zeitlos wrote:
To see how insubstantial the claims made are you just have to look at the second picture where there even are no comic characters/other eyes in sight. Next check where it's sharp... Not the eyes, not the character's eyes... "lovely" front focus.
Actually focus is fairly hard to tell in that picture as there is obvious motion blur. That one does seem to front focus, but again if you are going to evaluate a lens hand held you really should be shooting it at a shutter speed that prevents motion blur. Let's distinguish between strong evidence and weak evidence. These pictures are at best weak evidence as they are not shot in a way that allows proper evaluation of the lens. If you hang around this forum for longer than two weeks you will see there are lots of tests of lenses and there is an expectation that when people present pictures to evaluate a lens they will get the basic right or at least acknowledge that they didn't get the basic right and that makes it a lot harder to draw inferences from the pictures. These shots did not get the basic right neither in shutter speed nor in the color space that was used to post the images. There is a bit higher standard around here for tests and if you are going to post and hang around here you should get to know what those standards are. I'm not saying people can't post pictures taken in less than perfect conditions or with less than perfect technique. It is just when they do, they need to acknowledge that if they want us to use those pictures to evaluate a lens.
Nov 16, 2018 at 05:11 PM
Previous versions of Steve Spencer's message #14665898 « Pre-order: Zeiss Batis 40mm f/2 CF ($1,299) »
