Is there a particular reason why the content of this article wasn't split in two different articles? Part 1 and part 2 are barely related to each other
. That would have made one more article on Lula, which is direly needed these days.
Also, I can't say that I am too thrilled about the methodology of the lens test so far. Landscape photographers would be more interested in performance at infinity (centre/mid-field/corners) and detailed analysis of field curvature. Some lenses without floating elements groups perform badly at close distance and will be incorrectly classified as not OK in such a comparison. Obviously, if one only ever shoot 3 feet in front of the camera, then I understand the itch
. In that case, how about a comparison of macro lenses?
Such tests should be done without sharpening applied, otherwise there is no point in the comparison. Theoretically, the capture sharpening in DxO Photolab is specific to each lens and
could equalise things, but this would need to be researched before being put to use. No sharpening is a safer, uncontroversial bet.
About that Sony FE 135 GM, for the reasons stated above, I would rather believe Roger Cicala since he does his tests at infinity, also off-axis and on several samples of the lens. That is still the most useful kind of test, along with those made by Fred Miranda or Lloyd Chambers.
Tests should not be restricted to sharpness only. Flare resistance, bokeh, sunstars, vignetting, distortion, chromatic aberrations and coma should be tested as well. Given the other sources for such tests, some of them free, I wonder what Lula is trying to achieve by doing another row of tests?
Cheers,
Fabien