06-17-2011, 12:24 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1308211339' post='9275']
As of now we consider the MTF analysis to be sufficient. Adding further MTF characteristics wouldn't result in a substantial gain of information. At some stage we considered MTF20 charts but this would also make things more complicated and it would only appreciated by a minimal amount of users. There must be a balance between simplicity and substance. This is not a science project but a photo magazine after all.
However, we are looking into other aspects such as a formal glare analysis, contrast and possibly field curvature. IMHO this is all more important than adding more MTF data.
Klaus
[/quote]
At large, I would prefer more lens tests over more test details.
However, standardized tests of those other aspects -where appropriate- sound interesting. As with bokeh, I think there is no need to provide a formal test for all lenses.
Lens flare is an issue that I find quite difficult to judge from any lens review. What does it mean that the Tokina 12-24 is more prone to flare than the Pentax version? I guess on a test bench these two versions would produce the same ghost reflections just with different brightness. Or does less flare mean small but bright speckles versus large blotches of subdue ghosting? Make no mistake, I have complete faith in your assessments. It's just difficult to glean whether more flare would still be acceptable for my taste. I therefore much appreciated the sample shots in the review of the Nikkor 14-24. That gave a good impression as to what to expect from this lens. Maybe some sample shots in contra light with the sun in or just outside of the frame would make up for a standardized glare analysis. But then, suggestions are easily made, outdoor sample shots less so.
Thanks for the great work.
Ralf.
As of now we consider the MTF analysis to be sufficient. Adding further MTF characteristics wouldn't result in a substantial gain of information. At some stage we considered MTF20 charts but this would also make things more complicated and it would only appreciated by a minimal amount of users. There must be a balance between simplicity and substance. This is not a science project but a photo magazine after all.
However, we are looking into other aspects such as a formal glare analysis, contrast and possibly field curvature. IMHO this is all more important than adding more MTF data.
Klaus
[/quote]
At large, I would prefer more lens tests over more test details.
However, standardized tests of those other aspects -where appropriate- sound interesting. As with bokeh, I think there is no need to provide a formal test for all lenses.
Lens flare is an issue that I find quite difficult to judge from any lens review. What does it mean that the Tokina 12-24 is more prone to flare than the Pentax version? I guess on a test bench these two versions would produce the same ghost reflections just with different brightness. Or does less flare mean small but bright speckles versus large blotches of subdue ghosting? Make no mistake, I have complete faith in your assessments. It's just difficult to glean whether more flare would still be acceptable for my taste. I therefore much appreciated the sample shots in the review of the Nikkor 14-24. That gave a good impression as to what to expect from this lens. Maybe some sample shots in contra light with the sun in or just outside of the frame would make up for a standardized glare analysis. But then, suggestions are easily made, outdoor sample shots less so.
Thanks for the great work.
Ralf.
