Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
So finally ... the new Leica DG 100-400mm f/4-6.3 OIS
#21
the lenstip results are around 20lpmm lower than the ephotozine results at both the long and short ends:

 

                        short      long

lenstip             ~60         ~40

ephotozine     ~ 79         ~65

 

(I converted the ephotozine results from lw/ph to lwmm by dividing by 17.3mm for the sensor size and divide again by 2 for line pairs to line widths)

 

The very best mft lenses get to around 80lwmm acording to lenstip, so the result of 79 sounds plausible at the short end, and 65 woudl be good at the long end.

 

one thing to note is that the lenses were tested on different camers - ephotozine used the GX8, where as lenstip used the olympus E-PL1.

#22
Not sure. They had good results with the fuji 100-400 so I think they can test long lens.  How trust worhty is ephotozoine technique ? I suppose it could be vibration or shutter shock but I would think lenstip has enough experience to deal with stuff like that ? Might be a firmware issue ?

#23
Quote:the lenstip results are around 20lpmm lower than the ephotozine results at both the long and short ends:

 

                        short      long

lenstip             ~60         ~40

ephotozine     ~ 79         ~65

 

(I converted the ephotozine results from lw/ph to lwmm by dividing by 17.3mm for the sensor size and divide again by 2 for line pairs to line widths)

 

The very best mft lenses get to around 80lwmm acording to lenstip, so the result of 79 sounds plausible at the short end, and 65 woudl be good at the long end.

 

one thing to note is that the lenses were tested on different camers - ephotozine used the GX8, where as lenstip used the olympus E-PL1.
Uhmm yeah. ~12mp for the E-PL1 and ~20mp for GX8, and you compare how much line pairs per mm the sensors can resolve? Not really something to do.... 

Also, you can't compare results like that from site to site, without knowing if their workflow is exactly the same. In the same vain, you should not compare PZ results and Lenstip results like that.... 

#24
agreed, still the lenstip results look out of step.

#25
The air diffusion at 400mm ("800mm") should be quite immense (if they stick to the usual procedure at least) but this doesn't explain the bad corners at LensTip.

Also note that the lens is also far out there in diffraction territory at 400mm.

#26
Lenstips tests of mft lenses are a bit weird to me, as they still use a 12 mp sensor. Also some of the tested lenses seem to have centring problems. Ephotozine also have some very strange test results.

So I will not make any conclusion yet. 
#27
/**** inevitable question alert ****/

 

so Klaus, when is the 100-400 going the be tested?

 

Smile

#28
Jordan Steele just reviewed the 100-400. Although he doesn't shoot charts, I trust his reviews more than lenstip and ephotozine (I definitely don't trust their reviews):

http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-pan...mar-ois/1/

--Florent

Flickr gallery
#29
Looks like Jordan came to the same conclusions as several other reviews I read on the 'net, by, amongst others, wildlife shooters.

 

Kind regards, Wim

Gear: Canon EOS R, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 11 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, extension tubes, an accessory plague, and an Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II, Pen F and Panasonic GM5 with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#30
Quote:Jordan Steele just reviewed the 100-400. Although he doesn't shoot charts, I trust his reviews more than lenstip and ephotozine (I definitely don't trust their reviews):

http://admiringlight.com/blog/review-pan...mar-ois/1/
Lenstip's images kinda agree with their measurements.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)