Popular Photography "Most accurate lens testing"

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RichA - 09 Oct 2006 04:31 GMT

Pg. 48 of the current issue. Basically, they say their lens testing
equipment provides a far better measure of lens performance than
testing the lenses on a specific DSLR. They say that many lens tests
done "out there" can be near worthless.

Reply to this Message

frederick - 09 Oct 2006 06:25 GMT

> Pg. 48 of the current issue. Basically, they say their lens testing
> equipment provides a far better measure of lens performance than
> testing the lenses on a specific DSLR. They say that many lens tests
> done "out there" can be near worthless.

Really?

"The actual magnifying power of the lens tested greater than 1:1, coming
in at an impressive 1:0.7"
Heh - aps-c sensor camera with a test target designed for 35mm...
Not just once do they make that mistake - and they haven't yet tweaked
as to how this miracle occurs. Even when everything else from the mfr
specs and focus distance at 1:1 and f/l says otherwise...

Methinks elsewhere is better for objective lens tests.

Reply to this Message

Father Kodak - 09 Oct 2006 06:32 GMT

>Pg. 48 of the current issue. Basically, they say their lens testing
>equipment provides a far better measure of lens performance than
>testing the lenses on a specific DSLR. They say that many lens tests
>done "out there" can be near worthless.

Which article? or, is there a URL?

Father Kodak

Reply to this Message

RichA - 09 Oct 2006 08:11 GMT

> >Pg. 48 of the current issue. Basically, they say their lens testing
> >equipment provides a far better measure of lens performance than
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Father Kodak

I couldn't find it on their website, but I scanned it and posted it. I
don't think they'll mind
since it's something of an "ad" for the magazine's tests.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/68246859

Reply to this Message

Matti Vuori - 09 Oct 2006 18:49 GMT

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in news:1160377914.118438.257950
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

> I couldn't find it on their website, but I scanned it and posted it. I
> don't think they'll mind
> since it's something of an "ad" for the magazine's tests.

And nobody needs to go and buy the issue... If don't think that they'll
mind, why didn't you ask them?

Signature

Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>

Reply to this Message

Father Kodak - 12 Oct 2006 03:45 GMT

>> >Pg. 48 of the current issue. Basically, they say their lens testing
>> >equipment provides a far better measure of lens performance than
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
>http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/68246859

Thanks. I'm glad I didn't spend too much time looking on the website.
That article could be summarized as follows:

1. Use of an actual camera body to test lenses reduces the accuracy of
the measurements, because the camera body introduces errors of its
own. We at Pop Photo use a lens bench to eliminate those issues.

2. Other people haven't made the same investments nor do they
understand the issues. That is why our tests are the best around.

3. We at Pop Photo have invested more than anyone else in hardware
and software tools based on a lens bench.

Well my reactions are:

0. What a letdown! I so was disappointed at this "article" that I
rushed out to cancel my subscription, and then I remembered that I
stopped subscribing at least 20 years ago. Obviously no reason to
re-up with them.

1. Duuh. Duuuuuh again. Big, big duuuuh. Of course. That's true
for any lab test. Science Lab 101, people. (This guy would be a whiz
at writing a padded term paper.)

2. So freaking' what. If I want to take a picture, I actually have to
use a camera body (digital or film). So for my purposes, the
effective lens resolution has to consider the camera body.

3. I don't believe that they are really better until they document
their claim of best-in-class. What are their hardware and software
components? what is their procedure (workflow)?

AND

4. Why not publish some comparisons between Pop Photos' tests and
Magazines A and B , and Web Sites C and D to prove their point.
Otherwise it is just an ad for the magazine, as another poster said.

To repeat my O. point. What a letdown!!!

Father Kodak

Reply to this Message

RichA - 12 Oct 2006 04:02 GMT

> >> >Pg. 48 of the current issue. Basically, they say their lens testing
> >> >equipment provides a far better measure of lens performance than
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Father Kodak

I think the validity of the lens testing being done on a machine is
that it gives you absolute results, independent of the camera body. In
the real world, that may not matter, but it could matter if current
sensors are capable of showing the shortcomings of mediocre lenses and
I think most sensors in DSLRs will allow you to see if you have a good
or a bad lens.
Testing on a camera body could cause....problems, as two different
lenses on two different cameras could make the lesser camera seem to
produce better results.
However, they said their tests with camera and lens are done using high
quality primes as opposed to questionable cheap zooms that most cameras
get kitted with.

Reply to this Message

Father Kodak - 21 Oct 2006 04:28 GMT

>I think the validity of the lens testing being done on a machine is
>that it gives you absolute results, independent of the camera body. In
>the real world, that may not matter, but it could matter if current

Sure. But that doesn't match up too well with the real world, in
which you actually need a camera body to hold a sensor/film in order
to record an aimage.

>sensors are capable of showing the shortcomings of mediocre lenses and
>I think most sensors in DSLRs will allow you to see if you have a good
>or a bad lens.
>Testing on a camera body could cause....problems, as two different
>lenses on two different cameras could make the lesser camera seem to
>produce better results.

How is that possible? Image resolution is roughly

1/f (image resolution) = 1/f (lens) + 1/f (sensor/film).

Decrease sensor/film resolution and you decrease image resolution. How
could it be otherwise? Otherwise a Lens Baby would give you higher
quality images than the best Nikon and Canon lenses. Which I
seriously doubt.

>However, they said their tests with camera and lens are done using high
>quality primes as opposed to questionable cheap zooms that most cameras
>get kitted with.

OK, but again in the real world, you can only describe lens
performance with a camera body. There should be a 'reference' camera
body for each major product line, and all tests can be keyed off that
body.

Of course, every few years they might need to upgrade that body. In
theory, they should then repeat all their tests, but somehow I don't
think that will happen.

Father Kodak

Reply to this Message

RichA - 23 Oct 2006 04:48 GMT

> >I think the validity of the lens testing being done on a machine is
> >that it gives you absolute results, independent of the camera body. In
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> body for each major product line, and all tests can be keyed off that
> body.

Be hard to do with Canon. Use a cropped sensor model, the people using
FF would say the test is invalid and really it would be. Use a full
frame, and you might end up with poor edge definition that might not be
as bad in a cropped camera.

Reply to this Message

Randall Ainsworth - 09 Oct 2006 13:28 GMT

Keep reading Popular Photography. It's dumbed down to about the level
of something you might understand.

Reply to this Message

Jeroen Wenting - 09 Oct 2006 15:46 GMT

Sure, the same class of mag as the one that a few years ago decided in a
shootoff that the Tamron 28-200 (second generation) was better on all fronts
compared to the combo 28-70 f/2.8 AF-S Nikkor and 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR
Nikkor.
Of course their "all fronts" didn't include image quality, only weight,
price, size, and the question if you have to switch lenses once in a while.
Since the Tamron is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and one lens versus two it
was clearly far superior.

Reply to this Message