Will Otus 85 retain its value?

I view DXOMark as something of academic interest, but don't usually include it in the websites I consult prior to any lens purchase. It's not that useful on its own, particularly for a less experienced photographer who might end up obsessing over the differences in a particular metric between two lenses, when it has no practical bearing on real-world applications, such as rejecting a portrait lens contender for poor corner sharpness, or a lens you mean to use for landscapes for being a bit soft wide open.

The OP is right to look at examples on Flickr and 500px. What people are actually doing with a lens is a far better measure of its performance. After that, reviews from the-digital-picture, photozone.de, digitalrev, tony northrup, fro, etc... all usually have some interesting bits that go beyond the specs and end results and consider things like build, ease-of-use, real-world gotchas, etc. that you don't get from numbers and charts.

I believe test data is more important than 'practical use,' which makes comparisons near impossible in some aspects.

What I didn't know is that the data may have been collected improperly or may be completely wrong. (i.e., IDK if DXO mentions field curvature.)

However, I want to point out that the data from slrgear, the-digital-picture, and dxomark, approximately follow each other (in what I've seen, so far.).

DXO shows otus 55 as bettering canon 85 1.2 even @ 5.6, but both sites show them to be pretty sharp, and to have similar changes based on f/.

Although I don't only use those; I always also search for 'bokeh,' which AFAIK is never measured, only compared visually. And lately I look for real examples, esp. now that I know about color cast on some lenses.

(No hyperbole now, though I point out that my use was relative and not absolute.)

absplastic wrote in post #17953535
The OP is right to look at examples on Flickr and 500px. What people are actually doing with a lens is a far better measure of its performance. After that, reviews from the-digital-picture, photozone.de, digitalrev, tony northrup, fro, etc... all usually have some interesting bits that go beyond the specs and end results and consider things like build, ease-of-use, real-world gotchas, etc. that you don't get from numbers and charts.

And matt granger, I watched his 85mm otus videos.
I don't recommend him though, not with the nude pictures in his videos on his wall. Highly inappropriate / not professional, esp. without a warning for minors.

The biggest problem with ALL of the review sites on the web, with the exception of information posted by Lens rentals, is that none of them actually measure and test LENSES. They test lens/camera combinations which is not the same thing at all. For example there is really only one way to test lens resolution and that is to put it on a dedicated optical test bench. The problem with that is they can cost upwards of $50K. The same really applies to most other metrics used when testing lenses.

Once you start testing lenses on a digital camera body the digital sensor creates hard limits beyond which it is impossible to test. It is simply impossible to compare results of tests done using two different cameras with different sensors.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #17953549
The biggest problem with ALL of the review sites on the web, with the exception of information posted by Lens rentals, is that none of them actually measure and test LENSES. They test lens/camera combinations which is not the same thing at all. For example there is really only one way to test lens resolution and that is to put it on a dedicated optical test bench. The problem with that is they can cost upwards of $50K. The same really applies to most other metrics used when testing lenses.

Once you start testing lenses on a digital camera body the digital sensor creates hard limits beyond which it is impossible to test. It is simply impossible to compare results of tests done using two different cameras with different sensors.

Alan

Thanks for the input and reference.

https://www.lensrental​s.com …85mm-f1-4-and-1-2-primes/

And otus: https://www.lensrental​s.com …iss-85mm-otus-mtf-charts/

It looks like they only test wide open? (excuse me if this was a stupid question.)

BigAl007 wrote in post #17953549
The biggest problem with ALL of the review sites on the web, with the exception of information posted by Lens rentals, is that none of them actually measure and test LENSES. They test lens/camera combinations which is not the same thing at all.

I don't see this as a problem, in fact it's why I value user reviews so much more heavily than test sites. We (photographers) are not design engineers, we don't need white-paper datasheets on individual components. I would argue that knowing the numbers can often work against the photographer, discouraging them from trying equipment they might love. MTF curves of the 85L don't look great at f/1.2, but find one person willing to give up their 85L, or not shoot it regularly at f/1.2

How a lens performs on an optical test bench isn't useful to me because I have to put it on either a 6D or 5D to actually use it. Lens performance curves are academic and easily misinterpreted. I'm on the more technical end of the photographer spectrum (I'm an EE, not an artist by trade), and I know rigorous testing has its place in the engineering process, but I don't think reading charts and comparing numbers is that useful to majority end users.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17953549
The biggest problem with ALL of the review sites on the web, with the exception of information posted by Lens rentals, is that none of them actually measure and test LENSES. They test lens/camera combinations which is not the same thing at all. For example there is really only one way to test lens resolution and that is to put it on a dedicated optical test bench. The problem with that is they can cost upwards of $50K. The same really applies to most other metrics used when testing lenses.

Once you start testing lenses on a digital camera body the digital sensor creates hard limits beyond which it is impossible to test. It is simply impossible to compare results of tests done using two different cameras with different sensors.

Alan

I dont agree at all. The sensor cover matters, and body/lens combo matters more than theory. It's just like a car's theoretical horsepower vs wheel hp. Lensrental has the sigma 70-200 sharper than the tamron 70-200, and pretty much no review agrees with this. Same thing with the leica reviews, havent seen a single leica summicron and sigma art vs otus.

in theory, it's good, however sensor stack and AA filter change real world results drastically.

absplastic wrote in post #17953535
The OP is right to look at examples on Flickr and 500px. What people are actually doing with a lens is a far better measure of its performance. After that, reviews from the-digital-picture, photozone.de, digitalrev, tony northrup, fro, etc... all usually have some interesting bits that go beyond the specs and end results and consider things like build, ease-of-use, real-world gotchas, etc. that you don't get from numbers and charts.

And once again someone forgot Ken Rockwell. SMH

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #17953827
And once again someone forgot Ken Rockwell. SMH

Ha ha, you know I thought about it though ;-P Just didn't want to open that can of worms again.

absplastic wrote in post #17953833
Ha ha, you know I thought about it though ;-P Just didn't want to open that can of worms again.

Figured there were enough arguments in this thread already?

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #17953843
Figured there were enough arguments in this thread already?

This is nothing, try a game forum.

"The Perceptual MPix measure provides photographers with a value that is more strongly associated with the true resolution of their camera sensor when coupled with a lens, or vice versa. For example, a photographer who shoots with a 20-megapixel sensor might produce images that are realistically only 15 megapixels in resolution. A number of factors can cause this loss in megapixels and resolution, including such lens defects as optical aberrations, light diffraction, or an ineffective anti-aliasing filter. The difference in number between a sensor’s megapixels and Perceptual MPix quantifies this loss."

This is one paragraph that has always bothered me from DXO. What are they testing here? The lens or the sensor?
And another one ....

"... P-Mpix is the unit of a sharpness measurement. The number of P-Mpix of a camera/lens combination is equal to the pixel count of a sensor that would give the same sharpness if tested with a perfect theoretical optics, ..."

ebiggs wrote in post #17954633
"The Perceptual MPix measure provides photographers with a value that is more strongly associated with the true resolution of their camera sensor when coupled with a lens, or vice versa. For example, a photographer who shoots with a 20-megapixel sensor might produce images that are realistically only 15 megapixels in resolution. A number of factors can cause this loss in megapixels and resolution, including such lens defects as optical aberrations, light diffraction, or an ineffective anti-aliasing filter. The difference in number between a sensor’s megapixels and Perceptual MPix quantifies this loss."

This is one paragraph that has always bothered me from DXO. What are they testing here? The lens or the sensor?
And another one ....

"... P-Mpix is the unit of a sharpness measurement. The number of P-Mpix of a camera/lens combination is equal to the pixel count of a sensor that would give the same sharpness if tested with a perfect theoretical optics, ..."

Haha...yes, that perceptual Mpix was and is a bad idea. From a marketing standpoint, though, it is brilliant. DXO has become the corporate polished version of KR.

The mpix score isn't so bad if it's just one aspect of someone's evaluation of a lens, but all too often it does get cited as THE defining judgment on a lens.

I own the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2/135mm, which has an outstanding mpix score, but in all honesty, I don't really think it's all that awesome. Super sharp? Yep. But, it has a so-so bokeh and doesn't even render a scene with as much overall contrast as my lowly 70-200mm f/4L IS. I'm by no means down on the lens, just using it as an anecdote to say that the mpix score isn't entirely successful at rating lenses.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17954676
I own the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2/135mm, which has an outstanding mpix score, but in all honesty, I don't really think it's all that awesome. Super sharp? Yep. But, it has a so-so bokeh and doesn't even render a scene with as much overall contrast as my lowly 70-200mm f/4L IS.

And why I feel sick having sold my 50L for the perfect 35L II. I was looking at some 50L pictures I took in the last few days and it has only made me feel worse - I now have to buy it again. The added problem for me was that I didn't like the original 35L and I sold them together to get the much better 35L II which I like a lot - but I miss the 50L - it has magic - I shot it at F1.6 to F2 - it is perfect for what it does - I hope the only thing they do to the new version is give it a tiny bit of tack sharpness at F1.2 and remove the worst of the CA - otherwise if they do more than that they will ruin it.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17954676
Haha...yes, that perceptual Mpix was and is a bad idea. From a marketing standpoint, though, it is brilliant. DXO has become the corporate polished version of KR.

The mpix score isn't so bad if it's just one aspect of someone's evaluation of a lens, but all too often it does get cited as THE defining judgment on a lens.

I own the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2/135mm, which has an outstanding mpix score, but in all honesty, I don't really think it's all that awesome. Super sharp? Yep. But, it has a so-so bokeh and doesn't even render a scene with as much overall contrast as my lowly 70-200mm f/4L IS. I'm by no means down on the lens, just using it as an anecdote to say that the mpix score isn't entirely successful at rating lenses.

How does the sonnar 135 compare to otus, excluding sharpness?