Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Fascinating comparison, thankyou...  (Read 9651 times)

AdrianW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« on: May 15, 2006, 11:28:31 PM »

Maybe I missed it, but I can't seem to find any information regarding which Canon lenses were used for the test?

Apologies if I've simply gone blind, it is 4:30am here ;)
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2006, 11:39:49 PM »

All Canon shots were taken with the Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8.

Michael
Logged

Dan Wells

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2006, 12:50:17 AM »

I know that you were limited by what you had on hand, but I'd love to see the high-res Nikons (D2x and D200) as well as Velvia 35mm in there (maybe in a carefully focused Leica, or a Canon film body with the same lens the digitals used). It looked like the "old" 1Ds came pretty close to Velvia 645, and the 1Ds Mk II at least equaled it. I bet Velvia 35 would have been completely blown away by this crowd. Another interesting addition would be a Hasselblad 500 or 501, to see how the Zeiss lenses compare.
       The reputation of the D200 is that it is pretty similar in resolution to the original 1Ds , with the D2x a bit better - the newer Nikons are supposed to do a bit better per pixel than the three year old Canon. I JUST got a D200 (the first really affordable high-res body), and I can't wait to see what it can do (but we've had unbelievably dreary weather here for the past several days). I have used a lot of scanned MF film, as well as lower resolution digital, and I'm interested to see how well the D200 stacks up against 6x6 - it won't quite get there, but how close will it come?

                                           -Dan
Logged

brucehedge

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2006, 07:52:18 AM »

Wow!! What an amazing task-congrats, Michael and all, -looks like I'll have to sell the house and car to update my 20D, which I'm very happy with. That 100 Canon Macro is quite a lump of glass, though, -it's on the shopping list after a 5D. What's going to happen in the NEXT five years??
Logged

dng88

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2006, 08:14:53 AM »

For people like me who was subscripted to volume 18, no option to renewal further and get a free disk?  Greedy or too loyal?
Logged

AdrianW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2006, 08:22:04 AM »

Quote
All Canon shots were taken with the Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65617\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks :) I'd guessed/hoped as much - that's one of the sharpest lenses Canon make IMO.

Thanks again for your hard work on this and everything else here,

Adrian
Logged

Gary Ferguson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 550
    • http://
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2006, 09:39:12 AM »

What a tremendous exercise, I'll look forward to receiving the DVD and running some prints. However, just based on the LL account I'd make two points.

It was striking just how little difference there was between any of the cameras/backs. Looking at the bank note enlargements I couldn't see that much additional information when comparing the 1Ds or 5D with the 4x5 or P45 or scanning back. I wonder what size the inkjet prints would have to be before these differences became significant?

And secondly, Michael you said,

"The shocker for Bill and me was how well the Hasselblad 50-110mm zoom performed, actually outperforming the 120mm Hasselblad Macro, a theoretically superior lens. Which only goes to show that the evidence of ones eyes are always to be trusted over theory, opinion, and so-called common wisdom."

But when I looked up the MTF curves for these two lenses they predicted that at 80mm and at 110mm in the very centre of the frame the f8 curves for the zoom would be comparable or even slightly superior to the macro lens. Are you saying the zoom still held an advantage out at the edges or fully open?
Logged

michael

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5084
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2006, 10:04:02 AM »

My suggestion is to make that evaluation for yourself when the disk arrives.

Our comment was a general one about the overall performance of the H zoom, not any one particular attribute.

Michael
Logged

Tim Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2002
    • http://www.timgrayphotography.com
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2006, 10:25:47 AM »

What a huge effort - on what is to some extent, a thankless task.    I certainly extend my appreciation for that effort.

I assume that Charles' comment:  

"The conventional wisdom on the net is that the sensors are clearly outperforming available lenses—and I believe the results of these tests contradict that."

is meant to be directed at the non-Canon testing given that only the outstanding 100mm Macro was tested?
Logged

Forsh

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
    • http://www.salonandspa.services
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2006, 06:20:12 PM »

Quote
What a huge effort - on what is to some extent, a thankless task.    I certainly extend my appreciation for that effort.

I assume that Charles' comment: 

"The conventional wisdom on the net is that the sensors are clearly outperforming available lenses—and I believe the results of these tests contradict that."

is meant to be directed at the non-Canon testing given that only the outstanding 100mm Macro was tested?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


How does the macro stack up to the "L" series glass, could the higher-end glass have resolved more detail? How about the 85L, 135L, or 300L, the resolving power of those lenses are so nice.    

Regardless, very informative test, I enjoyed reading it.
Logged
Juvederm in Denver
Juvederm in Littleton
Laser Hair Removal in Denver
Laser Hair Removal in Littleton
Co2 Fractional in Denver
CO2 Fractional in Littleton
Hormone Replacement in Denver
Hormone Replacement in Littleton
Colon Hydrotherapy in Denver
Colon Hydrotherapy in Littleton

AdrianW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 40
Fascinating comparison, thankyou...
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2006, 02:51:08 PM »

Quote
How does the macro stack up to the "L" series glass

Well, I think it's sharpest lens I own, beating all my L-series copies - 17-40 f4/L easily, and the 24-105 IS f4/L, and more significantly I think it just has the edge on my 200 f2.8 L/II - certainly wide open. I can't praise mine enough!
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 02:51:26 PM by AdrianW »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up