24-70 F4 blows away my kit lens

Started Mar 2, 2014 | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,541
Re: Gees

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.  


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


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 E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow