Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lokatz" data-source="post: 644278" data-attributes="member: 43924">If you honestly believe that the variance between different copies of the same lens type is huge across all makes and lenses, then why do we even have this Nikonites forum?  All we would do is disagree with each other because some of us have good copies, some have mediocre ones, and some have terrible ones.The reality is that we have pretty strong agreement for the most part that certain lenses are good, even excellent, and that others are rather poor.  Where it gets dicey is in those areas where we disagree.Historically, variance between different copies of the same lens used to be a big issue across the whole photo industry.  Over time, Nikon, Canon, and a few others earned a better reputation in this field, while Tamron/Sigma/Tokina were still considered poor.  Lately, those three makes, especially Sigma and Tamron, have caught up quite a bit in make quality, which always reduces variance.There are certain lenses where it is still known that variance is a pretty big issue.  For one, that applies to large lenses.  Nikon's 200-500, for example, has an apparently well-earned reputation of coming in astoundingly sharp or not-so-sharp form.  The same goes for Sigma's and Tamron's 150-600 versions.  For all of those, the size of the lens, plus the cost of materials, which requires less sturdy materials than what is used for high-end tele primes and enforces some compromises, are probably at fault.  Cost (= quality) of materials is also at the heart of cheap lenses being likelier to show variance than expensive ones.  In most cases, variance does not take a lens from lousy to fantastic, though - unless a company has very poor control over their manufacturing process, the range of variance will be much smaller than that.So, yes, there are lenses where variance is an issue (noticed that I said so in my initial post?), and you are probably right that nobody tests a sufficiently large number of lenses to cover all of those cases.  IMHO, however, you are wrong in making a broad statement that renders all such testing irrelevant.  Comparative testing under repetitive conditions is FAR better than looking at single images and saying "Look how sharp this is!", as you did in your previous post.Based on what you said before, I have to assume that you got a dozen of Nikon AF-P 10-24's and then tested them against a dozen each of Sigma 17-70's, Sigma 18-300's, Nikon 10-24's, and Tokina 12-24's.  If you did: I am impressed - can you share your testing method and results?  If not: Do you realize that this line of reasoning renders your initial argument pointless?  Got to decide what kind of arguments you want to use here - can't have it all!ColorFoto's lens testing beats individual experience hands-down because they test  many more lenses than you ever do, and they test each individual lens more objectively than  you ever could.  You can disagree with individual test results or the overall score for a lens or two, claiming they tested a poor copy, but when you disagree with overall trends that come out of  systematic testing, you express nothing more than a belief that contradicts the test statistics.  For my part, I prefer arguments and facts.</blockquote>

Verification