11-08-2011, 01:28 PM
Studor13 --
You could work with mst or klaus and shoot some test charts and email them (full raw). While the results might not be definitive it would allow them to gauge the results relative to the lens sample they used.
the other thing is that photozone scores are mostly about edge to edge resolution and vignetting with a touch on bokeh and flare for a given camera. We can argue all day long about subjective aspect of lenses (some are perhaps measurable but in non trivial fashions) but to a degree it seems irrelevant. What I mean by that is this is the scale the site uses and as long as it is consistent there is little room for argument beyond whether they are or are not tan appropriate metric for yourself.
-
I.e, what you seem to be debating is if their method of evaluation has meaning for yourself.
-
We have indeed enter a weird state; where a 5* lens can become a 1* lens as the body changes (historically colour film had a much narrower range in lpm; I specified colour film because if we throw in b&w and slide films there too you can find a much larger diversity).
Where as today pixel density can change every couple of years by a substantial amount starting at around 5mp in 2000 to 24mp today (non-full frame). In a few more years one could expect further improvements (though it does appear that the rate is slowing).
Anyways, while your provided pictures are quite lovely they also appear (even in the reduced size provided) to be a bit soft. Does this make them bad pictures. Of course not. Personally I have at least one favorite lens that does not test that well (it is very sharp in the center but less so at the edge) and while another lens i have clinically sharper for whatever reasons I have never particularly care for it. However, that does not mean one lens is better than the other - just a personal preference.
You could work with mst or klaus and shoot some test charts and email them (full raw). While the results might not be definitive it would allow them to gauge the results relative to the lens sample they used.
the other thing is that photozone scores are mostly about edge to edge resolution and vignetting with a touch on bokeh and flare for a given camera. We can argue all day long about subjective aspect of lenses (some are perhaps measurable but in non trivial fashions) but to a degree it seems irrelevant. What I mean by that is this is the scale the site uses and as long as it is consistent there is little room for argument beyond whether they are or are not tan appropriate metric for yourself.
-
I.e, what you seem to be debating is if their method of evaluation has meaning for yourself.
-
We have indeed enter a weird state; where a 5* lens can become a 1* lens as the body changes (historically colour film had a much narrower range in lpm; I specified colour film because if we throw in b&w and slide films there too you can find a much larger diversity).
Where as today pixel density can change every couple of years by a substantial amount starting at around 5mp in 2000 to 24mp today (non-full frame). In a few more years one could expect further improvements (though it does appear that the rate is slowing).
Anyways, while your provided pictures are quite lovely they also appear (even in the reduced size provided) to be a bit soft. Does this make them bad pictures. Of course not. Personally I have at least one favorite lens that does not test that well (it is very sharp in the center but less so at the edge) and while another lens i have clinically sharper for whatever reasons I have never particularly care for it. However, that does not mean one lens is better than the other - just a personal preference.