Facinating lens-to-lens image quality comparison tool.

[Colin Southern]

I envy you, Colin. Or more appropriately curse myself for getting more liberal minded with age. Life was so much simpler when I didn't waste time considering others' perspectives. But your meaningful comparison is a good one regarding the petrol. I've always thought it rather absurd that performance auto drivers think they have to burn higher octane gasoline than I do on my daily commute to the office. For that matter why do they have to drive different cars than us at Indy or LeMans? But in that context I have to voice a difference of opinion. Your example of the spec analysis hoaxe pales in comparison to the billions spent on the meaningless boost in octane for which motorists pay a premium every year. And don't even get me started on diesel versus gasoline engines...

Dan,

It's not about me being narrow-minded - it's about an entire industry more than happy to milk "the great misconception" of higher specs translating into better photos. I've no idea how old you are (it's irreverent anyway), but I'm 53 - have been doing this "for more than a few years now" and in all that time I've get to see a SINGLE real-wold image that would have looked any different if shot with lens "B" instead of lens "A", assuming both lenses were similarly positioned in the market.

Marketers are more than happy to let people believe that better specs translate to significantly better images whilst at the same time completely overlooking a raft of factors that collectively have 100 or 1000 times bigger effect on the image.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - people would be far better off ignoring comparison sites like the one quoted originally, and instead, invest that time in areas that will have a far bigger effect on their real-world results. People who waste time with 100% crop performance are LITERALLY missing the big picture.

[oldgreygary]

I tend to look at these posts with a weary point of view. I think that if people spent as much time on composition as they do worrying about technical details such as this then there photography would move forward in a more positive way. By making people feel insecure about equipment they have got and promising some sort of 'perfect world' if you get a new piece of equipment. The only winners are the companies. In my opinion far better to exhaust the possibilities with what you have got and I reckon in terms of composition there's probably about 90% more you can do to improve your images without resorting to additional financial expense on new kit? That's just my opinion.

Cheers for now

Gary

[ajohnw]

Heck - when I bought my Canon EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II, I did it without consulting a single MTF chart or looking at any 100% crops. It's been great - love it - would buy it again in a heartbeat.

But now I'm not too sure - I saw a 100% crop that suggested another lens might be slightly sharper - and to make matters worse it was on a Nikon. So now I'm going to have to consider selling up everything and switching. But what if I do that and then Canon makes a better one .

Signed, lost and confused.

I've sort of pointed out that buying a "better" lens may not live up to expectations. And on posts after this one you made I agree they wont lead to better photography either. It's a fact that the chance of finding a lens that doesn't fall off in the corners is remote. Best option if some one must is use APS and fit a full frame lens which has other problems.

There are a lot of people that couldn't afford or even come near justifying your array of lenses Colin. One sad aspect about something like that 28-200mm which frankly I wouldn't fancy carrying around is that if some one wants an APS lens with the same level of quality covering the same equivalent range they are going to have a problem. The lens doesn't exist. It easily could but it doesn't. There is a morel here - despite using inferior optics - they generally are - APS users manage to produce high quality pictures. It's a fact that these people could do the same thing with Canon's or Nikon's base line DSLR as well. Not that many would which is another story mostly related to human nature.

I'm really curious to know who has suggested you could select a better lens than you already have by looking at 100% crops? I only look at them if there is nothing else around. On that 18-105mm lens it's rather easy to get carried away and forget what that actually means in practice. The corners are probably showing a small area at the end of a I don't know 5ft diagonal image.

On another post I've driven a deisel for years. Some USA colleagues reckon they would if they lived here as well. I saved one of them from a fate worse than death. He didn't understand why most of us drive manuals so his gaffer arranged for his hire car to be a 1.1 ltr auto. I persuaded the hire company to fail to find it. When I drive a petrol car now it feels sluggish.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

I for one am glad that those corporate villains make a profit. Otherwise the gear available for us to pursue our craft/hobby would be severely limited. And for the record I'm pro diesel Don't drive one because in the US both the vehicles and the fuel come come dear relative to gasoline.

[Colin Southern]

I for one am glad that those corporate villains make a profit. Otherwise the gear available for us to pursue our craft/hobby would be severely limited.

I'm glad that they make a profit too (because if they don't then eventually they go under), but regardless, I feel that the marketing that accomplishes that for them needs to be ethical. Case-in-point - the Canon EF24-70mm F2.8L USM II; if someone is after a 24-70mm lens for their Canon camera then it's a great choice. If someone already has the original version (as I do) then "upgrading" on IQ grounds is a waste of time (IMO). If Canon were to advocate upgrading on IQ grounds then I'd suggest that was the great marketing myth continuing.

And for the record I'm pro diesel Don't drive one because in the US both the vehicles and the fuel come come dear relative to gasoline.

I'm a big fan of diesel too; in these parts it's around 25% cheaper and if my previous experiences driving diesel vehicles is still current then one can expect up to 20% more distance for the same quantity, for some reason. Having just said that, these days I drive a petrol model car -- it's what it happened to have under the bonnet when I bought it.