Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #19 · Contax N 17-35mm Evaluation | |
First, let me say that I value what you do, and I don't want to fall out over this. I do, however, think this is a discussion worth having and that we can do it objectively and dispassionately.
hubsand wrote:
We now have mount adaptors that weren't previously available, enabling us to test multiple lenses on exactly the same platform. AFAIK until very recently, the question of who makes the best WA zoom was enmired in brand-loyal claim and counter-claim. The question was irrelevant in practice five years ago because your Leica 21-35 just wouldn't fit on your Canon 1 Series; now it does.
It wasn't irrelevant five years ago. And "exactly" the same platform wasn't as important as it is now. A camera body five years ago was (essentially) just a box to holds a lens the proper distance from a piece of film and controlled the amount of light that gets to the film. You need to just do the test on the same film -- the adapters were basically the camera bodies. Lens tests between Canon, Nikon, Contax and Leica and others were ALWAYS done in the past and you didn't need adapters to do it (just the same film and procedures). Only now in the digital era do you need to do these tests on the same camera body (necessitating adapters) because the digital body takes the place of film. In the past, if you were a Canon user and wanted to use that Leica lens -- you could just use a Leica body (it was relatively cheap enough to do) -- and these adapters were just as possible then as they are now. There is nothing about digital that made these adapters technically possible -- you could use your Leica lens on a Canon EOS body before, there was just less incentive to do so.
hubsand wrote:
It would be great if some all-wise master index of lens performance existed: we could just write a cheque for the one at the top of the pile, but in the pre-digital era, no-one really bothered to compile one. Why should they?
Isn't that what Photodo did, or attempted to do? And photography magazines in the past also from time to time listed all their lens test results providing such an index.
hubsand wrote:
Digital imaging has made us all much more intimately acquainted with our images than we ever were with 35mm film. In routine post-production we make massive on screen 'enlargements' from every shot. We've become fussier. Not all Canon's L lenses have survived the digital transition with reputations unscathed. The 1Ds II has an ultimate resolution very close to 35mm film, but in practice it's grainless imaging does seem to be more revealing.
I'm not so sure about that. There were alot of photographers that were just as fussy before as they are now. The difference now is that anyone with a computer can see the differences and be fussy. They may still not print any bigger than 8x10, but all these new folks can be fussy (even if ity really doesn't matter a whit to them). Actually, this forum seems to me to be an anomaly and it's participants a distinct minority. If anything, the average photographer seems to be LESS fussy than before about his lenses. There is a general feeling that lens quality matters less now and that everything can be fixed digitally, that ultimate quality no longer matters. This is one of the more distressing developments that I have seen with digital -- and one of the reasons why I like this forum. I think (and hope) that this development is beginning to reverse, however.
hubsand wrote:
Absolutely. Maybe. The pragmatic argument would be that we take pictures of things like gardens more often than things like test charts. The scientific argument would be that the real world is more information-rich than artificially generated targets. My argument would be that what really separates the men from the boys (lens-wise) is a vivid 3D depiction of reality. Is that a 4.1 or a 4.2?
We agree here to some extent. Vivid 3D depiction of reality is what you want. I think that most testing doesn't show that or even attempt to. If you are looking for this in your testing, I don't see that message coming through in your testing and point rankings. (but I could be missing something). Part of the problem is that it is hard to do -- it is somewhat subjective, and not easily quantified. And this goes back to the value of the Zeiss 17-35, this is one area where it excels relative to the competition and why people are looking for them. Even if it is only just as sharp as the Nikon -- it will give them that vivid 3D pop that might be lacking in the Nikon.
Real life situations include a lot more demanding situations than a someone's gardens. And it is the more demanding situations that demand more performance and more aspects of quality in a lens -- it will separate out the really good, well-designed lenses from those that are merely sharp. The value of more scientific testing is that it can tell you where the limits of the lens are and what it is capable of. I think informal testing can tell you where and when a lens' deficiencies might bind in use. Certainly some of the best attributes of a Zeiss lens design are not going to be evident in less demanding situations -- and from many of the images posted in the this forum many of the photographers here often find themselves in demanding situations.
hubsand wrote:
Absolutely. Having said that, if we had access to 'formal testing' of some kind, I'd still need to know whether I keep the Nikon 17-35AFS. The best way to find out would be to test them side by side . . . .
I think that is true and follows my last point. Even if the Nikon (let's say) comes in second in formal testing, testing the lens in your uses will help you determine it is is good enough for you, or if the superior qualities of the better tested lens make a difference for you. Countless photographers using countless Canon L lenses come to such conclusions every day. The lens may not be a good as an equivalent Leica of Zeiss lens, but it's good enough for them in use.
But certainly alot of formal testing that is done is inadequate. As mentioned above it doesn't really capture how well it conveys 3D information. There is only so much even the most comprehensive set of MTF's can show. Informal testing in extreme and other situations will fill in the blanks. As I suggested in my last post, it is the accumulation of multiple sample captures from multiple sources, under multiple situations that will ultimately confirm it's value. Your testing is certainly a valuable and useful contribution to that, but I don't think it is ultimately conclusive by itself. Having approached the issues and techniques of testing myself, I know how difficult and demanding the testing that you do is -- there is much that needs to addressed and controlled. I am personally grateful (as are many here) for your testing and your commitment to it. I certainly couldn't do it as effectively as you. Thanks.
|
You don't know how lucky you are in the US with those bargain basement prices at KEH et al! 
And it doesn't help to make transatlantic orders - shipping, VAT (25%!) and customs duty (7%) are smacked on the bill...