12-16-2010, 03:38 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1292402041' post='4997']
You're, of course, right that the difference is not overly significant at comparable apertures.
[/quote]
Umm... not sure what you mean by this in the conclusion then:
The Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 SSM may not be as fast as its Canon and Nikon counterparts but it's capable of delivering a substantially better image quality at comparable aperture settings.
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
My only gripe is with how you guys do your corner crops. In my experience, the 24LII is sharper in the corners than the 24 1.4G:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415
![[Image: 4698284415_53ecb51f01_m.jpg]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4698284415_53ecb51f01_m.jpg)
But apparently the way you choose your "extreme borders" more extreme than mine accounts for the photozone results. But as I explained about... what is the meaning of the [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/lens-test-faq"]photozone borders[/url] if they account only for a very small area of the image frame?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/5207301499
![[Image: 5207301499_ed6d40dd74_m.jpg]](http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5282/5207301499_ed6d40dd74_m.jpg)
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1292457531' post='5026']
The Canon received 3pts optical & 4pts field, the Zeiss got 3.75pts total.
The field rating does take your argumentation into account actually.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong here.
[/quote]
In regards to that, I understand where you're coming from... people want reviews to give hard conclusions when the results are shown right in front of their eyes. If there's no rating or ranking, many are unhappy because there are a lot of people out there who much rather rely on someone else telling them what's good instead of using their judgment and standing behind it. But if you're really going to give numbers for the ratings, you should have a proper definition of what they mean.
Honestly I can't see how a single number ("optical quality") can describe distortions at different focal lengths, vignetting at different apertures, absolute sharpness and its distribution at different apertures and focal lengths, LoCA and CA at different apertures and focal lengths, bokeh, etc. in a way that's fully consistent and comparable across lenses. So why give it at all?
GTW
You're, of course, right that the difference is not overly significant at comparable apertures.
[/quote]
Umm... not sure what you mean by this in the conclusion then:
The Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 SSM may not be as fast as its Canon and Nikon counterparts but it's capable of delivering a substantially better image quality at comparable aperture settings.
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />My only gripe is with how you guys do your corner crops. In my experience, the 24LII is sharper in the corners than the 24 1.4G:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415
But apparently the way you choose your "extreme borders" more extreme than mine accounts for the photozone results. But as I explained about... what is the meaning of the [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/lens-test-faq"]photozone borders[/url] if they account only for a very small area of the image frame?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/5207301499
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1292457531' post='5026']
The Canon received 3pts optical & 4pts field, the Zeiss got 3.75pts total.
The field rating does take your argumentation into account actually.
Frankly I don't see anything wrong here.
[/quote]
In regards to that, I understand where you're coming from... people want reviews to give hard conclusions when the results are shown right in front of their eyes. If there's no rating or ranking, many are unhappy because there are a lot of people out there who much rather rely on someone else telling them what's good instead of using their judgment and standing behind it. But if you're really going to give numbers for the ratings, you should have a proper definition of what they mean.
Honestly I can't see how a single number ("optical quality") can describe distortions at different focal lengths, vignetting at different apertures, absolute sharpness and its distribution at different apertures and focal lengths, LoCA and CA at different apertures and focal lengths, bokeh, etc. in a way that's fully consistent and comparable across lenses. So why give it at all?
GTW