24-70 F4 blows away my kit lens

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
nzmacro
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,072Gear list
Like?
Gees
In reply to ianbrown, 5 months ago

I crop a lot Ian and always will.

Now if someone showed me those images and the need to crop that much, I would simply tell them to get a longer focal length. Unfortunately I can't get a longer focal length. If you took those with a 200mm lens, they would be 10 times better than those crops, even with a cheap 200mm lens.

So what's the point, to find out which lens is better, sure but would you hang those crops on the wall at home.

All you are telling me with those shots and crops, is that both lenses suck when cropped in that much, no surprise here Ian. One might be slightly better than the other, but by the looks of those heavy crops, they are both garbage.

Lenses are not designed to keep people happy with heavy cropping, however you find the need to push them over their limits. IMO, not very clever.

Lets take the NEX-7 sensor and a Canon 500 F/4.5L, a very sharp lens and sensor, but wait, look what happens Ian with a heavy crop ....

Lack of details, soft, ton of noise, shocking in my book. So the NEX-7 sensor and Canon 500 F/4.5L is just completely rubbish in that case. Why on earth would I want to do that with a heavy crop !!

Now I reckon there's a lesson there Ian, don't pixel peep and accept lenses for what they are. The perfect lens and sensor you are looking for, you will never find or own. Work for what they were made for and keep within the boundaries of the lens, don't cross to the other side....... IMO.

Danny.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ianbrown
Senior MemberPosts: 1,890
Like?
Re: Gees
In reply to nzmacro, 5 months ago

nzmacro wrote:

I crop a lot Ian and always will.

Now if someone showed me those images and the need to crop that much, I would simply tell them to get a longer focal length. Unfortunately I can't get a longer focal length. If you took those with a 200mm lens, they would be 10 times better than those crops, even with a cheap 200mm lens.

So what's the point, to find out which lens is better, sure but would you hang those crops on the wall at home.

All you are telling me with those shots and crops, is that both lenses suck when cropped in that much, no surprise here Ian. One might be slightly better than the other, but by the looks of those heavy crops, they are both garbage.

Lenses are not designed to keep people happy with heavy cropping, however you find the need to push them over their limits. IMO, not very clever.

Lets take the NEX-7 sensor and a Canon 500 F/4.5L, a very sharp lens and sensor, but wait, look what happens Ian with a heavy crop ....

Lack of details, soft, ton of noise, shocking in my book. So the NEX-7 sensor and Canon 500 F/4.5L is just completely rubbish in that case. Why on earth would I want to do that with a heavy crop !!

Now I reckon there's a lesson there Ian, don't pixel peep and accept lenses for what they are. The perfect lens and sensor you are looking for, you will never find or own. Work for what they were made for and keep within the boundaries of the lens, don't cross to the other side....... IMO.

Danny.

Hi Danny

Everything you say makes much sense in theory, but don't most reviewers crop to see how well a lens performs?

What other way can you evaluate a lens sharpness?

I know what you say all makes good sense but people do test lenses and with possible lens quality sample variations it's good to know you have a good copy

any further advise on lens testing appreciated but I understand that in practice you would never crop that heavy

Ian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nzmacro
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,072Gear list
Like?
Re: Gees
In reply to ianbrown, 5 months ago

ianbrown wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

I crop a lot Ian and always will.

Now if someone showed me those images and the need to crop that much, I would simply tell them to get a longer focal length. Unfortunately I can't get a longer focal length. If you took those with a 200mm lens, they would be 10 times better than those crops, even with a cheap 200mm lens.

So what's the point, to find out which lens is better, sure but would you hang those crops on the wall at home.

All you are telling me with those shots and crops, is that both lenses suck when cropped in that much, no surprise here Ian. One might be slightly better than the other, but by the looks of those heavy crops, they are both garbage.

Lenses are not designed to keep people happy with heavy cropping, however you find the need to push them over their limits. IMO, not very clever.

Lets take the NEX-7 sensor and a Canon 500 F/4.5L, a very sharp lens and sensor, but wait, look what happens Ian with a heavy crop ....

Lack of details, soft, ton of noise, shocking in my book. So the NEX-7 sensor and Canon 500 F/4.5L is just completely rubbish in that case. Why on earth would I want to do that with a heavy crop !!

Now I reckon there's a lesson there Ian, don't pixel peep and accept lenses for what they are. The perfect lens and sensor you are looking for, you will never find or own. Work for what they were made for and keep within the boundaries of the lens, don't cross to the other side....... IMO.

Danny.

Hi Danny

Everything you say makes much sense in theory, but don't most reviewers crop to see how well a lens performs?

What other way can you evaluate a lens sharpness?

