game.
Yes, but I think I ought to define my terms. "Sharp" and "soft" are not mutually exclusive, to me. As I see it, sharpness refers to resolved detail, whereas softness is the opposite of contrasty fine details. Contrast increases the appearance of sharpness, but it's relatively easy to increase local contrast in editing, while it's extremely hard (if not impossible) to recover lost detail from a lack of sharpness (also known as blurry ).
For example, the 28-135 is a bit less sharp but a lot softer than L lenses, at 135mm wide open. The real problem comes when shooting a subject with small, bright sections (such as backlit leaves or pine needles), as the tiny highlights blow way past white, the halo around them (from the softness) is a lot brighter. Since the information about just how bright those areas are is lost when it clips to white, however, it's hard to accurately remove the halos.
Frame A looks like frame C, if you gaussian blurred frame C by about 2.5 pixels in Photoshop, then faded the effect at 25%. I know, I just tried.
This looks like a fun way to make my first FM post.
I'm not a lens connoisseur my any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I loved my Canon 28-300mm until I tried a 28-135...and then I quickly became a gadget geek. Doesn't make any difference, though. My shots are mediocre no matter what lens I use. Hmmm...maybe I shoulda saved a few thousand dollars and kept that 28-300 after all.
Here are my guesses:
A: 100-400 IS
B: 70-200 f/4
C: 135 f/2 (sharp w/really nice color)
D: 28-135 IS
E: 70-200 IS (sharper than all but C, so it's gotta be a costly lens, right?)
F: 50-500 (the color was kinda washed out)
Edited by melissa1959 on Oct 10, 2004 at 10:38 PM GMT
Wow... while I was typing my message, Melissa posted her guesses. We are very very close there Melissa. But I gave the nod to the 70-200 f/4 over the 70-200 IS for sharpness. Mounted on a tripod, I believe the f/4 would have a slight advantage.
Undefined One,
I was just asking a serious question and not trying to be a smart ass or being skeptical. As soft and sharp are not really absolute but relative terms, one man's 'soft' can be another man's 'sharp'. Thank you for your explanation.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
And throw the A and E in the garbage . At F8 they should be better than that.
Don't you mean A and D?
Agreed, they both look weak at f/8. One, however, is probably the 28-135, which is only one stop closed at 135mm f/8...it's better around f/10-11. Pretty harsh, yes, unless you want deep depth of field anyway and make use of its IS.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
Without getting to any of the answers . Honestly I guessed C as the 135.
And throw the A and E in the garbage . At F8 they should be better than that.
And your second runner up is E
Now if you still are bored take that 135 and a 1.4 and take that 70-200 2.8 and shoot the same shot at 189mm than post that. I bet the 135 /1.4 will kick it's ass at 2.8 down to F8
Guy,
We will see how right you are tomorrow. It is too dark outside to do any more test. If I have time tomorrow, I will try your suggested test. Thank you for participating.
. 
).