Ephotozine Review: Z 100-400/4.5-5.6 S VR

Started Jan 25, 2022 | Discussions thread
PankajDubey Senior Member • Posts: 1,790
Re: I like Ephotozine …

RazorSharpWO wrote:

kenw wrote:

I’m not sure I’d call anything from that site a “real review” as their MTF results are frankly notorious for their inconsistency.

Interesting. I've heard other people say they don't have good protocols.

I hope you are not concluding that from ephotozine’s test of the 70-200 since they tested the 70-200 on a Z5 and the 100-400 on a Z7II. See point above - never compare ephotozine results between lenses even on their own site much less to any other site. Ephotozine couldn’t test their way out of a wet paper bag.

That's a good point to bring up, that the measurements are not exactly comparable, for the reason you state. One can only surmise that the 70-200 scores would go up, tested on a better sensor, but I believe the "shape" of the graph would remain the same.

In other words, if the sharpness is at its uttermost wide-open (like the 70-200 is), then this would be true regardless of what camera one is using. Maybe the figures would go up higher on the Z7 II, but the shape of the graph should remain the same, n'est-ce pas?

It does, though not based on anything on Ephotozine. It is a site one can safely ignore as far as MTF results go.

The reason why I say I like Ephotozine is that, regardless of the variance in standards which you point out, their conclusions are pretty solid. For example, Lens Tip, in their review of the 58/1.4 G, just tore that lens apart. Downgraded it, trashed it. The Lens Tip author even said, "There must be something I'm missing," acknowledging he couldn't comprehend why Nikon would make such a lens.

Ephotozine, on the other hand, acknowledged the lens' shortcomings — but correctly saw its strengths — saying that, this is "a niche lens," that although it can be out-performed by other 50-ish lenses, it's rendering is sublime, and those for whom this is important, place the 58/G in a class by itself. That means the guy is a photographer, not just a lab geek running numbers.

EDIT: To be clear, I’m bashing on Ephotozine and not the OP! Just fair warning to people not familiar with ephotozines lame attempts at MTF measurements. And despite that, thanks to the OP for posting the link. Much of the review and sample images are still super useful. Just remember to always ignore MTF results from that site. They are worse than useless, often the are grossly misleading.

No worries, and thanks for clarifying. We are all entitled to our opinion — and we can both be right. The variance in protocol is worth mentioning, but I think their conclusions are spot on, more often than not, based on owning many of the lenses they've tested.

Cheers,

I too thought that ephotozine reviews were reasonable . Never checked the MTF charts though.

 PankajDubey's gear list:PankajDubey's gear list
Leica D-Lux 7 Nikon Df Sony a6400 Nikon Z50 Nikon Z5 +16 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow