03-08-2011, 02:13 PM
[quote name='curriguy' timestamp='1298579882' post='6333']
I'm sorry - to be clear I was paraphrasing. They don't call it dismal. That is not a quote.
But, nevertheless, they DO consider lenses tested on the Canon 20D that perform below 30lpmm "unusable".... and, in their test, the Tokina was tested on the Canon 20D.
From their FAQ:
"The oldest tests on the Optyczne.pl were performed on an 8-megapixel sensor of a Canon EOS 20D. In its case the best “primes†reach results near 45 lpmm and when you stop them down to f/16 the resolution decreases to the level a tad above 30 lpmm. That last value is deemed to be the decency borderline."
From their review of the Canon 18-55mm (also tested on the Canon 20D):
"at the maximum aperture, the Canon just exceeds the 30 lpmm decency"
Most tellingly, from their review of the Canon 15-85 (also tested on the Canon 20D):
"Usually, to acknowledge that the lens isn’t bad we require that it reach over 30 lpmm at the maximum aperture, and 40 lpmm at the sharpest apertures."
Edit: Just for the record, I hope this isn't something controversial. I'm just trying to rationalize the differences between the two review sites. Its clear to me that lens testing is complicated stuff - and I guess subtle changes in HOW you test can sometimes lead top opposite conclusions - both of which are based in truth. I guess I'm just looking for an expert's insight into all this. Thanks again for any help
[/quote]
I think you are misinterpreting what they mean. When they say they, "require that it reach over 30 lpmm", I think they mean in the centre of the lens. One expects the centre to be far sharper than the edges but having the edges close to acceptable centre quality is surely the mark of a very good lens!
Allan
I'm sorry - to be clear I was paraphrasing. They don't call it dismal. That is not a quote.
But, nevertheless, they DO consider lenses tested on the Canon 20D that perform below 30lpmm "unusable".... and, in their test, the Tokina was tested on the Canon 20D.
From their FAQ:
"The oldest tests on the Optyczne.pl were performed on an 8-megapixel sensor of a Canon EOS 20D. In its case the best “primes†reach results near 45 lpmm and when you stop them down to f/16 the resolution decreases to the level a tad above 30 lpmm. That last value is deemed to be the decency borderline."
From their review of the Canon 18-55mm (also tested on the Canon 20D):
"at the maximum aperture, the Canon just exceeds the 30 lpmm decency"
Most tellingly, from their review of the Canon 15-85 (also tested on the Canon 20D):
"Usually, to acknowledge that the lens isn’t bad we require that it reach over 30 lpmm at the maximum aperture, and 40 lpmm at the sharpest apertures."
Edit: Just for the record, I hope this isn't something controversial. I'm just trying to rationalize the differences between the two review sites. Its clear to me that lens testing is complicated stuff - and I guess subtle changes in HOW you test can sometimes lead top opposite conclusions - both of which are based in truth. I guess I'm just looking for an expert's insight into all this. Thanks again for any help
[/quote]
I think you are misinterpreting what they mean. When they say they, "require that it reach over 30 lpmm", I think they mean in the centre of the lens. One expects the centre to be far sharper than the edges but having the edges close to acceptable centre quality is surely the mark of a very good lens!
Allan