01-05-2015, 09:26 AM
Thank you for your kind and competent comments.
As far as I can understand (sorry I'm not an expert in this field) I realized that each tester has its own methodology which may provide big difference in the results ( I was convinced there was a single methodolgy recognised by International authories (ISO, etc..).
Scythel, considering the methodology adopted in your laboratory based on interferometry (if I well understood it is the same methodology adopted in the photozone tests) how do you judge the three lenses (tamron 24-70 f2.8, sigma 24-105 f4 and nikon 24-120) in term of : sharpness, distortion, chromatics aberrations?
Could you also specify if the numerical differences raised from the test results are easily perceptible to the eye?
What I'm trying to understand if it is preferable to renounce a minimum of quality (perhaps highlighted by numerical tests but then not so much important to view) at the expense of greater flexibility
As far as I can understand (sorry I'm not an expert in this field) I realized that each tester has its own methodology which may provide big difference in the results ( I was convinced there was a single methodolgy recognised by International authories (ISO, etc..).
Scythel, considering the methodology adopted in your laboratory based on interferometry (if I well understood it is the same methodology adopted in the photozone tests) how do you judge the three lenses (tamron 24-70 f2.8, sigma 24-105 f4 and nikon 24-120) in term of : sharpness, distortion, chromatics aberrations?
Could you also specify if the numerical differences raised from the test results are easily perceptible to the eye?
What I'm trying to understand if it is preferable to renounce a minimum of quality (perhaps highlighted by numerical tests but then not so much important to view) at the expense of greater flexibility