Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Sigma AF 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC HSM OS
#1
A mix of interesting strengths and disappointing weaknesses:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...18502845os



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#2
Quote:Both the zoom and the focus ring work in "Canon" style, which is the exact opposite of how these rings work on Nikkor lenses.

From the image, the zoom ring is "backwards" for me as a Canon user, so isn't that the right way for Nikon? The focus markings do look Canon direction.



Looks like the lens could have been great if the border performance on the wide end wasn't so extreme at the edges that stopping down doesn't help much.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#3
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1312737378' post='10458']

From the image, the zoom ring is "backwards" for me as a Canon user, so isn't that the right way for Nikon? The focus markings do look Canon direction.[/quote]



Oops, sorry, you're of course right. Thanks for mentioning, it's already corrected.



[quote name='popo' timestamp='1312737378' post='10458']

Looks like the lens could have been great if the border performance on the wide end wasn't so extreme at the edges that stopping down doesn't help much.

[/quote]



Yep. It's a pity somehow. On the other hand: if you don't mind the poor borders, it's still a very good option for beginners or as everyday/walk-around lens.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#4
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1312734975' post='10455']

A mix of interesting strengths and disappointing weaknesses:



http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikk...18502845os



-- Markus

[/quote]



Markus,



Your Sample Galleries are really starting to undermine the whole testing process.



No matter how bad the lenses are in the objective testing you seem to get great sample images from them. Therefore there must be a problem in either the testing procedure or your sample images. Since the objective testing cannot be wrong, we must conclude that the problem is with your photos.



Therefore there must be something wrong with your technique to be able to produce good sample photos every time!



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
#5
[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1312829907' post='10518']

Markus,



Your Sample Galleries are really starting to undermine the whole testing process.



No matter how bad the lenses are in the objective testing you seem to get great sample images from them. Therefore there must be a problem in either the testing procedure or your sample images. Since the objective testing cannot be wrong, we must conclude that the problem is with your photos.



Therefore there must be something wrong with your technique to be able to produce good sample photos every time!



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[/quote]



We'll always loose anyway here. There're two options:

1. show the images that reflect the rating

2. show the images that reflect how you use the lens in the field (in this case - stopped down images)



I onced dared to do (1) with an Canon L lens and the review was immediately criticized that nobody would use the lens like this. Thereafter we followed (2) which is not perfect in the way you mentioned.





#6
Personally I look for wide open performance first in samples before looking at stop down samples. Is there any lens that does worse stopped down than wide open? Excluding diffraction limiting that is. Wide open will show you the worst case, and it can only get better from there. If you after a fast lens, you want to see how it performs with that fastness otherwise you can go slower to start with. And if you go slow, you're more likely to use it wide open anyway.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#7
[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1312829907' post='10518']

Markus,



Your Sample Galleries are really starting to undermine the whole testing process.



No matter how bad the lenses are in the objective testing you seem to get great sample images from them. Therefore there must be a problem in either the testing procedure or your sample images. Since the objective testing cannot be wrong, we must conclude that the problem is with your photos.



Therefore there must be something wrong with your technique to be able to produce good sample photos every time!



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[/quote]





[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1312830939' post='10521']

We'll always loose anyway here. There're two options:

1. show the images that reflect the rating

2. show the images that reflect how you use the lens in the field (in this case - stopped down images)



I onced dared to do (1) with an Canon L lens and the review was immediately criticized that nobody would use the lens like this. Thereafter we followed (2) which is not perfect in the way you mentioned.

[/quote]



Sorry, I was just making a poor joke. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />



Actually, I was trying to compliment Markus' photographic skills. When I see good photos like his samples, even from weak lenses, it's a reminder that it's about the photographer and not the equipment and that I spend too much time looking at the data and not enough time shooting!



(And plenty of wide-open sample images with this particular lens.)



But if it's about the photographer, not the equipment, then what I am doing hanging out here? Therefore, I need to convince myself that it's about the equipment and not the photographer. So, Markus' photos are clearly too decent and therefore must have some problem. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />
#8
Thanks, Dave.



[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1312833464' post='10527']

it's a reminder that it's about the photographer and not the equipment and that I spend too much time looking at the data and not enough time shooting!

[/quote]



Actually that's the essence of what I have learned especially in the recent two years doing these reviews. Being out in the field actually using the lenses is the fun part of the review work (for me) and I have shot quite a few personal keepers with "crappy" lenses. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate a really good lens, but I'm less of a gear head than I used to be a two or three years ago.



Just one note regarding the technical quality of the sample images: I use Capture One to convert these images and I sometimes wish I had chosen something else. C1 does a tremendous job of extracting details from raw images, many images that look a bit soft in Aperture or LR look a lot better in C1. Thus perceived sharpness is usually higher than low MTF rating would lead you to expect.



However, to retain comparability, I will continue to use C1 for the samples.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#9
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1312841301' post='10533']

Thanks, Dave.







Actually that's the essence of what I have learned especially in the recent two years doing these reviews. Being out in the field actually using the lenses is the fun part of the review work (for me) and I have shot quite a few personal keepers with "crappy" lenses. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate a really good lens, but I'm less of a gear head than I used to be a two or three years ago.



Just one note regarding the technical quality of the sample images: I use Capture One to convert these images and I sometimes wish I had chosen something else. C1 does a tremendous job of extracting details from raw images, many images that look a bit soft in Aperture or LR look a lot better in C1. Thus perceived sharpness is usually higher than low MTF rating would lead you to expect.



However, to retain comparability, I will continue to use C1 for the samples.



-- Markus

[/quote]



Yep, I saw your comments in another thread about the CZ 25/2.8 and how much you were enjoying it in the field, despite the weaknesses in the test results. I've heard other users of that lens rave about it as well.



Another instance recently that was interesting to me, was that in the Pentax forums I've seen some good-to-great sample photos coming from the DA 18-135mm lens even wide-open and at the tele-end, not what I was expecting to see based on the test results. Even Klaus' one wide-open sample photo from that tele end of that lens, it looked better than expected after reading the graphs.



Interesting note about C1. Your images definitely have a lot of good 'pop' (contrast, sharpness).



Interesting stuff to contemplate.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)