DxO Mark lens reviews ... are the results meaningfull?
some month ago I bought a D610 with 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 70-200 f4VR G, Tamron 28-70 f2.8 VC and a used 17-35 f2.8 D. I did intensive testing indoor and outdoor and used both primes as a reference and after that I returned the Tamron because I was not happy with the sharpness at f2.8 (that was expected) and f4 (not expected) and 70mm FL seems to be not really 70 mm. (at least compared to the 70-200 f4VR).
Now I have the 17-35 and also tested this lens against the 28 1.8G and the 17-35 performed really good from f4 on - at f5.6 from sharpness point of view there is no difference compared to the prime in the center and the borders.
I use www.photozone.de as a main source to decide what lens to take and what is good. I want to have sharp and contrastfull lenses and so far the results from photozone were found also in reality. Now I had a look to www.dxomark.com and the results are really surprising and in MHO this cannot be true in real life, but is just a type of scientific (maybe too scientific) rating and scoring.
Tamron 24-70 VC 2.8 lens is rated there witha score of 28 (range 24-26)
Nikon 70-200 f4G VR has 27
Nikon 17-35 f2.8D has 20 (?)
Nikon 18-35 f3.5-4.5 VR G has 25 ...
Primes like the 50 f1.8G has 30 (28 f1.8 G has 32)
1. the Tamron is rated better than the NIKON 70-200f4 VR - I tested that and also photozone comes to the same conclusion. 70-200f4 is better - clearly.
2. the Nikon 18-35 f3.5-4.5 VR G is much better rated than the 17-35. I cannot believe this. According to photozone the 17-35 is better.
How do you see that? What is this DxO Mark?
|Post (hide subjects)||Posted by||When|
|May 11, 2014|
|May 11, 2014||3|
|May 11, 2014|
|May 11, 2014||1|