How Are You Using Jim's Data?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Jared Willson Senior Member • Posts: 1,255
How Are You Using Jim's Data?
6

All the micro contrast and MTF data that Jim is now creating and sharing... It's certainly fascinating and occasionally surprising. But I'm curious how you all are incorporating the data into your photography?

For example, the 32-64 and 45-100 zooms have better on axis data than the 45mm prime. At certain focal ratios, that difference is significant. At least, it looks significant in a graph. For any of you who are interested in sharing, what is the take home message in Jim's hard work? I can think of lots of different ways to incorporate his information, all of them with some real validity.

For example, one might reasonably conclude, "Well, I'm a landscape shooter and typically use f/11 for the vast majority of my shots in order to get the depth of field I need, and all the lenses are essentially the same at f/11, so I really don't care what's in Jim's testing reports--I'm just going to choose the least expensive of the lenses at the focal length I want."

Or, one might decide, "I'm a portrait shooter, and based on Jim's analysis it is clear that the 110mm is the gem of the entire system, easily defeating the 80mm especially with regard to longitudinal chromatic aberration, so I won't buy that 80mm after all."

Or, one might conclude, "My goodness, when it gets to the point that I need to not only choose EFCS but might need to go to the completely electronic shutter and even remember to turn off the "beep" when using ES, the differences are clearly too small to be relevant to my photography--I'm ignoring all of Jim's measurement posts."

Or, one might decide, "The 45-100mm is 100 line pairs short of the performance of the 32-64mm when used at my preferred aperture of f/4, so I'm trading in my (clearly useless based on its terrible on-axis performance) 45mm prime and my 45-100mm zoom on the 32-64mm."

Or, one might decide, "Gee, the 50mm is actually pretty good on-axis. It's also insanely inexpensive compared to the rest of the range, and very light and compact. I'm getting rid of everything else and just using that one lens. Middle of the pack type numbers? In a 1,000 USD lens that I can nearly fit in my pocket? Yes, please."

Or, one might decide, "Based on everything I am seeing and the trouble Jim has to go to in order to ensure ONLY lens and camera performance affect results, I'm pretty sure that the real world challenges of wind, atmospheric turbulence, mis-focus, three dimensional subjects that don't conveniently fit in my depth of field, subject motion, camera motion (despite IBIS), and field curvature FAR outweigh any microscopic differences in resolution between these lenses, so I'll buy the lens that suits me in terms of focal length, cost, and bulk and to heck with Jim's numbers."

Or, "Jim isn't (yet) measuring off axis performance, and all lenses are good on-axis at f/5.6 to f/8, so I don't find the data that useful."

I'm sure there are lots of other possible interpretations.

How are you using Jim's data? Have they made you lust after a lens you maybe didn't consider? Or maybe swap out a prime in your bag for a more convenient and versatile zoom? Would his information make you more/less likely to choose a particular lens than you would have otherwise? Might you suddenly choose the 110mm for that next portrait session rather than the 80mm, or would you just go by the difference in focal length/working distance/perspective?

 Jared Willson's gear list:Jared Willson's gear list
Leica Q2 Leica SL2 Hasselblad X1D II 50C Leica SL 90-280mm F2.8–4 Hasselblad XCD 30mm F3.5 +8 more
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
rbf
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
cjb
tex
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
MOD JimKasson
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow