Lens Mfgr. Comparison

[Belmondo]

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

I saw the above link in a different thread in this forum, so I checked it out and found some interesting things buried in all the data.

First, a disclaimer: I can’t confirm or dispute the data they’re reporting. I’ve seen this site referenced often enough to believe there is at least some credibility. I do not know what test methods they used, nor do I have any indication of how heavily influenced their findings are by subjective evaluation and/or brand preference/loyalty.

That having been said…….

The overall average rating for each manufacturer appear to be as follows:

Carl-Zeiss 3.8
Canon 3.74
Pentax 3.57
Nikkor 3.55
Minolta 3.47
Tokina 3.21
Sigma 3.17
Tamron 2.86
Generic 2.37

There are no major surprises here, at least for me. I certainly expect Carl-Zeiss to be at the top. It was nice to see that Canon is only slightly lower ranked, and that the other camera manufacturers are fairly well behind.

It was also interesting to note that Tokina ranked higher than Sigma.

It should also be noted that even though Canon has six (6) lenses ranked 'outstanding' (compared to N***n's two), they also have six (6) lenses rated sub-average (compare to N***n's three).

What does it all mean? Someone please explain it to me.

Tom

[robertwgross]

The comparison is especially interesting since Nikon supposedly thinks of itself as an optics company. Canon supposedly thinks of itself as an electronics company.

---Bob Gross---

[defordphoto]

robertwgross wrote:
The comparison is especially interesting since Nikon supposedly thinks of itself as an optics company. Canon supposedly thinks of itself as an electronics company.

---Bob Gross---

What kind of company does Generic think of itself?

[Belmondo]

RFMSports wrote:
What kind of company does Generic think of itself?


Nondescript.

:) Tom

[defordphoto]

belmondo wrote:
RFMSports wrote:
What kind of company does Generic think of itself?


Nondescript.

:) Tom

I just can't slip anything past you now can I?

[Belmondo]

RFMSports wrote:I just can't slip anything past you now can I?


It shouldn't be that difficult. I was always the C student in the crowd.

BTW, generic is described as follows:
Note: Lenses marked "Generic" are produced by Cosina (Japan) and licensed to numerous so-called OEMs - "brand" names / labels that is.

Further disclaimer: I'm not responsible for any typing errors I made transcribing their data into an Excel worksheet.

[karusel]

belmondo, that list means nothing... not all zeiss lens are better than canons or tokinas or sigmas, it should just mean, that zeiss doesn't have a great deviance between his consumer and pro products while Tamron for example, has.

Regarding the rest of the page... If you throw an eye to the www.photographyreview.com which I often do, you might notice there's a certain difference in opinions, not with all lens, of course.

I can only imagine that those grades were copied from photography related magazines for which the articles were written by one or perhaps two persons who have used a RENTED lens - for test purposes. Compared to the opinions of those 60 people mentioned above, who actualy own, and have owned the lens they evaluated for weeks or months. Some have presented sample photos, some went further and privately compared them to other lens they own. So for the same reasons I discredit their manufacturer evaluation, again: it means nothing.

[Belmondo]

karusel wrote:
belmondo, that list means nothing.

I didn't intend to imply any endorsement of the site for their conclusions, methodologies, or completeness. The fact is, any test of a lens is suspect at best. It was just a fun mathematical exercise just to see how brands compare based on one person's or group’s findings.

After all, rating lenses is a tricky business at best. Among the problems lens reviewers face:
1. Sample quality is not always consistent. Very often the items they test are pre-production units that have been passed around among several people, including journalists who are notorious for not treating these things with great care. It’s also possible to get a bad production unit---it even happens to us mortals.
2. Reviewers are human (well, sort of) and are subject to personal prejudices (i.e. brand loyalty). Check the disdain with which a die-hard Nikon user will regard a Canon, regardless of model. Canon users, of course, return the favor with their own brand of aloofness.
3. Much of their review criteria are subjective. Some like a warm image. Others like a soft image. Yet others prefer the push/pull zoom. They’re all not measuring against the same scale.
4. Some are simply crippled by the notion that an inexpensive lens can’t be good, or that an expensive lens with a red ring is automatically a keeper.

So whenever I read a review, I am interested in the irrefutable hard facts---focal lengths, apertures, number of lenses and groups, additional features, and so on. I’m much less likely to be swayed by findings on image quality and ultimately try to reserve those judgments for myself.

Anyway, I still think the numbers are interesting.

Tom

[karusel]

I absolutely agree (except with that last line :D), but despite the individual preferences, when reading reviews on that site I mentioned (or it could be any other, that has many opinions, for that matter) a pattern begins to form... people repeat things that they liked, and things they disliked, now this is what fills my evaluation sheet, all else that is mentionet by one, perhaps two individuals is ignored. In the end you get a pretty clear picture. There are numerous reviewers that give a lens 5* but in their review they state - for that money [$100 for example], you couldn't ask for more. So all you gotta do is read everything, filter out the personal annoyances/noob-superlikes and you get your own test results that are in my opinion far more accurate than the test results in some photo magazine. And in the end you might want to surf to pbase and search for some photos made by this certain lens you're interested in, and sometimes you'll even find a comparison (like a guy who compared sigma 50-500 and a canon 100-400), then you know exactly what you're gona get, even without ever holding the lens in your own hands. 8)