New "Wide-Standard Zoom" Test Posted

at my site: http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/zoomzoom

Especially noteworthy and included in this test are the Tokina 16-50 F2.8 and Canon 18-55 IS. Those are two lenses I had not yet handled up until the actual testing.

I have left plenty of my comments and thoughts all over the test pages, but especially here at the summary page for the gist of it all http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/image/899864​02/original

Updated findings on 1855 IS http://www.pbase.com/l​ightrules/evfzz

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Great stuff

Thanks for the tests!

Yeah baby ... this we gotta see

The only thing I see that doesnt quite add up, the 55mm performance of "E" the Canon 18-55IS, it looks VERY poor indeed.

I dont like to question your testing methods but something is wrong, it could be a poor copy as the one I tested was super sharp, infact it kept up with my 24-105L very nicely, I was pretty suprised, where as your 55mm shot on there looks like that classic vaseline smeared look which you only get with really poor lenses.

Nick_C wrote in post #4459871
The only thing I see that doesnt quite add up, the 55mm performance of "E" the Canon 18-55IS, it looks VERY poor indeed.

I dont like to question your testing methods but something is wrong, it could be a poor copy as the one I tested was super sharp, infact it kept up with my 24-105L very nicely, I was pretty suprised, where as your 55mm shot on there looks like that classic vaseline smeared look which you only get with really poor lenses.

Nick, see my comments on that "E versus F" page. I am not sure if it has to do with it being at its longest 55mm there (while at 50mm it does better, see the other main test). But I am aware of the big difference and will, as stated in my comments, do some further testing. It intrigues me very much too.

It should be noted that every single crop you see in these tests is the result of the best chosen out of 9 frames (forcing refocus each time).

Yes it is very strange, that extra 5mm has destroyed the overall IQ, puzzling!

Nick_C wrote in post #4459920
Yes it is very strange, that extra 5mm has destroyed the overall IQ, puzzling!

One thing I plan to do is to test the 18-55 IS both at 50mm and 55mm and see if there is indeed such a drastic difference. If so, that's quite shocking a difference. I'll probably post the updated findings within 2 days.

Thanks for all the work and posting the results.

Nice job, Jojo. That 17-55 might look familiar....

Well done, little buddy.
I am also glad that not everyone is fawning over that new 18-55 IS tupperware lens, unlike Herr Klaus who's all rapturous about its performance.

Whew! I was just about to sell the whole lot in favor of the 18-55IS too!

Hmm, I was interested to see how close most of the optics were, and how well my Tokina 16-50 fared. This also confirms my thought that just about anything wide open at 2.8 shows some softness. I was pretty close to going with the Sigma 18-50, but the extra 2 mm on the wide end and the build quality swayed me in favor of the Tokina. I also have a Sigma 17-70, and I can see that an extra 1-2 mm on the wide end can make a difference in my wilderness photography where the 'foot zoom' may be limited; i.e.: going over a cliff or into a lake. Excellent job!

When the second copy of the 18-55IS arrives any time soon I will do some tests as well, no disrespect to these tests but all I can say is that those 100% crops are not as good as I found.

I think copy variation on this lens may play a key role, some also have said the IS makes a high pitch whine, I found the first copy I tested to be dead silent, which I found a little strange to get used to after the 24-105L, I like to hear its working.

They all look the same to me- I need to keep away from pixel peeping and only buy cheap lenses! LMAO!

Nice to see some side-by-side testing done under controlled conditions.