Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Early September News and the start of the Great Luminous Landscape Lens Test  (Read 290 times)

FabienP

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 192

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  ;D. 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
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3383
    • Pieter Kers

I think it is difficult to do a proper lens test: the treetrunktest is really a poor choice i think and a very restricted one.
There are already so many testsites and some do a good job.  It is not clear to me what this test will add or do better.
But it is obvious it will take a lot of effort to do it better than all the others. It would be a good choice to stick to landscapephotography as it suits this site and to narrow down on the specific qualities a lens needs to have for that purpose.
So what Fabien says: how is the quality near infinity and how about the curvature of the sharpness. That is something many testsites do not test well, or at all, and is important.
Then with many lenses the sharpness curve changes with the aperture. Never tested, but important.
An other interesting angle would be to have a photographer talk about the lens he likes best and why. The technical aspect will loose terrain and more artistic and other qualities take over.

Logged

Joe S

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 100

I would like to add that tests at f4, which is maximum aperture for some of the lens, has no relevance to my photography.   Lens testers love it, and it shows maximum faults of lesser lens, but is not helpful for actual photography as I practice it.   How about comparisons at f8-11.
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3368

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  ;D. 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

+1.

I think taking a picture of a wood pile at close distance nearly worthless as a lens test. There are two many variables which are not taken into account. I would not take the trouble to read any such lens test reports.
 
I am surprised that Dan Wells, who I previously thought was a serious person, would suggest such testing.

Bill
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up