I know what you say all makes good sense but people do test lenses and with possible lens quality sample variations it's good to know you have a good copy

any further advise on lens testing appreciated but I understand that in practice you would never crop that heavy

Ian

Its always been very simple this one Ian.

Warning, long and boring this one.

The best lens and the one you really want, is the one you don't own and never will. IMO only, how you test a lens is you take a shot and print it out large. That happens to be real life. What you are doing is taking cropping into levels where all lenses actually look like junk and now you have a PC where you can zoom into crazy areas to see how bad a lens is. Zoom back and look at the overall image Ian, what's wrong with both those lenses, probably nothing

I have never gone by lens tests Ian, I go by the shot itself. Its either a good one or a bad one (the shot that is).

Heck mate, you have gone through so many cameras, its like you are looking for the prefect one and you admit that, so all credit. Here's the thing, you can just as easily take a bad shot with a Canon 1DX, Nikon D800 as you can with a point and shoot. You can take complete terrible shots with a Leica, Hasselblad, etc, etc. I've seen plenty of them.

Now the same goes for lenses, you can spend $20,000 US on a lens and take a shot that needs to go into the bin, blurred, lacking details, etc.

I've seen superb shots taken with the 10-18mm in here and I've seen some that should not have been posted. So what makes that lens a good one ......... the person behind it. It didn't need any test to tell me that, you can see it. I don't need to see a heavy cropped image of it to tell me its fine.

All heavy cropping does is show you how bad those lenses are when they are pushed  beyond what they are for. Its not good advertising for any lens or camera manufacturer. I've never bought a lens based on a test, never. I go by what I see. Reviewers can do what they like, just like you can, but based on what I see, I wouldn't go near those lenses (including a lot of lens reviews). The full views look fine though. I wonder why

All the best Ian and I'll leave you alone

Danny.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ianbrown
Senior MemberPosts: 1,890
Like?
Re: Gees
In reply to nzmacro, 5 months ago

nzmacro wrote:

ianbrown wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

I crop a lot Ian and always will.

Now if someone showed me those images and the need to crop that much, I would simply tell them to get a longer focal length. Unfortunately I can't get a longer focal length. If you took those with a 200mm lens, they would be 10 times better than those crops, even with a cheap 200mm lens.

So what's the point, to find out which lens is better, sure but would you hang those crops on the wall at home.

All you are telling me with those shots and crops, is that both lenses suck when cropped in that much, no surprise here Ian. One might be slightly better than the other, but by the looks of those heavy crops, they are both garbage.

Lenses are not designed to keep people happy with heavy cropping, however you find the need to push them over their limits. IMO, not very clever.

Lets take the NEX-7 sensor and a Canon 500 F/4.5L, a very sharp lens and sensor, but wait, look what happens Ian with a heavy crop ....

Lack of details, soft, ton of noise, shocking in my book. So the NEX-7 sensor and Canon 500 F/4.5L is just completely rubbish in that case. Why on earth would I want to do that with a heavy crop !!

Now I reckon there's a lesson there Ian, don't pixel peep and accept lenses for what they are. The perfect lens and sensor you are looking for, you will never find or own. Work for what they were made for and keep within the boundaries of the lens, don't cross to the other side....... IMO.

Danny.

Hi Danny

Everything you say makes much sense in theory, but don't most reviewers crop to see how well a lens performs?

What other way can you evaluate a lens sharpness?

I know what you say all makes good sense but people do test lenses and with possible lens quality sample variations it's good to know you have a good copy

any further advise on lens testing appreciated but I understand that in practice you would never crop that heavy

Ian

Its always been very simple this one Ian.

Warning, long and boring this one.

The best lens and the one you really want, is the one you don't own and never will. IMO only, how you test a lens is you take a shot and print it out large. That happens to be real life. What you are doing is taking cropping into levels where all lenses actually look like junk and now you have a PC where you can zoom into crazy areas to see how bad a lens is. Zoom back and look at the overall image Ian, what's wrong with both those lenses, probably nothing

I have never gone by lens tests Ian, I go by the shot itself. Its either a good one or a bad one (the shot that is).

Heck mate, you have gone through so many cameras, its like you are looking for the prefect one and you admit that, so all credit. Here's the thing, you can just as easily take a bad shot with a Canon 1DX, Nikon D800 as you can with a point and shoot. You can take complete terrible shots with a Leica, Hasselblad, etc, etc. I've seen plenty of them.

Now the same goes for lenses, you can spend $20,000 US on a lens and take a shot that needs to go into the bin, blurred, lacking details, etc.

I've seen superb shots taken with the 10-18mm in here and I've seen some that should not have been posted. So what makes that lens a good one ......... the person behind it. It didn't need any test to tell me that, you can see it. I don't need to see a heavy cropped image of it to tell me its fine.

