4 replies to this topic

[Dave Etchells]

Hi all -


We've just completed posting of an exhaustive (and exhausting) comparison of six different 50mm lenses on the market, from Canon, Nikon, and Sigma. Uber-tech Jim pored through the data, created graphs comparing each lens' performance with the average of the other six, and commented on the differences he found. (One interesting consequence of this is how similar the lenses were, between the apertures of roughly f/2.8 and f/16.)

This was a lot of work, and also a bit of a departure from our previous, more conversational style. We do think that this should help in making decisions as to which lens to buy, but would like to hear from you, our readers, as to what you think of it, what you like, what could be different, etc. Here's a list of links to the articles in question:

    Canon 50mm f/1.2L
    Canon 50mm f/1.4
    Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
    Nikon 50mm f/1.4
    Nikon 50mm f/1.8
    Sigma 50mm f/2.8 Macro

For comparison, here's a link to a recent review in our previous format (Note though, that this isn't really a direct comparison, because we don't have an extensive list of similar lenses to compare it with):

   Nikon 24mm f/2.8D AF

Let us know your thoughts: Your feedback is important in our efforts to make this site as useful as possible to you!

Thanks!
- Dave E

[Bytesmiths]

Dave Etchells, on Mar 27 2007, 08:01 AM, said:

Let us know your thoughts...

Well, I think you need to include the Zuiko 50mm ƒ2 macro. I've heard it compared favorably with similar Leica glass. It's certainly among the best lenses I've ever owned!

[Treble57]

I like the format!  Yup!  Looks good to me...

Oh, and maybe someone could go respond to this post:  http://forums.slrgea...p?showtopic=267

Thanks,

Bob

[Dave Etchells]

Bytesmiths, on Mar 27 2007, 11:33 PM, said:

Well, I think you need to include the Zuiko 50mm ƒ2 macro. I've heard it compared favorably with similar Leica glass. It's certainly among the best lenses I've ever owned!

Hi Jan -

Thanks for the suggestion. We don't have an Olympus test-bed yet, there hasn't been enough demand to justify the expense of acquiring an Olympus body and doing the extensive cross-calibration we need to insure comparability between the Oly tests and those on other platforms. (The couple of lenses we did test were done on an E-300 body that was on loan from Olympus, we've never done a full calibration on that platform.)

I'll add your request to the list of those asking for Olympus coverage though, which will help hasten the day when we finally "take the plunge" on the Oly platform.

- Dave E.

[touristguy87]

". (One interesting consequence of this is how similar the lenses were, between the apertures of roughly f/2.8 and f/16.)"

...this is a general problem with severe consequences.

It means that most if not all of the reviews end up saying the same thing, or just about the same thing.

something like...the lenses may be somewhat sharp at wide-open but are almost always much sharper 2 or 3 stops in up until one maybe 2 stops beyond the diffraction limit of the camera used in the test.

and if so, what you guys should do is test more lenses with less precision, to try to reduce the number of bad lenses out there that have yet to be found and identified.

the only thing that I would really ask about the tests is that the 3d graphs lock the F# to whatever I set it to instead of using the F# relative to the wide-open F# at that focal-length.
ie if a lens is F3.6 wide open but F5.6 at half-zoom, then moving to F8 at wide-open means that if the zoom is changed to half-full zoom then the F# jumps to F11 or something. It needs to stay constant, at least the minimum F# if that's what you start with, and whatever it's set to beyond that, if it's above the minimum F# at full zoom.