ZoranC wrote: Mystik wrote:
MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for confirmation bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
Believe it or not, but that is exactly my philosophy too and that is exactly why I am posting here. MTF charts can never tell me will I like rendering, only my eyes can tell me that, MTF charts are just one piece of information that might indicate whether there is something I should keep in mind while researching further (especially when they are contradicting).
Next is scouring number of reviews and forums for experiences and samples. If they are all leaving consistent impression (whether consistently positive or consistently negative) then I have gathered enough info to decide what is my next step (if consistently positive it is worth giving it a shot, if it is consistently negative it is likely my time and money would be wasted so I will pass).
But if that step too leaves me with data that is all over the place then I might ask for further info, like I did here.
With regards to the 70-200GM, my experience is that rendering and bokeh are larger considerations than sharpness. Again I've never found myself faulting the sharpness of the lens in real world photos. But the GM lenses do have a very flat rendering...I tend to like this for the 85GM, as that's very specifically a portrait lens and that flat rendering leads to more pleasing skin tones and a nice portrait glow. For a more general purpose lens like the GM, I'm not overly fond of the flat rendering. Same with the 24-70GM which is highly regarded for its MTF performance.
Bokeh is not the best, but this tends to be the case with zooms in general...including the Canon 70-200II. If you want pleasing bokeh, it's best to use a prime.
Nov 03, 2017 at 02:24 PM
Previous versions of Mystik's message #14240685 « Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"? »
