Like most people that post tests like yours, I don't think you realized what you did.
You post questionable shots with very little info. You lead people to believe that you have a bad lens, and also that it's a widespread problem.
Naturally, people wonder if their lenses are defective too, and if they duplicate your testing, they'll probably come to the same conclusion.
Right now, dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of people are racing to dig out their lenses, some spice bottles, and waiting until their kitchen is equally dark to say, "Hey, my lens is bad too!" Would you like to be a camera shop owner/employee and see tests like these brought to you? I doubt it.
Put 10 minutes of time into your next test instead of 30 seconds. Write down your theory, how you'd like to prove it and also what might disprove it, and the controls and variables used to get the data. You don't need $2000 in studio lights. You don't need $800 test targets. But, look for weaknesses in your testing. Remember, you're trying to prove one of two things... that you've got a good lens, or a bad lens. So, you need to find strong points as much as weak points, and then you need to draw a conclusion.
When you've got your theory, your test results, your facts, and your conclusion, post it to the group. You will be surprised at the response.
I'm not directing 100% of my ire at you. You and several others were simply the most recent. I (and many others) get irritated seeing the same simple-minded tests day after day after day with the same, "Hey, I think I have a bum lens!" Very quickly, it snowballs. Everyone starts duplicating everyone else's poorly made tests, and we've got a large group of people that believe each other that they all have the same lens.
My response to most people is, "No, you have a lens that shoots poorly at poor test subjects in poor light."
Urging people to read their manual, learn the physics of photography... most people don't want to learn, they just want to be able to mindlessly take the perfect picture for the lowest $$$.
I ask people to set some realistic expectations, and take into account the properties of their environment. They don't want to understand that depth of field at 170mm zoom, f4, at a subject distance of 10 feet, is almost nothing. With short DOF, calibration errors seem amazingly large. Yet the same error at 50 feet seems infinitely small. And in poor light, you run an even greater risk of AF error. Add in low contrast subject, and the risk really starts to pile up.
Yet if you take the same situation and move out to 50 feet or stop down several f-stops, the 1% error is not noticeable. Most people never take the time to learn the physics of photography. They simply hear a story, duplicate someone else's tests, and chime in with their results. Irresponsible.
I don't think anything "went buzzing over my head." I realize what
hockeyman was saying...my point is that he takes the time to post
negativity in everyone's 'less-than-perfect' test shot threads.
And quite frankly I'm tired of reading it. No, I don't have studio
lighting in my home....sorry I couldn't post test shots in perfect
lighting. Oh yeah, I also didn't have $800 test targets...so my
crappy green spice bottles had to suffice for that particular
evening. But hey, I did most the specifics for the first 4 shots,
within my first post....This included just about everything I
think. (ISO, focal length, shutter, fstop) So, maybe hockey's
criticism would be more acceptable if he would simply ask us for
more info..or ask us to post a second test changing specific parts
of our methods to increase validity.
Its not that I'm defending my tests Tammy....I realize that they
aren't a tell all and I think I also posted several times, that as
soon as the weather and other circumstances permitted, that I would
test out my new lens with 'real' shots. This did happen today, by
the way, and I think I'm pretty happy with the results....I'll post
them soon. I just don't see a need for all the negativity and
sarcasm. If Hockeyguy's point was to let us know that we are not
equipment-test professionals....then, I think we got understood him
the first few times he told us. I'm just saying that a little
advice would be much more helpful than a new sarcastic thread.
Anyway...I'm done with it...I'll post some of the real-life shots
taken with the new 70-200 f4 soon...
thanks
daniel
--
10D, 24-70L, 70-200 F2.8L IS, 50mm F1.4, 550EX. Bogen 680B w/ 486RC2.
Nikon FE + collection of lenses.
