04-11-2011, 10:08 AM
[quote name='danida12' timestamp='1302512870' post='7532']
Thanks Klaus for an excellent review. I wanted to question whether the 3.5 star optical rating could have been a 4 (especially considering what the alternatives are) but I decided against it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> , knowing all the caveats around the star ratings <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Were you considering to update the existing APS-C review to a test on the 50D or is it not worth the trouble? Would you expect to see much difference?
[/quote]
I considered to do a retest but the main problem is testing space at the moment. 500mm (FF) are about the finishing line and with the 100-400L we'd have been at 640mm. I'm afraid that for the time being I can only test lenses on APS-C with a max. of 300mm - unless I start testing outdoor again (which is a pain).
However, I reckon that the charts would have looked the same as in the older test.
As for the 3.5* rating - I think it has no tendency towards 4* actually. Remember that these are absolute ratings, not relative ones.
FWIW ... I've just ordered the 300/4L IS & 400/5.6L for testing ...
Thanks Klaus for an excellent review. I wanted to question whether the 3.5 star optical rating could have been a 4 (especially considering what the alternatives are) but I decided against it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> , knowing all the caveats around the star ratings <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> Were you considering to update the existing APS-C review to a test on the 50D or is it not worth the trouble? Would you expect to see much difference?
[/quote]
I considered to do a retest but the main problem is testing space at the moment. 500mm (FF) are about the finishing line and with the 100-400L we'd have been at 640mm. I'm afraid that for the time being I can only test lenses on APS-C with a max. of 300mm - unless I start testing outdoor again (which is a pain).
However, I reckon that the charts would have looked the same as in the older test.
As for the 3.5* rating - I think it has no tendency towards 4* actually. Remember that these are absolute ratings, not relative ones.
FWIW ... I've just ordered the 300/4L IS & 400/5.6L for testing ...