Tastybread
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 36
I'm trying to find a great clear lens, and I was refining DXO so I only showed alpha mounts and the highest rated around 13 while nikon lenses rated around 36. What am I reading really?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Am I interpreting Dxomarks scoring, or do a mount lenses have terrible sharpness?
- Thread starter Tastybread
- Start date
JonTafferOfPhotography
Well-known member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 101
don't worry about lens test chart performance
worry about understanding your focal length needs and buy whatever the system offers to meet them
nobody makes soft lenses anymore, not even sigma or tamron
Donny out of Element here
Leading Member
- Messages
- 996
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 578
Here's A mount lens with dxomarks score of 33: http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sony/...5mm-F1.4-ZA-mounted-on-Sony-SLT-Alpha-99__831 So I don't really understand what do you mean when you say highest score of 13 only?
In general aim for primes to get best sharpness and IQ. Soft lenses are mostly zooms and even more so compromised zooms (like retractable ones for example 16-50 kit). However, even 16-50 is ok for daylight usage and you can always crop to avoid mushy edges corners.
Last edited:
Tastybread
Well-known member
- Messages
- 107
- Reaction score
- 36
I was talking about sharpness rating.
JonTafferOfPhotography
Well-known member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 101
prime best zooms most of the time, obviously
but the 16-50 is not soft. if you are obsessed with corner performance you should be shooting a better system than cropped alpha
Donny out of Element here
Leading Member
- Messages
- 996
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 578
I see. Well above mentioned lens has 16 in sharpness. I suspect it depends on sensor too. D800/E and D600 are going to get higher scores due to sensor as well.
Lightshow
Veteran Member
+1000 very small changes in focus can have a large impact to the data with 2D test charts,
I would only compare the lens I buy to the test results to see if mine has issues.
Donny out of Element here
Leading Member
- Messages
- 996
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 578
It is soft at edges and corners. I have 16-70 and it performs much better in corners. I am satisfied with it. Very satisfied.
JonTafferOfPhotography
Well-known member
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 101
mikethelaserman
Well-known member
In the days of film, many Minolta lenses were regarded as being as good as or better than their canikon equivalents.
Now DXO seems to have downgraded most of these (including the big white Monolta lenses that everyone lusted after but could not afford) to so-so level.
I'm not sure what is going on, but I certainly would not use the DXO data as a way of deciding which lens to buy.
Now DXO seems to have downgraded most of these (including the big white Monolta lenses that everyone lusted after but could not afford) to so-so level.
I'm not sure what is going on, but I certainly would not use the DXO data as a way of deciding which lens to buy.
PVCdroid
Senior Member
You need to take a couple things into account.
- Camera tested on. You'll see that all the lenses tested on a full frame camera have much higher scores compared to APS-C. Look at the 55mm 1.8 Zeiss on the A7R compared to the NEX-7.
- Nikon has been around longer and carries more lenses that have been improved upon over the years. However, what you don't see on DXO are all the retired lenses for Alpha. These are some beauties like the Minolta AF line and a half dozen highly sought after primes and a dozen other good primes plus a ton of zooms. I wish DXO had a way to rate older lenses. Dyxum does do that.
So you have to use the filters to eliminate or select particular sensor sizes.
CraigArnold
Leading Member
Yes, you certainly don't want to let the facts interfere with your preconceptions.
The lenses have been "downgraded" because they don't test well on modern high resolution digital sensors. In practical terms however I agree, choosing a camera and lens collection should be about more than the test scores.
seachicken2000
Senior Member
Here's a shot (handheld, full resolution, A7r) from the Minolta 50mm Macro (old model). I have the 100mm Macro too, and that's just as sharp.
Cost me the equivalent of US$70. I believe it's optically the same as the Sony 50mm macro, that DxO tested here. The Zeiss FE tested a lot better, but that's mostly down to the differences in the sensors they were tested on. I don't doubt that the Zeiss FE is the better lens IMO (I own it) but the difference is minimal in real-word use when stopped down.
--
A rose by any other name is still a chicken.
500px.com
Cost me the equivalent of US$70. I believe it's optically the same as the Sony 50mm macro, that DxO tested here. The Zeiss FE tested a lot better, but that's mostly down to the differences in the sensors they were tested on. I don't doubt that the Zeiss FE is the better lens IMO (I own it) but the difference is minimal in real-word use when stopped down.
--
A rose by any other name is still a chicken.
500px
mikethelaserman
Well-known member
Some time ago David Kilpatrick (the photo magazine publisher, who seems well regarded in the photo business) estimated that the finest-grained slide films corresponded to about 30 - 32 megapixels.
If he was anywhere near the mark, then the older lens designs should (in theory) be OK with the current round of 24mp ff sensors and more than good enough for 12 and 16mp sensors.
OK, the anti-reflective coatings have been improved for digital and the rear elements of some lenses are known to cause reflection problems, but I'm surprised that a whole raft of Minolta lenses (including some upgraded and re-badged as Sony) which scored well in MTF tests in the past seem to have suddenly "degraded".
If he was anywhere near the mark, then the older lens designs should (in theory) be OK with the current round of 24mp ff sensors and more than good enough for 12 and 16mp sensors.
OK, the anti-reflective coatings have been improved for digital and the rear elements of some lenses are known to cause reflection problems, but I'm surprised that a whole raft of Minolta lenses (including some upgraded and re-badged as Sony) which scored well in MTF tests in the past seem to have suddenly "degraded".
DxO tests are for the millions of fake camera engineers out there, filling a need for pseudo-objective information to obsess over.
Please don't take them seriously.
-------------
Overall, A mount lenses may have a slightly different design approach than CaNikon lenses (depending on the design, of course). Perceived "sharpness" is a combination of many things - so any single score number is going to be a weak approximation of reality.
Ignore it.
Please don't take them seriously.
-------------
Overall, A mount lenses may have a slightly different design approach than CaNikon lenses (depending on the design, of course). Perceived "sharpness" is a combination of many things - so any single score number is going to be a weak approximation of reality.
Ignore it.
PVCdroid
Senior Member
That's a very good image. I agree and this lens is a forgotten treasure with extreme diversity. Here are some I've taken over the past couple months with the 50mm/2.8 macro. I don't know why I even need the SEL5518Z and seem to use it infrequently because of the Minolta macro.Here's a shot (handheld, full resolution, A7r) from the Minolta 50mm Macro (old model). I have the 100mm Macro too, and that's just as sharp.
Cost me the equivalent of US$70. I believe it's optically the same as the Sony 50mm macro, that DxO tested here. The Zeiss FE tested a lot better, but that's mostly down to the differences in the sensors they were tested on. I don't doubt that the Zeiss FE is the better lens IMO (I own it) but the difference is minimal in real-word use when stopped down.
--
A rose by any other name is still a chicken.
http://500px.com/seachicken
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum