06-20-2012, 08:28 AM
Well,
I personally find the resolution chart of all 60,90,100,105,150mm Macros boring. They all are excellent.
The question is - does this lens brakes the record or is just another excellent in term of resolution lens.
The difference between them are
- features - VR/IS/OS, constant length, working distance
- build quality
- CA
- loCA
- bokey
- flare glare resistance - the "Achilles hill" of those macros. E.g there is a big difference between Tokina 100macro and Sigma 150 non OS macro. Canon 100 non IS is somewhere in between. Unfortunately this parameter is difficult to measure in scientific way. The easiest way is to get lens and use it for a while. That is actuaqly the biggest diference between canon and nikon reviews. Markus shares real life experience while canon reviews are mostly scientific based.
That is why I prefer to read PZ Nikon reviews, even if I'm Canon user.
I personally find the resolution chart of all 60,90,100,105,150mm Macros boring. They all are excellent.
The question is - does this lens brakes the record or is just another excellent in term of resolution lens.
The difference between them are
- features - VR/IS/OS, constant length, working distance
- build quality
- CA
- loCA
- bokey
- flare glare resistance - the "Achilles hill" of those macros. E.g there is a big difference between Tokina 100macro and Sigma 150 non OS macro. Canon 100 non IS is somewhere in between. Unfortunately this parameter is difficult to measure in scientific way. The easiest way is to get lens and use it for a while. That is actuaqly the biggest diference between canon and nikon reviews. Markus shares real life experience while canon reviews are mostly scientific based.
That is why I prefer to read PZ Nikon reviews, even if I'm Canon user.