how about some portrait examples? some real life shots... would love to see them, that's how i would judge... can you point to a link or put some shots here in this thread? thanks,
Andy wrote:
how about some portrait examples? some real life shots... would love to see them, that's how i would judge... can you point to a link or put some shots here in this thread? thanks,
Andy & Asher:
You guys missed the point here! This is a different kind of test. Do you ask for examples after looking at MTFs? After looking at photodo ratings?
tigerp wrote:
Andy & Asher:
You guys missed the point here! This is a different kind of test. Do you ask for examples after looking at MTFs? After looking at photodo ratings?
I do. Data is one thing, but these are instruments for imaging, and plenty of us would like to see the byproduct these fine instruments create. There is a place for scientific data, and a place for "real life shots." One does not preclude the other. Why is it so bad to see a real life shot Just my two cents.
David: I love to see examples that can demonstrate some take home messages about these lenses, too. My point is that the "real life" data (or whatever you call it) are NOT required and beyond the scope of what being presented here These data (as long as it is correctly done with a valid materials and methods) are valid with or without real life example! The MTFs are complete regardless of examples and so are these data here. Take them as they are.
I'll agree it is beyond the scope of what is being presented here. A Ferrari can hit 200mph on a track, but can it do it on a city street? That's why folks test drive cars, they have the data, but let's see the performance in "real life." That's the importance of "real life" shots as has been requested by Andy and Asher.
Edited by glowrider on Aug 14, 2005 at 08:40 PM GMT
zaknat wrote:
Son,
Not sure what all this means, but I suspect it's going to cost me $$$
David
That might well be the statement of the month!
Actually, an interesting test. I see the Zeiss holding an edge at f/1.2 and f/2 if I'm reading the chart correctly. It holds its MTF longer before falling off as the frequency rises.
charlesk wrote:
I agree with Andy and David. The data is interesting, but does it really matter in real life?
And I say this as someone trying to *sell* a Zeiss 85 f1.2 50th Anniversary. --c
As some have already noted on this forum, 'real life,' insofar as is presented by the contributions of many posters recently, is comprised largely of shooting test charts, plotting data, and getting excited about the curves.
I know that a lot of the guys that obsessively test these lenses are outstanding photographers in their own right, but in this particular Canon forum, people have come to value test results at least as highly as inspiring photography.
I remember when interest in a particular lens on this forum was largely driven by seeing great images from it, rather than lines on a graph. While I hate to diminish the effort Son is put into his results, they hardly convince me that I need to or even should replace my 85mm f/1.2L.
Son, that is a very interesting test. I am surprised by how amazing the Zeiss 85/1.2 seems to be, especially compared to the Leica 90/2. There are three reasons I can think of why the Leica *should* be better:
1. It is much easier to design an f/2 lens than an f/1.2 lens
2. The Leica has an aspherical element
3. The Leica is apochromatically corrected with UD glass
4. The Leica has has a better MTF from Zeiss,Leica published data
Do you have a guess or guesses as to how the Zeiss could be dramatically better given optical considerations 1, 2, and 3? The only thing I can think of is that the Leica is optimized for infinity and at ten feet its performance is seriously degraded. Could that be the explanation, or is there something else? Thanks for your thoughts!
I've got a question for those that are looking for real world test shots. What would you think would be a good subject for such a test. Something outdoors with texture, detail, varied tonality, etc. like the bark of a tree or something indoors with studio lighting like a portrait or a still life. It seems to me that the latter, being more controlled would be better.
tigerp wrote:
David: I love to see examples that can demonstrate some take home messages about these lenses, too. My point is that the "real life" data (or whatever you call it) are NOT required and beyond the scope of what being presented here These data (as long as it is correctly done with a valid materials and methods) are valid with or without real life example! The MTFs are complete regardless of examples and so are these data here. Take them as they are.
I'd also add that examples of "real life" shots are available from many other sources, while detailed third-party tests like this are not.
I'm sure that these tests are of great value for some, for me personally I like to see center and edge 100% crops. Many a time in the past I've made lens decisions based on MTF charts to find actual image tests to reveal something different. Do you think you could post those.
tigerp wrote:
David: I love to see examples that can demonstrate some take home messages about these lenses, too. My point is that the "real life" data (or whatever you call it) are NOT required and beyond the scope of what being presented here These data (as long as it is correctly done with a valid materials and methods) are valid with or without real life example! The MTFs are complete regardless of examples and so are these data here. Take them as they are.
Edited by tigerp on Aug 14, 2005 at 08:32 PM GMT
hi tiger - i've not once, not ever, purchased a lens by looking at mtf data. i take into account the experience of folks i trust, and the overall reputation of a lens, and also i look at the finished product, the image - on screen and then in printed form as well if available.
zaknat wrote:
I've got a question for those that are looking for real world test shots. What would you think would be a good subject for such a test. Something outdoors with texture, detail, varied tonality, etc. like the bark of a tree or something indoors with studio lighting like a portrait or a still life. It seems to me that the latter, being more controlled would be better.
David
the thread is about portrait lenses, so what i'd love to see are some real portraits, studio, outdoors, doesn't matter - well lit, exposed, composed and shot. downsized examples are cool of course, with some 100% crops to show the detail, sharpness, color, contrast etc. this is the type of information i'd use in order to make a decision as to whether i'd use this glass or not - real world stuff
ick. naw - a real model! you guys are excellent photographers - i just think that some real world shots to back up the claims would be cool, and certainly would help me to decide if i want to invest in this type of glass.
oh - i'm not asking for raw files or anything like that. just some real shots D: kinda like your cockpit photo.
Andy, this is the first step in understanding the potential of the lens and what it can bring to the table. Sometimes it is importance to understand the tool well before we know the advangtage that it may offer to us. After testing these lens I have come to believe that this is the lens that I will use to do portrait in the upcoming months. I hope that my new challenge being a photographer will meet the optical quality of this anniversary lens and my understanding of the lens profile allow me to be more proficient to choose the right lens for the applications. I hope that the information that has been presented will allow us to use it well.
Just my two cents. 
These data (as long as it is correctly done with a valid materials and methods) are valid with or without real life example! The MTFs are complete regardless of examples and so are these data here. Take them as they are. 
That's the importance of "real life" shots as has been requested by Andy and Asher.