semla Posted January 11, 2011 Share #21 Posted January 11, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank you Olsen and Jerry_R for the links. One thing I see in the link from Jerry_R (Optyczne.pl): EF 16-35L II has only been measured with APS-C sensor (43-45 lpmm) EF 85L has same sharpness as EF 16-35L II at f5.6 in the center on APS-C sensor. Full frame sensor result are similar at f5.6. EF 35L only has result on full frame which is similar to EF 16-35L II on APS-C. WATE has not been tested. Zeiss lenses for Canon show similar results at f5.6. EF 50L shows higher result on APS-C than with full frame. Leica lenses tested on Olympus APS-C or M9 show result above 50 lpmm at f5.6. Quoting from review of EF 50L: "Now let’s consult the photos from the EOS 1Ds MkIII. It’s worth reminding that, because of smaller pixels density, the MTFs are lower here." So the MTF result are effected by pixel density. In the review of summicron-m 50 they write: "We can clearly see that MTF50 values registered by Leica are about 15% higher than those that we can get on 1Ds MkIII or D3x. It’s not because we’re comparing behavior on expensive and sharp Summicron and cheap Sigma 70 mm f/2.8. First of all, Sigma 70 mm is a good and very sharp lens, second of all, the comparison is conducted at apertures not limited by optical aberrations, but diffraction, so all the differences in MTFs are a result not of optics’, but of the sensor’s work. The conclusion is one. The difference between the results obtained on M9 and those generated by full-frame DSLRs is large, making comparisons between the systems not easy. Fortunately, DSLRs with smaller sensors come to rescue, something we’ll write more about in the chapter." Overall, I f***ing give up. It reminds me of audiophiles debating on which audio component has "best" sound. Sound can be seen as signals in one-dimension. Image as signals in two-dimensions, making it even more complicated. I'll set a "this-quality-is-good-enough-for-me" and keep my sanity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 11, 2011 Posted January 11, 2011 Hi semla, Take a look here M9 w/WATE - 1Ds III w/16-35 mm 2,8L II. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted January 14, 2011 Share #22 Posted January 14, 2011 I did not find any of the tests above instructive. I think it is best to 1)compare MTF charts and 2)systematic tests with the same source. Like Sean Reid Welcome to ReidReviews who I can recommend. He has made a very thorough test of the WATE on M8, at least. Or Castleman: Photography Equipment Reviews Leica has a very good file of MTF charts available on all their lenses. You can download the WATE specifications here: Leica Camera AG - Photography - LEICA TRI-ELMAR-M 16-18-21 mm f/4 ASPH. Canon's MTF charts you can find here: Technical report | List of reports on exhibit According to Erwin Puts in his Lens Compendium there is no way one can compare MTF curves across different manufacturers and not even between lenses of different focal length of one maker Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 14, 2011 Share #23 Posted January 14, 2011 The other thing is that if you are using pictures like this to have a serious discussion about comparing lenses, then I wouldn't even worry about it. Really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.