All heavy cropping does is show you how bad those lenses are when they are pushed beyond what they are for. Its not good advertising for any lens or camera manufacturer. I've never bought a lens based on a test, never. I go by what I see. Reviewers can do what they like, just like you can, but based on what I see, I wouldn't go near those lenses (including a lot of lens reviews). The full views look fine though. I wonder why

All the best Ian and I'll leave you alone

Danny.

HI Danny

all makes perfect sense,  but it probably won't stop me or others testing.

The worst thing I ever did was pixel peep, I will regret it for the rest of my life but I bet I am not alone

cheers

Ian

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
nzmacro
Veteran MemberPosts: 9,072Gear list
Like?
Re: Gees
In reply to ianbrown, 5 months ago

ianbrown wrote:

HI Danny

all makes perfect sense, but it probably won't stop me or others testing.

The worst thing I ever did was pixel peep, I will regret it for the rest of my life but I bet I am not alone

cheers

Ian

I'll tell you a little secret Ian.

When I was about 21-23 I decided I wanted to see how good Kodachrome 25 was with the Vivitar 70-210 series one zoom. At the time I was into photomicrography, so I took a shot of a car a good 1 1/2 - 2 miles away at a guess. Stuck the K25 slide under the microscope and low and behold, I could read the number plate as clear as day.

So what did that tell me. Easy, even at ASA 25 with a good lens it still shows noise, the lens was sharp, the details were great. So if I took a shot of that side through the microscope, get the image printed, do I really want to see the number plate shot !!! Ahhhh, nope.

Did that test improve my images, did it show more details in my shots at full size projected ?? Again, nope !!. It actually did nothing for me at all and it still doesn't today.

I crop around 90-95 % of my shots, so basically a full time cropper, but and its a big but, I know my gear extremely well and know what the sensor is capable of so that I can still get a large print if wanted and can still be published without being embarrassed by providing the RAW. I can't submit a crop, so what is the point of it all. Self satisfying to say look how much I can crop and yep, it looks terrible cropped that much. So I only go so far and anything slightly wrong with a shot, wrong head turn, even slightly out of focus, bad exposure, needs too much of a crop, not enough light on the eye, etc, all those go in the bin. So heavy crops don't do anything for me Ian and they never will. I have cropped heavily with the NEX-7 for the sake of it and its remarkable, but it actually does nothing.

Sure it shows how sharp a lens and sensor is, but how come we see so many great shots taken with lenses that don't do well in a review, crop or not. Because you don't need the perfect lens that doesn't exist.

Aww far too long and I can't be swayed either Ian. We are both too darn stubborn mate

All the best and I better retire from this one

Danny.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,930Gear list
Like?
Re: 24-70 F4 blows away my kit lens
In reply to Fred Briggs, 5 months ago

Fred Briggs wrote:....

In fact there is only one plane which is actually in focus - everything in front and behind that is out of focus to varying degrees, depending on how far from the actual focal plane it is. DOF just reflects how much "appears" to be in focus if viewed small enough, or from far enough away.

Don't forget that often the focal plane isn't flat but curved.  This makes judgements about "soft corners" a bit more problematic, particularly when examining photos of brick walls.

You can confirm this with a simple experiment. Take a picture of a brick wall at about 45 degrees,...

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Fred Briggs
Senior MemberPosts: 1,006Gear list
Like?
Re: 24-70 F4 blows away my kit lens
In reply to GaryW, 5 months ago

GaryW wrote:

Fred Briggs wrote:....

In fact there is only one plane which is actually in focus - everything in front and behind that is out of focus to varying degrees, depending on how far from the actual focal plane it is. DOF just reflects how much "appears" to be in focus if viewed small enough, or from far enough away.

Don't forget that often the focal plane isn't flat but curved. This makes judgements about "soft corners" a bit more problematic, particularly when examining photos of brick walls.

You can confirm this with a simple experiment. Take a picture of a brick wall at about 45 degrees,...

Yes - I didn't want to complicate things further by mentioning that, but it becomes significant when for example taking brick wall shots to compare edge and corner lens sharpness with central sharpness.  These kind of shots are often taken from close range and the error due to focal plane curvature can be very significant, but is probably a worst case compared to normal use.

If taking wall shots, it is interesting to take additional shots with the focus point near to the edge of the frame.  If this shows improved sharpness at the edge and a bit worse at the centre compared to a shot focused at the centre,  then it is a good indication that field curvature is present, though this may not be a big problem in real world shots.

Fred

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

-- hide signature --

"We are so small between the stars, so large against the sky." Leonard Cohen c1967

 Fred Briggs's gear list:Fred Briggs's gear list
Sony Alpha 7 Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony FE 24-70mm F4 OSS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,930Gear list
Like?
Re: Gees
In reply to nzmacro, 5 months ago

nzmacro wrote:

ianbrown wrote:

nzmacro wrote:

I crop a lot Ian and always will.

