If this question sounds interesting to you, go to:
http://www.wolfgangsteiner.com/blog-do-show-blogid-25.html
Regards
Wolfgang
http://www.wolfgangsteiner.com/blog-do-show-blogid-25.html
Regards
Wolfgang
But going by price value of the lenses..
the 50mm f1.8 would win top honours IMHO.
Maybe, but that was not the question.
Would this test be fundamentally flawed? The problem is that the tested lenses are all of a different focal length and then cropped to the same framing, therefore each image is "different" in the amount of resolution it represents.
You also shot trees - would an incidental breeze cause movement of the subject that varies from shot to shot?
Lastly I note that you used a fair spread of aperture settings F/4 to F/11. Is it appropriate to compare across such a wide variety of F-stops?
Ultimately, is the point of your post leading to the conclusion that the lens that you got for a great price is better than other lenses out there?
@r32,
you are absolutly right, the differnet lens have differnet focal lengths and thereof I had to crop all the images except the 85mm for better viewing, but thats not a problem at all.
That the tree are moving doesnt disturb me either because there is a roof from a house inside and there you can check the qualitly and sharpness easyly.
For sure you must test every lens with its best aperture. For example: The 85mm f/1.4 perfoms outstanding at f/5.6, but is very poor at f/11.0. And the EL-Nikkor is perfect only at f/11.0. So what should I do... forget about those lens specific details?
I don't understand what the test is trying to drive at..If this question sounds interesting to you, go to:
http://www.wolfgangsteiner.com/blog-do-show-blogid-25.html
Regards
Wolfgang
Looks like you are a very funny guy? Will see when I' next time in Singapore (June 2007) and meet teerex and the gang if you still that funny when looking in my eyes...? Not same you I'm a professional photographer.
No. I was questioning if it's fair to compare a full sized image with a cropped image, even if you downsize, the inherent resolution at the sensor plane is different. To put it like that means you're trying to say that the lenses have infinite resolution. I don't need 1000mm lenses anymore because if I mount it to a smaller CCD, I would be able to use a 50mm lens as a 1000mm lens. Yes? No, because the 50mm lens is not designed to give so much resolution over a small cropped area.@Isisaxon,
if somebody dont want to understand its absolutly impossible to discribe it for him.
Resizeing or cropping doesnt make a picture sharper, or not? But because many people dont realize that my test is quite repeatable I will post 100% crops from the middle of every picture today.
Then you will not be able to fret about such a small uninteresting detail.
Your question about the focussing from the 63mm shows me that you didnt read, or understand what I wrote.
regards
Wolfgang
I think the 50mm looks sharper. no? This is quite a surprise also. :thumbsup: the 100% crop seems is a fairer test.now there are 100% crops with the size 730x488 pixel under every picture. Saved with 100% quality!
Hope that all of you are happy now...
But the 63mm is still the winner
http://www.wolfgangsteiner.com/blog-do-show-blogid-26.html
eh, AF60mm micro f2.8D is not included in the test?
that is the sharpest Nikkor ever made. :thumbsup:
u plo i oso plo leh! :bsmilie:
Hmmmmm.... wonders...