Just how crappy is the 16-50 kit lens? Test vs 17mm prime & 11-16 Tokina

Started Mar 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
forpetessake
Senior MemberPosts: 3,434
Like?
Re: Just how crappy is the 16-50 kit lens? Test vs 17mm prime & 11-16 Tokina
In reply to temama, Apr 1, 2013

temama wrote:

lowincash wrote:

If one has a good copy of this lens, congrats and enjoy it.

And if you get a bad copy, please return it. As is the case if you get a defective product.

Since DPR ate my answer, I will be brief. It's never a bad or good copy, it's a distribution -- there is a long tail of different degree of badness. So, it's no wonder many people asking questions here 'is my lens normal?', because nobody knows if the image quality they see corresponds to a distribution plateau or somewhere on a tail. There is only a small percentage (like 5%) of lenses that are outside of the acceptable range as defined by manufacturer and can be called bad (defective) copies, so when you hear many people complaining about image quality, it's very unlikely they all got bad copies.

Secondly, unless there are reliable controlled measurements, there will be no end to arguing about sharpness. What looks sharp to some, looks awful to others. Subjective evaluation of random images depends on so many factors that it is basically meaningless. The standard tests are objective, that's why they are valuable. I wish some labs would offer anybody for a nominal fee (like $10) a full test of their lenses, so people may know with high degree of certainty how bad/good their lenses are.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow