That zoom is "Primelike" and other big lies. Roger Cicala sets us straight.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #18280230
I bet if you downsize two images to around 640x480, one taken by the infamous 75-300mm at 300mm and f5.6 and the other by the 300mm f2.8L IS II at f5.6, you probably wouldn't see the difference...

1995 called, they want their image resolution back.

I'm actually quite amazed that some people are still arguing that a zoom lens can be "prime like" despite Rogers detailed and articulate blog post?! Zooms by their very nature are going to be more variable than primes and nothing will change that. I have what are rightly regarded as two of the best zooms Canon make, the 24-70mm f/2.8L MkII and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MkII, superb optics and the current pinnacle of optical science. But if you start looking closely enough, little flaws will show themselves. Having said that, they are on my cameras 90% of the time because they are that good, though not perfect (no lens is!). I only use my primes now if I need faster apertures, but by their very nature they are less prone to optical errors because of the simpler design. Common sense I would have thought??

What has happened is that zooms, before the MKII versions came out and before Sigma came out with the ART line, were notoriously lower in quality compared to primes, especially noticeable as the resolution increased in cameras. However with the advent of higher pixel densities requiring lenses that could resolve more detail, the new lines of lenses have come out, and a majority were huge improvements. The arguments were more akin to "zooms are now closer to primes" than really saying that zooms can replace primes. There have been some outlier statements to this effect, but only due to the amazement of detail the new zooms can muster, I doubt this is the general view. Also, quite frankly there are some zooms now that beat out some primes. Not all primes are created equal.

Also as the article states, test charts are good for testing, they reek for real-life experience. Trees, leaves, people, pets, etc all result in a different experience than what test charts show. Test charts are flat, life-less, low DR, etc. Real life has all kinds of other detail and DR that add to the results. Quite frankly again, I could care less about the tests in that article, all that I gather from that is that there is a tremendous amount of copy variation, still to this day, and that is a primary cause of all of the "my sensor is better than your sensor", or "this camera cannot resolve detail like that camera", or "my lens is better than your lens" discussions. This means I will tend to ignore those threads now, because lens variation alone could easily be the cause of that.

That is the only really useful take-away I have from that thread. Of course most primes (not all) will be sharper than a zoom, however primes are very limiting, so there is often no other choice than to get a zoom.

I have been playing with the Samyang 135 f2, and am really starting to enjoy it, but it is a limited use lens for me, not just because of no AF, but because it is a prime. I don't typically shoot prime-friendly scenes.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18280297
Also as the article states, test charts are good for testing, they reek for real-life experience. Trees, leaves, people, pets, etc all result in a different experience than what test charts show. Test charts are flat, life-less, low DR, etc. Real life has all kinds of other detail and DR that add to the results. Quite frankly again, I could care less about the tests in that article, all that I gather from that is that there is a tremendous amount of copy variation, still to this day, and that is a primary cause of all of the "my sensor is better than your sensor", or "this camera cannot resolve detail like that camera", or "my lens is better than your lens" discussions. This means I will tend to ignore those threads now, because lens variation alone could easily be the cause of that.

That is the only really useful take-away I have from that thread. Of course most primes (not all) will be sharper than a zoom, however primes are very limiting, so there is often no other choice than to get a zoom.

I have been playing with the Samyang 135 f2, and am really starting to enjoy it, but it is a limited use lens for me, not just because of no AF, but because it is a prime. I don't typically shoot prime-friendly scenes.

I didn't quote your whole post, TS, so as not to take up too much space. If I did things correctly, my main concern will show up on bold type, i.e., copy to copy variation. As has already been posted, the 100-400ii has the least copy to copy variation among the lenses Roger has tested, though this was in another article. Though POTN is a small sampling source, the 100-400ii has been mostly a pleasure to those of us who own one and post here. I do remember a couple issues, though.

I was surprised at the copy to copy variation that showed up in the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses under test. Now, Roger didn't say if these were Canons or Nikons or a combination of both (though that might be a bit weird.... to combine lenses from two companies). The reason it surprises me is that I've never heard or read anyone on POTN who had a significant issue with their 70-200 f/2.8 ll. I'm sure it's possible I've missed a few complaints along the way.

As you mentioned, it could be, in actual use, people are finding them more than adequate for the task they perform. It was be interesting if Roger/Lens Rental could comment about how many complaints they get from the hundreds/thousands of times they rent out the 70-200's they own over their lifetimes.

Anyway, that was my initial freak out since I had just purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 ll. I ran through some of my stuff from it last night and I'm feeling much better now. I had lots of shots at 70mm and 200mm and a few in between. All of them were excellent at the AF point. Everything was shot at f/2.8 so that's what I was going for. I'll have to do some shots at f/8 or smaller apertures to check out sharpness across the frame.

So how do you spell relief? Take some photographs.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18280239
1995 called, they want their image resolution back.

nope! It's even earlier than that
Í believe back in the mid 90s most computers were already able to display 800x600 and 1024x768 on CRT screens

The funny thing is I have seen a lot of very low res photos on both DA and Flickr that received tons of likes or faves so I guess there are still a lot of ppl out there who are still using computers and devices that only support VGA and SVGA displays

Also, I suspect they developed this test so they can test damage to a lens. If they have an MTF graph for every lens in their inventory, and they rent one out, and it comes back substantially altered or worse, they know the lens was dropped. Part of their inventory details could now be this graph profile. Probably too intensive to run this on every lens after it comes back from a rental though, but still an interesting concept. In any case, I really appreciate their method of profiling a lens, it makes things quite a bit clearer.

Elton Balch wrote in post #18279562
Wow!! Thats the first comment I've ever gotten on my avatar, Wilt Heres a full size and crop from that same shoot. The fireplace is my wife's pride and joy! These were shot with my 16-35 f/4L at 16mm.

Hosted photo: posted by Elton Balch in
./showthread.php?p=182​79562&i=i257691225
forum: Canon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by Elton Balch in
./showthread.php?p=182​79562&i=i261686385
forum: Canon Lenses

These two photos illustrate the point of the importance of 'context' to real estate photography...the second photo merely makes you think "small room, not photographed with only a 'normal' lens"
while the visible context of the firelace surround plus the opening going to the area to the right makes you understand 'luxuriously large fireplace'

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18280005
We have never lost a sale due to real estate photos being taken with WA. You just live with the distortion. Also, since most MLS sites only allow a 1024 on the long end, the photos are very small and they only serve the purpose of getting a showing scheduled. Now those in the high end markets where listing photos are larger and do more for a sale, more care has to be taken on which lenses to use, and perhaps a TS is more warranted at that point.

I bet a real estate sale has also never been lost to the use of an inexpensive P&S with WA lens, or due to the inherently inferior optics of a simplistic smartphone lens, both used by real estate agents to photograph listings, either! The average consumer does quite well tolerate inferiority in so many areas.

Exactly. However, for real estate photography, straight lines are critical.

Agreed, and it is a peeve for us. We could do better with photos provided the MLS sites allow larger images. This would separate the P&S and Green Box mode rebels from the rest of the pack. Also, I have a huge peeve of UWA making rooms look bigger, so we try not to do that ourselves. Sometimes there isn't much that can be done, especially in small homes where there is no good vantage point for a more true perspective.

This MLS restriction is why I personally cannot really make any money in this field. My wife is networked, and I would be able to charge $50-100 per agent listing if the photos actually mattered in the sale.

This is why I need to obtain my UAS license so we can fly the PIV drone for agents, and for my wife's listings. This will provide better value and agents will pay for this service. 77 pages of "light" reading and $150 test....

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #18280338
nope! It's even earlier than that
Í believe back in the mid 90s most computers were already able to display 800x600 and 1024x768 on CRT screens

Yes, although camera (sensor) resolution catched up with display resolution only several years later.
Interestingly, now displays are lagging behind as far as resolution, color gamut and dynamic range.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18280414
Agreed, and it is a peeve for us. We could do better with photos provided the MLS sites allow larger images. This would separate the P&S and Green Box mode rebels from the rest of the pack. Also, I have a huge peeve of UWA making rooms look bigger, so we try not to do that ourselves. Sometimes there isn't much that can be done, especially in small homes where there is no good vantage point for a more true perspective.(

I have seen, too often here on POTN, folks interested in doing RE photography who think that the issue of 'too wide' FL is of no concern at all, when I have expressed the same sentiment as you have expressed!
And when challenged in that position, the response has often been "that is what the RE agent WANTS...to lure in the potential clients', so that is what I have to provide to make my photography service appealing to the agent".

Wilt wrote in post #18280419
I have seen, too often here on POTN, folks interested in doing RE photography who think that the issue of 'too wide' FL is of no concern at all, when I have expressed the same sentiment as you have expressed!
And when challenged in that position, the response has often been "that is what the RE agent WANTS...to lure in the potential clients', so that is what I have to provide to make my photography service appealing to the agent".

I was in hi tech automation for 19 years. What separated me from my competitors was actual honest and integrity. They learned to trust me because I was able to solve their manufacturing problems.

I feel the same about real estate photos. They should fairly represent the propery. Nothing wrong with emphasizing the best features of a property....but UW's seldom do that...they give false impressions and waste the buyers' time.

Wilt wrote in post #18280400
I bet a real estate sale has also never been lost to the use of an inexpensive P&S with WA lens, or due to the inherently inferior optics of a simplistic smartphone lens, both used by real estate agents to photograph listings, either! The average consumer does quite well tolerate inferiority in so many areas.

Here in CA, it is not unusual for listings to be updated with professional photos after a period of inactivity.
In upscale communities, 99% of listings have professional photos from the beginning, and virtual open houses (requiring dozens of 360 photos) are getting more and more popular.

.

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #18280338
The funny thing is I have seen a lot of very low res photos on both DA and Flickr that received tons of likes or faves so I guess there are still a lot of ppl out there who are still using computers and devices that only support VGA and SVGA displays

It's not because of the hardware they are using, it is because they don't want their images to be able to be stolen and be used at large sizes.

.