06-30-2011, 09:59 AM
Well, the DA* 300/4 has a sub-optimal bokeh. That was the reason for the non-HR rating.
We didn't test this aspect on the FA* because it just wasn't part of the test procedure at the time. Therefore it may well be that the FA* was just "lucky" to get the HR rating.
Klaus
[quote name='britenschurl' timestamp='1309358739' post='9616']
Dear Klaus
Many thanks for your brilliant work - I am an addict to your website and was eagerly awaiting this particular review. Duly, the review tipped me into buying the lens within a few weeks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> and I can only (subjectively) confirm everything that have found with your detailled and scientific evaluation, just like with any other lens that I own and that you reviewed. One thing however, that keeps me wondering sometimes is your final rating and your recommendation. In this case the DA* 300mm was very positively rated, but slightly less than the FA* 300mm. Checking at the individual analyses I can't find an obvious reason for this. I don't have the FA*, but just by looking at the values the FA* and the DA* look pretty much identical. So is there a certain subjective component you put into your final star rating and the 'highly recommended' laurels that is derived from <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' /> unmeasurable more visceral criteria?
all the best
britenschurl
[/quote]
We didn't test this aspect on the FA* because it just wasn't part of the test procedure at the time. Therefore it may well be that the FA* was just "lucky" to get the HR rating.
Klaus
[quote name='britenschurl' timestamp='1309358739' post='9616']
Dear Klaus
Many thanks for your brilliant work - I am an addict to your website and was eagerly awaiting this particular review. Duly, the review tipped me into buying the lens within a few weeks <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> and I can only (subjectively) confirm everything that have found with your detailled and scientific evaluation, just like with any other lens that I own and that you reviewed. One thing however, that keeps me wondering sometimes is your final rating and your recommendation. In this case the DA* 300mm was very positively rated, but slightly less than the FA* 300mm. Checking at the individual analyses I can't find an obvious reason for this. I don't have the FA*, but just by looking at the values the FA* and the DA* look pretty much identical. So is there a certain subjective component you put into your final star rating and the 'highly recommended' laurels that is derived from <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' /> unmeasurable more visceral criteria?all the best
britenschurl
[/quote]