Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Landscape shooting is something I don\'t do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I\'m travelling. During \"the era of A7\" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on 2015 in Tenerife I used Loxia as a normal lens. So in addition to test images, I have only shoot few random frames of landscapes with ZE 1.4/50 = I may have missed this.
Samuli
Samuli et al.,
I find this topic fascinating and have been known to waste more than my share of time comparing lens, but coming from a background in science, I\'d make one comment. That is, the images we end up with are influenced by a range of factors of which the lens is just one - the atmospheric conditions, lighting, aperture etc., can all influence outcomes.
This makes it quite difficult to assess the comparative performance of two lenses by subjectively comparing one set of images shot with one lens, with a quite different set of images shot in different conditions with another - as you hint at above. In my view, a much more robust process is to shoot the same scene with a couple of lenses, preferably with a tripod, and perhaps over a range of apertures, and then process them identically. Otherwise, the risk is that we build an impression of how a particular lens performs and then \'see\' the evidence that confirms that view, but miss the evidence that contradicts it - or confuse the influence of other factors with the performance characteristics of the lens.
Doing an exact comparison like this really starts to expose the significant differences between lenses, and sets you up to identify the subtle changes in use and processing required to achieve particular effects. For example, I know that my nFD 35 gives sharper edges at F/8 than my Ultron 35 at the same aperture, but the FD requires increased vibrance and clarity to give an equivalent look to the Ultron - but it will never match the Ultron\'s wide open performance.
Even better, get someone else to shoot the same scene in an identical fashion with two lenses, give you the results labelled only as \'lens A\' and \'lens B\', and do your assessment before you find out which is which.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Landscape shooting is something I don\'t do so much - Finland is so damn flat country that most of my landscape shooting is done when I\'m travelling. During \"the era of A7\" I have not taken either, C/Y or ZE, Planar 1.4/50 to my travels. When I was in Grete on 2014 I used FE55 and on 2015 in Tenerife I used Loxia as a normal lens. So in addition to test images, I have only shoot few random frames of landscapes with ZE 1.4/50 = I may have missed this.
Samuli
Samuli et al.,
I find this topic fascinating and have been known to waste more than my share of time comparing lens, but coming from a background in science, I\'d make one comment. That is, the images we end up with are influenced by a range of factors of which the lens is just one - the atmospheric conditions, lighting, aperture etc., can all influence outcomes.
This makes it quite risky to assess the comparative performance of two lenses by subjectively comparing one set of images shot with one lens, with a quite different set of images shot in different conditions with another - as you hint at above. In my view, a much more robust process is to shoot the same scene with a couple of lenses, preferably with a tripod, and perhaps over a range of apertures, and then process them identically. Otherwise, the risk is that we build an impression of how a particular lens performs and then \'see\' the evidence that confirms that view, but miss the evidence that contradicts it - or confuse the influence of other factors with the performance characteristics of the lens.
Doing an exact comparison like this really starts to expose the significant differences between lenses, and sets you up to identify the subtle changes in use and processing required to achieve particular effects. For example, I know that my nFD 35 gives sharper edges at F/8 than my Ultron 35 at the same aperture, but the FD requires increased vibrance and clarity to give an equivalent look to the Ultron - but it will never match the Ultron\'s wide open performance.
Even better, get someone else to shoot the same scene in an identical fashion with two lenses, give you the results labelled only as \'lens A\' and \'lens B\', and do your assessment before you find out which is which.
Happy testing - John
Feb 08, 2016 at 02:46 PM
Previous versions of navmannz's message #13409807 « Sony FE Images Thread »
