03-10-2011, 03:52 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299770152' post='6656']
Hmm? Klaus somehow does not agree that the 35mm f1.4 from Nikon is a weaker performer. See the thread about that lens in particular.
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/702-next-pz-lens-test-report-nikon-af-s-35mm-f14-g-fx/"]http://forum.photozo...-35mm-f14-g-fx/[/url]
As I noted, the lens (nikon 35mm f1.4) shows weaker results in a number of areas than the Canon 35mm f1.4, with the corner sharpness being better wide open with the Nikon. I don't know how you arrive for yourself to the conclusion that the Canon offering is "definitely" weaker, one thing we know and that is that Markus (and Klaus) do not do side by side comparisons.
As for genotypewriter, yes he can be provocative. But about his test shots, those are honest and matter of fact, although limited in scope. It can not get better, comparison wise, than he does: Same camera body, NO PP after a basic conversion with no sharpening in the same converter.
His wide open test shows, wide open, the lenses not to be very different sharpness wise, with a slight advantage to the Canon. Other tests seem to show the same trend: both lenses are sharp for 85mm large aperture ones. There is not even a shread of evidence to make one think genotypewriter's simple tests are in any way not honest.
Markus stated his tests show something totally different from what genotypewriter's show. I wonder what difference they show, as Markus does not compare the lenses. And genotypewriter's test did not show ANYTHING strange about the Nikon.
We can't even compare the results from Klaus and from Markus, see the strange CA measurement differences when testing the exact same lens sample (Zeiss 35mm f2). The difference can NOT lay in the different bodies, as the D3x, due to its a bit higher resolution, should show slightly higher CA instead of less. So... we see that there are differences between when Klaus tests a lens, and when Markus does. Keep this in mind when evaluating lenses from the different "platforms".
Anyway, I am sure Markus will find the lens a very good lens (which it is), and that in no way contradicts what genotypewriter's wide open test shows. And probably Markus will again rate the lens a bit higher than Klaus would have done.
[/quote]
Markus and I are, of course, often debating about specific ratings but I'm afraid that you're seeing a dissent although there is none (or at least very little - we are humans, of course). A primary misconception is probably that you assume that the MTFs and CAs are the primary weights in the final verdict. They're heavy, of course, but they're still only part of a global picture.
Anyway, I would suggest that just stop this endless C vs N debate. It just leads nowhere. As mentioned many times the brand differences are really minor with outliers on a local basis only. So please ...
Hmm? Klaus somehow does not agree that the 35mm f1.4 from Nikon is a weaker performer. See the thread about that lens in particular.
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/702-next-pz-lens-test-report-nikon-af-s-35mm-f14-g-fx/"]http://forum.photozo...-35mm-f14-g-fx/[/url]
As I noted, the lens (nikon 35mm f1.4) shows weaker results in a number of areas than the Canon 35mm f1.4, with the corner sharpness being better wide open with the Nikon. I don't know how you arrive for yourself to the conclusion that the Canon offering is "definitely" weaker, one thing we know and that is that Markus (and Klaus) do not do side by side comparisons.
As for genotypewriter, yes he can be provocative. But about his test shots, those are honest and matter of fact, although limited in scope. It can not get better, comparison wise, than he does: Same camera body, NO PP after a basic conversion with no sharpening in the same converter.
His wide open test shows, wide open, the lenses not to be very different sharpness wise, with a slight advantage to the Canon. Other tests seem to show the same trend: both lenses are sharp for 85mm large aperture ones. There is not even a shread of evidence to make one think genotypewriter's simple tests are in any way not honest.
Markus stated his tests show something totally different from what genotypewriter's show. I wonder what difference they show, as Markus does not compare the lenses. And genotypewriter's test did not show ANYTHING strange about the Nikon.
We can't even compare the results from Klaus and from Markus, see the strange CA measurement differences when testing the exact same lens sample (Zeiss 35mm f2). The difference can NOT lay in the different bodies, as the D3x, due to its a bit higher resolution, should show slightly higher CA instead of less. So... we see that there are differences between when Klaus tests a lens, and when Markus does. Keep this in mind when evaluating lenses from the different "platforms".
Anyway, I am sure Markus will find the lens a very good lens (which it is), and that in no way contradicts what genotypewriter's wide open test shows. And probably Markus will again rate the lens a bit higher than Klaus would have done.
[/quote]
Markus and I are, of course, often debating about specific ratings but I'm afraid that you're seeing a dissent although there is none (or at least very little - we are humans, of course). A primary misconception is probably that you assume that the MTFs and CAs are the primary weights in the final verdict. They're heavy, of course, but they're still only part of a global picture.
Anyway, I would suggest that just stop this endless C vs N debate. It just leads nowhere. As mentioned many times the brand differences are really minor with outliers on a local basis only. So please ...