The only thing I was suggesting is that unless there's an absolute basis for comparison, as opposed to someone just saying one person likes and another dislikes a lens, there's not enough information for anyone to make a decision.
If you're shooting similar subjects, as opposed to the same subject, hand holding instead of using a tripod, using different rather than the same camera bodies, than any comparison is pretty much meaningless except subjectively - which has some value. Rob's test was not a resolution test. It showed how two different lenses handled the same scene wrt to chromatic aberration or purple fringing and sharpness. Is it "scientific?." Hell if I know, but it's certainly more valid than completely anecdotal evidence as many here have provided. Probably an even better test would be to use the lenses on an optical bench and photograph something completely stable, a la Erwin Puts, and probably someone would find fault with that, as well. What Rob has done is provide a reasonable, IMO, real world test and minimized any differences between the two images as much as possible. Just saying that Richard loves his pictures and that they look great tells us little other than that you're satisfied with them, but such a comment offers no visual comparison, so no one here knows what "great" is. How large are the pictures printed? If they're not of a certain size most pictures will look great. You see what I'm getting at - for the most part all we get on this list is a commentary about the quality of a given lens. Rob's recent comparison is one of the few times we can actually see the results from two different lenses used under the same circumstances. Not the only time, but certainly one of the few where the image is @ 100% pixels on a tripod mounted camera shooting the same subject. That's far better information than someone saying "It's a great lens," or "the lens hoovers." Shel > [Original Message] > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > Date: 6/19/2005 9:52:56 PM > Subject: Re: FA24/2.0 on Ds - example > > I'm not sure what you're intimating, Shel. > > Richard and I were out shooting and socializing for three/four days. > I was shooting with the A24/2.8 quite a bit, he was shooting similar > subjects with the FA24/2. He's using a D, I'm using a DS. Since I was > traveling and was not carrying my own computer with me, and I was > curious as to how the FA24 performed compared to my A24, I copied a > couple of my RAW files onto his computer system and we put them > through Rawshooter Essentials together. We looked at them scaled to > screen resolution and at 1:1 pixel resolution. Exposures and lighting > were virtually identical in both cases. We looked at my pictures and > his pictures in identical ways. > > Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with this kind of > casual comparison? It's not a formal lens resolution test, just as > Rob's photos are not a formal resolution test. > > Richard loves the FA24/2 and his pictures look great. He did mention > that he seems to get more chromatic aberration out of it at stopped- > down apertures with the digital body compared to his MZ-S. I don't > own one, find the A24/2.8 a very good performing lens, and have only > used it with the DS body to date. (Yes, one of these day's I'll fish > some of that film stuff out of my freezer and try it on my MX body...) > > My other friend who had a 24/2 is someone who's photographic > judgement I've come to trust a lot ... he's been right on the money > with his opinions every time we've had a discussion, with good proof > to show for it. I was very interested when he bought the 24/2 as it > is a lens somewhat out of character for him ... he generally prefers > light, compact M and pre-M Pentax lenses. His complaints were poor > sharpness wide open and chromatic aberration stopped down. He found > it enough of a nuisance that he sold the lens off a few weeks later. > He's found the M24-35 a much better lens for his work. I've seen many > of his photos and I agree that it seems to suit him better. > > My interest in this lens' quality and the variable reports I hear is > purely academic. I am not even remotely interested in purchasing a > 24/2 as I consider it way too large and heavy for my taste. > > Godfrey > > On Jun 19, 2005, at 7:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > What I hear is talk about the quality of this lens, but what I > > don't see > > are comparison pics and the details of the comparison. What size > > prints > > were your friends making? How were they processed? Some people > > work @ > > 100% when using Photoshop, others don't. Comparing Rob's pics in > > PS, the > > differences are obvious @ 100% but not so obvious @ screen size, > > and the > > images are, to my eyes and on my monitor, virtually > > indistinguishable at > > 33% So, how are you friend's images viewed on screen. What size > > prints > > do they make, and how are the images processed. Have the same > > scenes been > > compared and been taken on a camera-mounted tripod? There are too many > > variables that are not defined when people say that a lens is good/ > > bad. > > > > Shel > > > > > > > >> [Original Message] > >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > >> > > > > > >> My friend in Gloucester uses the FA24/2 AL quite a lot and likes it > >> very much. I was using my A24/2.8 a similar amount. Seems the 24/2 > >> reports I've read are quite variable, but Richard's work with that > >> lens seems virtually indistinguishable from my work with the A24/2.8. > >> Another friend bought and used the FA24/2 for a few weeks and sold it > >> as unsatisfactory. (All of this with D and DS bodies.) Hard to figure > >> what to make of the variability in the 24/2, it's certainly not an > >> inexpensive lens. > >> > >> Your two photos show rather large differences between the corner/edge > >> quality at f/2.8. What do you see at more normally used wide angle > >> apertures, like f/5.6-f/11? > >> > >> Godfrey > >> > >> > > > > > >