Now if someone showed me those images and the need to crop that much, I would simply tell them to get a longer focal length. Unfortunately I can't get a longer focal length. If you took those with a 200mm lens, they would be 10 times better than those crops, even with a cheap 200mm lens.

I agree, years ago, I realized that if you have to crop too much, you'd be better off just using another lens with a longer focal length.  Of course, that lens would cost money.  (Similarly, a cheap teleconverter may or may not be much better than cropping, but at least there's the possibility of making full use of the sensor.)   Anyway, you might want to crop a lot, but you should also accept that you're going to seriously undermine the image quality.

So what's the point, to find out which lens is better, sure but would you hang those crops on the wall at home.

All you are telling me with those shots and crops, is that both lenses suck when cropped in that much, no surprise here Ian. One might be slightly better than the other, but by the looks of those heavy crops, they are both garbage.

Some crops are better than other crops.  You can pronounce the lens with the better crop the winner!

Lenses are not designed to keep people happy with heavy cropping, however you find the need to push them over their limits. IMO, not very clever.

Lets take the NEX-7 sensor and a Canon 500 F/4.5L, a very sharp lens and sensor, but wait, look what happens Ian with a heavy crop ....

Lack of details, soft, ton of noise, shocking in my book. So the NEX-7 sensor and Canon 500 F/4.5L is just completely rubbish in that case. Why on earth would I want to do that with a heavy crop !!

I get similar results if I use my 55-210 at 2010mm.  At 100% crops, it's not perfectly sharp, and I'm not exactly thrilled by it.  But at web sized, even cropping a lot, it's fine.  I guess my thought is that a more-perfect lens should be sharper.

I have a 100-300 APO that I pulled out and took some photos of the same scene, and results were sharper.  Ah, now we're talking!  100% crops that look sharp!  But the color saturation and contrast were lower.  If you just took normal JPEGs, results would look worse!  Some PP can fix it up, but I guess my point is, sharpness isn't everything, and the perfect lens is more expensive than my budget allows.

Now I reckon there's a lesson there Ian, don't pixel peep and accept lenses for what they are. The perfect lens and sensor you are looking for, you will never find or own. Work for what they were made for and keep within the boundaries of the lens, don't cross to the other side....... IMO.

Oh, no, I'm sure given enough money and size, that perfect lens is out there!  I think I've seen it and would have trouble lifting it.  

Danny.

Hi Danny

Everything you say makes much sense in theory, but don't most reviewers crop to see how well a lens performs?

What other way can you evaluate a lens sharpness?

I know what you say all makes good sense but people do test lenses and with possible lens quality sample variations it's good to know you have a good copy

It's also good to know where the limitations are.  But, past a certain point, as Danny says, it may not matter.  In some cases, I'm pleasantly surprised to find that the results look better than I would have expected, such as with the 16-50.  

any further advise on lens testing appreciated but I understand that in practice you would never crop that heavy

Ian

Its always been very simple this one Ian.... IMO only, how you test a lens is you take a shot and print it out large. That happens to be real life.

And what's the largest that you print?  Mine is 20x30 using a 10mp (!!!) shot using the above-mentioned 100-300APO.  It looks sharp to me, as close as I can get to it.  I don't know why, as it isn't 300dpi.  Weird.

What you are doing is taking cropping into levels where all lenses actually look like junk and now you have a PC where you can zoom into crazy areas to see how bad a lens is. Zoom back and look at the overall image Ian, what's wrong with both those lenses, probably nothing

I have never gone by lens tests Ian, I go by the shot itself. Its either a good one or a bad one (the shot that is).

Using logic like this, you might just end up sticking with the most budget lenses.  ??

...

Now the same goes for lenses, you can spend $20,000 US on a lens and take a shot that needs to go into the bin, blurred, lacking details, etc.

Sure, you can.  But on shots that aren't blurry or don't go into the bin, are they better?  Are they $20,000 better?

I've seen superb shots taken with the 10-18mm in here and I've seen some that should not have been posted. So what makes that lens a good one ......... the person behind it. It didn't need any test to tell me that, you can see it. I don't need to see a heavy cropped image of it to tell me its fine.

All heavy cropping does is show you how bad those lenses are when they are pushed beyond what they are for.

Some lenses can be pushed more, apparently.  At some point, you can draw the line and say that something is simply good enough for the intended use.

Its not good advertising for any lens or camera manufacturer. I've never bought a lens based on a test, never. I go by what I see. Reviewers can do what they like, just like you can, but based on what I see, I wouldn't go near those lenses (including a lot of lens reviews). The full views look fine though. I wonder why

...

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads