On 3/17/2015 5:34 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
Thou dost fret too much. You forgot to read the most important part of Roger's
message:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Does It Mean in the Real World?
Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn't all stink or people wouldn't use them. Like a
lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn't make much difference at all in the real
world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just thinking something similar as I read some lens tests. Now that we have so many folks testing lenses with both
different methods and different ideas about what is most important and what standard is to be aspired to, the
impossibility of both perfect lens and perfect test becomes clearer.
At the extreme, one tester will find a lens stellar because it equals or exceeds others of similar Fl, speed, etc. while
another will say it's only pretty good because it is less than perfect. They are all imperfect, it's only a matter of
degree, how fussy one is willing to be and what is really needed in the end results.
I've been thinking about a wider fast(ish) prime. One tester loves the new Pana/Leica 14/1.7. Another points out all its
rather tiny flaws and is disappointed. One says the Panny 14/2.5 pancake is within a gnat's eyebrow of as sharp overall
as the far larger and more expensive 14/1.7. Another is only impressed with its mediocrity. User reviews are stellar.
What is one to believe?
I believe I'm far more likely to carry and use the pancake one. Just as the camera that's in my hand is better than the
one at home, the lens I use is better than ... So the best lens for me is the one I actually use.
Then there's Panny's new Version II, that now comes in two colors, to match the GM1/5, with the same optics, and makes
the now discounted original a better bargain, and that a 9+ used one at B&H, with price pushed down by the new model, is
better yet. :-)
TOP had a recent thread on µ4/3 focusing speed, with the Panny 20/1.7 as whipping boy. One commenter rated it as slower
than a dead turtle. :-) So why - HOW - could I have been perfectly happy with mine? Must I get rid of it quickly,
before it infects others? Didn't I just post three perfectly fine images taken with it last weekend? Yes, and they were
nicely focused and neither Mike nor I noticed that it was too slow for pics of people in dimish light.
Ah, but wait. Closer reading and casual testing reveal that it focuses faster on come cameras than others. So one tester
is using it on an ancient E-PL1, another on an E-PL5, another on a GX7, and so on. And it's obviously slower on my
E-M5II than GX7, but not quite as fast on a GM1. By enough to matter? Not for my use. And I actually use it most on the
E-PM2.
Everybody used to like the OMZ 21/3.5, including Mike Hatem in his obsessive quest for the best super WA for his FF
Canons. But it has quite pronounced curvature of field as it focuses in closer. Proved by simple close-up shots of a map
here years ago. But here's Frank, quite happy with shots with it and adapter on an A7 with its thick filter pack.
Every lens is imperfect and every user's needs differ. Might one mash up Roger and the
Queen: "Get Over It And Carry On."
ps: Even 50 lines/mm resolution (let alone 80) is very difficult to achieve
unless you're on a rock solid tripod.
I don't know about lines/mm, as so many tests now use line pairs per image height to make meaningful comparisons across
different formats. I do know that the best image stabilization is really competitive with tripods in increasing capture
of fine detail for many uses.
Perfection is Not an Option Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|