PDA

View Full Version : Lens comparison (or review) article



Diane Maher
9-Oct-2009, 05:49
I am curious to know what things people think are appropriate to discuss in an article comparing (or reviewing) two (or more) lenses.

Dave_B
9-Oct-2009, 06:05
Size, weight, focal length, aperture, manufacturer, coatings, contrast, bokeh, price new and used, filter sizes, lens cap sizes, resolution at different apertures and at different places in the image circle, diameter of the image circle at various apertures, age verses serial number, different labels for the same lens, color rendition and how well corrected it might be for various aberrations. This should pretty much cover the information I would find interesting. Others might be more demanding.

IanG
9-Oct-2009, 06:08
Sharpness, contrast, coverage/angle of view, distortion, weight/size, cost, availablity. perhaps also variability (for example 90mm f6.8 90mm Angulon's).

Ian

Diane Maher
9-Oct-2009, 06:15
Size, weight, focal length, aperture, manufacturer, coatings, contrast, bokeh, price new and used, filter sizes, lens cap sizes, resolution at different apertures and at different places in the image circle, diameter of the image circle at various apertures, age verses serial number, different labels for the same lens, color rendition and how well corrected it might be for various aberrations. This should pretty much cover the information I would find interesting. Others might be more demanding.

Wow, that's quite a list! You're pretty demanding. :D

Robert Hughes
9-Oct-2009, 07:48
... and since it's the Internet, I expect it for free...

Oh, and by the way - I need it today!

Dan Fromm
9-Oct-2009, 08:07
Don't forget to describe your test procedures/criteria.

If you do the nitpickers will nibble you to death, if you don't you'll be dismissed as too subjective for words. On the whole, its better to make what you did and why as clear as possible.

Bob Salomon
9-Oct-2009, 09:23
Don't forget to describe your test procedures/criteria.

If you do the nitpickers will nibble you to death, if you don't you'll be dismissed as too subjective for words. On the whole, its better to make what you did and why as clear as possible.

And the variables. Lighting, atmospheric conditions, how many different emulsions used, processing time, temperature, developer, state of developer, what type of loupe, morning, afternoon or evening when examined, all at the same time of day, etc.

There are so many variables that this type of testing is not what lens and camera manufacturers use.

Also, what is the target? A chart or a scene? If a chart was the lens made to reproduce charts or scenes? If a scene, how do you maintain consistency from scene to scene?

The best test is to take the lenses you want to test and go photograph whatever you plan to use them for and the film that you plan to use and shoot with all of them at the same relative time so you have a direct comparison between them.
Or consult the manufacturer's MTF, color and distortion curves, if they are available for the lenses that you are interested in.

Mark Sawyer
9-Oct-2009, 09:59
For a review of older portrait lenses (Verito, Imagon, you know the list...) I'd like to see the results of making similar images at several f/stops per lens. But it would take very good reproductions to fully appreciate some of the nuances.

I think the group that uses these lenses has shown that we don't care too terribly much about size, weight, coatings, contrast, resolution in lppm, price ( :eek: :eek: :eek: ), and many of the other "standard" criteria...

For more standard lenses, an interesting review would be to compare a few convertible lenses in all their configurations against well-known dedicated lenses at those focal lengths.

pocketfulladoubles
9-Oct-2009, 10:04
MTF curve. I'm a dork and I know MTF isn't the end-all be-all, but I quickly close a test report that doesn't give MTF data and distortion test data. I like grids and curves.

Bob Salomon
9-Oct-2009, 10:05
For a review of older portrait lenses (Verito, Imagon, you know the list...) I'd like to see the results of making similar images at several f/stops per lens. But it would take very good reproductions to fully appreciate some of the nuances.


The Imagon uses T/stops not f/stops.

Mark Sawyer
9-Oct-2009, 10:06
The Imagon uses T/stops not f/stops.

Picky, picky, picky! ;)

(Although I thought they were H-stops...)

8x10 user
9-Oct-2009, 12:13
I thought they were called H-stops?


The Imagon uses T/stops not f/stops.

Bob Salomon
9-Oct-2009, 12:27
I thought they were called H-stops?

Right you are, sorry.

Paul Fitzgerald
9-Oct-2009, 18:48
"I am curious to know what things people think are appropriate to discuss in an article comparing (or reviewing) two (or more) lenses."

None of the above, it's all pointless high school hot-rod bench racing unless MY favorite lens wins.

Mark Sawyer
10-Oct-2009, 00:12
None of the above, it's all pointless high school hot-rod bench racing unless MY favorite lens wins.

My favorite lens can beat your favorite lens...

Robert A. Zeichner
10-Oct-2009, 03:58
When testing either with charts or subjects, it is vital that you utilize an efficient lens shade designed to eliminate non-image forming light from striking the glass. If you don't, your results will be skewed depending on how much flare the test lenses have (and non-coated or old single coated ones have plenty).

jeroldharter
10-Oct-2009, 06:17
Until you have the time to do all of the technical testing, I would like to see practical testing. For example, take the commonly available 150mm lenses for 4x5 and take a landscape shot, a mid-distance people shot, and a close up for each one. Have a good printer print straight prints and post them for others to judge along with comments from the tester. Use a standard film like Kodak or Ilford brand and a common developer like D76 or Xtol.

I think the review should answer the basic question that is posted on the forum: Which 150mm lenses should I consider buying? The usual answer is Nikkor, Rodenstock (Caltar) Fujinon, Schneider are all about the same and others chime in that old lenses with weird shutters that cost $50 are just as good. So I would like to know if it really makes any difference what lens you use among the typical options.

In my experience any of the modern lenses from the main 4 companies are excellent and the only relevant variables are coverage, size/weight, cost, and filter size. I would be interested if that could be refuted.

I would also like to see a comparison of a true macro lens compared to a similar focal length regular lens when taking close-ups.

IanG
10-Oct-2009, 07:29
I would also like to see a comparison of a true macro lens compared to a similar focal length regular lens when taking close-ups.

Echoing that I'd like to see a proper objective comparison of G-Claron's against the equivalent Symmar's, looking art things like spherical distortion sharpness, in practical use.

Ian

Bob Salomon
10-Oct-2009, 13:25
"the only relevant variables are coverage, size/weight, cost, and filter size. I would be interested if that could be refuted."

And contrast and flare control which result in better sharpness and color saturation.