Lens comparison (or review) article

[Diane Maher]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Robert Hughes]

... and since it's the Internet, I expect it for free...

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

[Dan Fromm]

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]

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]

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 ( ), 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]

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]

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.