Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Does wider zoom range mean lower image quality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snowcat" data-source="post: 644286" data-attributes="member: 44121"><p><strong>Lothar, </strong>I understand that you believe in test results. I am a different person. I prefer real pictures to any kind of tests and digits. But i read and view both. Even after I've read and viewed tons of examples, I can make a mistake buying a lens. For example, I've made such a mistake with Nikon 10-20 (BTW is was 10-20, not 10-24, sorry for that). I can name several other lenses that I've bought after reading different reviews, and was not happy with them at all. In other hand, there were lenses that have poor test results and negative reviews that are making me happy (and no, I cannot be happy with a lens that has poor sharpness in corners for example).</p><p></p><p>So, i put my personal experience much higher FOR ME that any test results. Test results for me are just initial guidelines, nothing more. For example, testing sites see CAs as a serious flaw of the lens. I don't consider it to be a flaw at all, as CAs are corrected extremely easy with ANY RAW converter. Next - geometry distortions. While I do prefer lenses with little distortions, I can live with strong ones also as they too can be easily corrected. DXO (which I use) corrects them automatically with most of the lenses, so why that should bother me?</p><p></p><p>What is important for me is lens sharpness (if the lens is unsharp you cannot really correct that), bokeh quality (if it is not an UWA lens or course) and color reproduction. This is what "image quality" consists of for me. And there is such a thing as "picture pleasantness", which is individual, yet quite common for many of the people. Tests can measure only sharpness of these parameters. And, they measure only sharpness of ONE copy, usually without calibrating it (this can increase sharpness). I always select the copy of the lens I am buying. Always. And there was not a single time when I saw all the copies of lenses to be identically good. </p><p></p><p>Clearly you tend to "listen" to digits acquired from shooting printed tables. I tend to "listen" to pictures from real world, even more - developed pictures. That's why we disagree with each other. That's why I suggest we stop arguing, as both of us clearly explained their position and further conversation will bring nothing useful for anyone.</p><p></p><p> I hope my explanation was not too clumsy and I really hope It was not offensive to you as I never intended that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snowcat, post: 644286, member: 44121"] [B]Lothar, [/B]I understand that you believe in test results. I am a different person. I prefer real pictures to any kind of tests and digits. But i read and view both. Even after I've read and viewed tons of examples, I can make a mistake buying a lens. For example, I've made such a mistake with Nikon 10-20 (BTW is was 10-20, not 10-24, sorry for that). I can name several other lenses that I've bought after reading different reviews, and was not happy with them at all. In other hand, there were lenses that have poor test results and negative reviews that are making me happy (and no, I cannot be happy with a lens that has poor sharpness in corners for example). So, i put my personal experience much higher FOR ME that any test results. Test results for me are just initial guidelines, nothing more. For example, testing sites see CAs as a serious flaw of the lens. I don't consider it to be a flaw at all, as CAs are corrected extremely easy with ANY RAW converter. Next - geometry distortions. While I do prefer lenses with little distortions, I can live with strong ones also as they too can be easily corrected. DXO (which I use) corrects them automatically with most of the lenses, so why that should bother me? What is important for me is lens sharpness (if the lens is unsharp you cannot really correct that), bokeh quality (if it is not an UWA lens or course) and color reproduction. This is what "image quality" consists of for me. And there is such a thing as "picture pleasantness", which is individual, yet quite common for many of the people. Tests can measure only sharpness of these parameters. And, they measure only sharpness of ONE copy, usually without calibrating it (this can increase sharpness). I always select the copy of the lens I am buying. Always. And there was not a single time when I saw all the copies of lenses to be identically good. Clearly you tend to "listen" to digits acquired from shooting printed tables. I tend to "listen" to pictures from real world, even more - developed pictures. That's why we disagree with each other. That's why I suggest we stop arguing, as both of us clearly explained their position and further conversation will bring nothing useful for anyone. I hope my explanation was not too clumsy and I really hope It was not offensive to you as I never intended that. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Does wider zoom range mean lower image quality?
Top
