11-22-2017, 03:29 PM
Changing a preparation method after years of testing would then mean retesting. Otherwise the results would be as comparable as today. I don't see the resources for a two-person test site. Usually I check at lensrentals or lenscore if I want to know about MTF charts - with the advantage of lensrentals' batch testing. But honestly, I didn't care about test results with the last dozen purchases.
Once I rented a lens (to find out the 85/1.4 Art is too massive), other times I visited a weekend event of Sigma or Fuji to try out. Often I trusted Sigma or Fuji (and occassionally ended up with a disappointment). To me, testing falls short in daily practice. What good is excellent center sharpness after purchase if after a while the zoom ring starts to wobble or I have to find out the VR has some weak spots?
Yesterday night I did some star shots with the 14/1.8. In the corners wide open I saw some butterfly-lights. At 100% they look awful, as an A3 print hardly noticeable. One shot I thought I focused at infinity - and some 3-4 meters distant trees were pretty okay.
We are super spoilt by lenses which were literally impossible to produce only a decade ago.
Once I rented a lens (to find out the 85/1.4 Art is too massive), other times I visited a weekend event of Sigma or Fuji to try out. Often I trusted Sigma or Fuji (and occassionally ended up with a disappointment). To me, testing falls short in daily practice. What good is excellent center sharpness after purchase if after a while the zoom ring starts to wobble or I have to find out the VR has some weak spots?
Yesterday night I did some star shots with the 14/1.8. In the corners wide open I saw some butterfly-lights. At 100% they look awful, as an A3 print hardly noticeable. One shot I thought I focused at infinity - and some 3-4 meters distant trees were pretty okay.
We are super spoilt by lenses which were literally impossible to produce only a decade ago.