[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1299766742' post='6654']

As for your tests - judging by your posts all around here, I have my doubts about them. Contrary to that, I have no doubts about your "objectivity" - you are Canon biased and thus one doubts your tests being 100% valid and objective.

[/quote]

You are right... I do have a preferred platform, just like Klaus, mst and everyone else here and out there have their own. But like you've realised, I have been objective and scientific when doing my comparisons and have put the results in front of the readers eyes. And I haven't even given any personal optical ratings or handling ratings or recommendations or any such nonsense like some reviews do out there. I don't publish MTF numbers or blur ratings that are barely meaningful. With my tests, what you see is what you get but when in doubt, feel free to ask... I'm not making money out of these... it's all about knowledge.



Also just FYI, have you looked at my equipment list? I have 8 DSLR lenses and only 4 of them are Canons. The others aren't even for a Canon mount. My most used camera thesedays is my Sony Nex-5 and 16mm prime. In fact, my preference for Canon stuff is purely a statistical thing. Here are some of the reasons for my choices:



1. My preferred fast wide angle lens happens to be on Canon

2. My preferred fast 200mm lens happens to be on Canon

3. My preferred fast "portrait lens" happens to be on Canon

4. My preferred tele-photo tilt-shift happens to be on Canon

5. I'm keeping an eye on 400 2.8s and the best happens to be on Canon (through hands-on experience) and the upcoming one is even better.

6. At the end of the day, it's amazing to look at 21MP FF images from the above on a sensor that doesn't have strong AA filter and doesn't force noise reduction and smear the RAW files. I like my RAW files uncooked so I am the one in control giving me more photographic control.



If Nikon or even Samyang comes up with anything that's better in the above categories, I don't need to jump ship... I'll just get one of those too <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />





[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1299766742' post='6654']

Plus - yes, your procalamations about 35/f1.4 contradicts those of Markus. According to measurements of Photozone.de: Canon 35/f1.4 is definitely a weaker performer compared to Nikon 35/f1.4. And yes, somewhat I believe their findings much more.

[/quote]

It's up to you who you believe... a place with an ad supported website, some numbers with no evidence and a partially reasoned methodology sounds much more credible than an independent reviewer with a strong scientific background who does it only for the kicks I suppose.



GTW

[Klaus]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299804200' post='6662']

It's up to you who you believe... a place with an ad supported website, some numbers with no evidence and a partially reasoned methodology sounds much more credible than an independent reviewer with a strong scientific background who does it only for the kicks I suppose.



GTW

[/quote]



So the question of the day is ... why are you here anyway assuming that our reviews are really so bad as you suggested. :-)



Regarding your "ad" argument - if we wanted to make more money our verdicts must be generally higher. Our number of "highly recommended" lenses is very low which isn't exactly driving readers into buying many lenses. Sometimes I'm a little wondering about our masochism here - lots of testing efforts but only a marginal business case. :-)

Other than that we are not running any manufacturer ads (possibly once in a while they may come in via Google Adsense but not directly). And unlike other sites we've only marginal contacts with the manufacturers regarding the supply of test lenses. Consequently I'd say that your related argument is simply ... invalid.



It's also interesting to read that you ... as a scientific reviewer as you describe yourself ... can't come up with numbers nor with a formal rather than just informal testing methodology. Maybe something to think about ... ? Competition is good so why aren't you starting an own website where you post our results ? Maybe you could even make some money. ;-)

Any if not - we are always open to suggestions how to improve our testing procedure.





cheerio



Klaus

[Guest]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299804200' post='6662']I do have a preferred platform, just like Klaus, mst and everyone else here and out there have their own.[/quote]

The main difference between you and "Klaus, mst and everyone else" is that they don't have a full-time job bashing a competing brand to make your favourite look better.



[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299804200' post='6662']It's up to you who you believe... a place with an ad supported website, some numbers with no evidence and a partially reasoned methodology sounds much more credible than an independent reviewer with a strong scientific background who does it only for the kicks I suppose.[/quote]

True. The "strong scientific background" you mentioned is a master's degree in online trolling, I assume?

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1299826015' post='6666']

So the question of the day is ... why are you here anyway assuming that our reviews are really so bad as you suggested. :-)



Regarding your "ad" argument - if we wanted to make more money our verdicts must be generally higher. Our number of "highly recommended" lenses is very low which isn't exactly driving readers into buying many lenses. Sometimes I'm a little wondering about our masochism here - lots of testing efforts but only a marginal business case. :-)

Other than that we are not running any manufacturer ads (possibly once in a while they may come in via Google Adsense but not directly). And unlike other sites we've only marginal contacts with the manufacturers regarding the supply of test lenses. Consequently I'd say that your related argument is simply ... invalid.



It's also interesting to read that you ... as a scientific reviewer as you describe yourself ... can't come up with numbers nor with a formal rather than just informal testing methodology. Maybe something to think about ... ? Competition is good so why aren't you starting an own website where you post our results ? Maybe you could even make some money. ;-)

Any if not - we are always open to suggestions how to improve our testing procedure.





cheerio



Klaus

[/quote]

While I do not agree with the provocative ways of genotypewriter, I do think that it is not unscientific at all to just show, side by side, actual image results and analyze what one actually sees there.



However, this of course is a limited view on a lens, genotypewriter only looks at how they perform wide open and with limited scope even there (see for instance the bokeh test image, which is not a telling "subject" image).



I do value the information photozone's reviews give, but of course things can always be improved on.



For instance, what usually gives the biggest "impact" on people IQ wise is that hard to get a hold on quality of "colour" and contrast. Contrast is not being tested.



And then there is the rating system, which apparently makes it matter a bit which reviewer is rating a lens. Another point of attention should be the inconsistencies in getting the measurements, as illustrated by the Zeiss 35mm f2 tests, where it is possible for one reviewer to get strangely lower CA measurements than the other, I think that should be seriously looked into.

Maybe it has to do with that the measuring method of the software is not very reliable (my guess).



So, where I would like to see improvements:

- Contrast valuation

- Veiling test with out of view light sources

- More reliable CA assessment

- Maybe do vignetting via RAW with known tonal curve, because now it says more about the body being used than the actual lens.



But, as I said before, I do value your review work, for me it is always part of the puzzle of assessing how good certain lenses actually are.