01-25-2011, 12:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-25-2011, 12:08 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1295949621' post='5747']
Hi Markus nice test... but I have a little trouble to understand the policy behind the testing priority. The Zeiss has been tested with great results on Canon fullframe. Consequently it was clear that it wouldnt be a dog on a 10MP Nikon crop Camera. Thus anybody interested in that lens gains little to none from this additional test apart from thed iffernt absolute reslution/CA/vignetting/distortion numbers. On the other hand the 28-300 has not been tested at all yet, shouldnt the priority on that lens have been higher?
[/quote]
Of course you are quite right, however that would mean that lenses only should be tested on full frame, unless they are APS-C only lenses.
Problem with that approach, though, is that you would have to explain time and time again to visitors how to read full frame tests with APS-C in mind. Because not everybody "gets" that.
Since photozone does both tests on APS-C and on FF, separate from eachother, testing the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 on APS-C is not all that strange. I am guessing there is more to the sequence of testing the lenses than just which lens people are waiting on the most.. For instance, when and for how long can the reviewer have access to a certain lens.
In case you can't wait on a test of the Nikon 28-300:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=272
"Pros:
* wide and useful focal lengths range,
* good build quality,
* very good image quality in the frame centre,
* slight distortion on DX sensor,
* low astigmatism,
* vignetting on DX sensor not bothersome at all,
* efficient image stabilization,
* silent and relatively accurate autofocus.
Cons:
* weak image quality on the edge of DX and full frame as well,
* very high distortion on full frame,
* high chromatic aberration at longer focal lengths,
* significant coma in full frame corners,
* noticeable problems during work against bright light."
Not a great lens then, and certainly a bit strange for full frame, as the current size, weight and price of full frame cameras make those cameras be tools for advanced amateurs and professionals, while such a lens is more a tool for a "point and shoot" family shot photographer (the target group for the 18-200's on APS-C).
But, as the review also points out, the lens is not worse than the Nikon 70-300 VR in many areas.
Hi Markus nice test... but I have a little trouble to understand the policy behind the testing priority. The Zeiss has been tested with great results on Canon fullframe. Consequently it was clear that it wouldnt be a dog on a 10MP Nikon crop Camera. Thus anybody interested in that lens gains little to none from this additional test apart from thed iffernt absolute reslution/CA/vignetting/distortion numbers. On the other hand the 28-300 has not been tested at all yet, shouldnt the priority on that lens have been higher?
[/quote]
Of course you are quite right, however that would mean that lenses only should be tested on full frame, unless they are APS-C only lenses.
Problem with that approach, though, is that you would have to explain time and time again to visitors how to read full frame tests with APS-C in mind. Because not everybody "gets" that.
Since photozone does both tests on APS-C and on FF, separate from eachother, testing the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 on APS-C is not all that strange. I am guessing there is more to the sequence of testing the lenses than just which lens people are waiting on the most.. For instance, when and for how long can the reviewer have access to a certain lens.
In case you can't wait on a test of the Nikon 28-300:
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=272
"Pros:
* wide and useful focal lengths range,
* good build quality,
* very good image quality in the frame centre,
* slight distortion on DX sensor,
* low astigmatism,
* vignetting on DX sensor not bothersome at all,
* efficient image stabilization,
* silent and relatively accurate autofocus.
Cons:
* weak image quality on the edge of DX and full frame as well,
* very high distortion on full frame,
* high chromatic aberration at longer focal lengths,
* significant coma in full frame corners,
* noticeable problems during work against bright light."
Not a great lens then, and certainly a bit strange for full frame, as the current size, weight and price of full frame cameras make those cameras be tools for advanced amateurs and professionals, while such a lens is more a tool for a "point and shoot" family shot photographer (the target group for the 18-200's on APS-C).
But, as the review also points out, the lens is not worse than the Nikon 70-300 VR in many areas.