Dpreview launches lens reviews

Dpreview is pleased to announce the launch of a new section dedicated to testing and reviewing digital SLR lenses. Designed to offer the same class-leading testing standards as its legendary camera reviews, dpreview’s new lens reviews are the result of months of intense research, development and testing, including the development of new test charts and proprietary analysis software designed to overcome the limitations of existing systems.

http://www.dpreview.co​m …13dpreviewlensr​eviews.asp

18-55 IS Review: http://www.dpreview.co​m …non_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/

17-85 IS: http://www.dpreview.co​m …n_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/

Interesting... I guess another data point when considering new glass is always a good thing.

There focal length/aperture mtf chart with little insets to show the sharpness is a pretty slick application.

I'll still never stick with a single lens review or site for any of my hardware purchases, but it's nice to have more options like this; I hope they build a large catalog soon!

Nice. Hopefully they'll fill it out in time, though I imagine it'll lean more toward newly released lenses.

Pretty interesting. Thanks for the heads up..

Very cool. Thanks...

Cool. Thanks for the link.

Looks to be excellent, probably the new standard of all reviews. I appreciate Phil's efforts here, although I know he is going to get bashed left and right by some/many with each review, as it is the nature of the online beast to gripe and complain when results don't go people's desired way. But I'll be bookmarking this new site. Best wishes, Phil.

LightRules wrote in post #4808038
Looks to be excellent, probably the new standard of all reviews. I appreciate Phil's efforts here, although I know he is going to get bashed left and right by some/many with each review, as it is the nature of the online beast to gripe and complain when results don't go people's desired way. But I'll be bookmarking this new site. Best wishes, Phil.

Well, if you can set up the tests that take out the 'human' part of it, it gets harder and harder to argue results. But you are right, any 'bad' results from someones favorite lens will be chalked up to 'a bad copy' or something
Can take the human out of the testing, but not out of the debating.

Nice setup. I really like the graphic display that accompanies the hard data. I look forward to the testing of many more lenses.

dburg30 wrote in post #4808234
Well, if you can set up the tests that take out the 'human' part of it, it gets harder and harder to argue results. But you are right, any 'bad' results from someones favorite lens will be chalked up to 'a bad copy' or something
Can take the human out of the testing, but not out of the debating.

You can't ever take the "human" aspect out of testing as humans are the ones testing. But I think Phil's work is going to be solid overall and it looks to be the new standard of lens tests IMO, at least from what I'm seeing thus far.

dburg30 wrote in post #4808234
Well, if you can set up the tests that take out the 'human' part of it, it gets harder and harder to argue results. But you are right, any 'bad' results from someones favorite lens will be chalked up to 'a bad copy' or something
Can take the human out of the testing, but not out of the debating.

Well, given that there is variability among copies, that "bad copy" issue will always be with us. Unless Phil is going to test a statistically relevent quantity of each lens, we will still only know the performance of the copy that he tested. That's why we should always get our data from several sources. DPReview may have a stellar copy, while SLRgear.com or William Castleman may have a real dud. Seeing results from several sources might lend an idea as to how much tolerance is built into the manufacturing system of a given lens.

Tom W wrote in post #4808273
Well, given that there is variability among copies, that "bad copy" issue will always be with us. Unless Phil is going to test a statistically relevent quantity of each lens, we will still only know the performance of the copy that he tested. That's why we should always get our data from several sources. DPReview may have a stellar copy, while SLRgear.com or William Castleman may have a real dud. Seeing results from several sources might lend an idea as to how much tolerance is built into the manufacturing system of a given lens.

I agree, Tom. Adding DPR into the mix helps the overall assessment of any given lens, but no one test is definitive. However, if a lens performs extremely well, I tend to believe it as it shows what a lens can do or is capable of. A bad review of a lens shows that it could be the lens or a bad copy.

cool, thanks!

Tom W wrote in post #4808273
Well, given that there is variability among copies, that "bad copy" issue will always be with us. Unless Phil is going to test a statistically relevent quantity of each lens, we will still only know the performance of the copy that he tested. That's why we should always get our data from several sources. DPReview may have a stellar copy, while SLRgear.com or William Castleman may have a real dud. Seeing results from several sources might lend an idea as to how much tolerance is built into the manufacturing system of a given lens.

Oh I agree that he could actually get a 'bad copy' HOPEFULLY if something just doenst 'seem right' he perhaps will try a 2nd copy just to confirm.

And LightRules, I agree, these are still humans performing the tests, but the more it becomes 'automated' and the more tests there are from different places, it starts to make it harder to lean on the 'bad copy' type excuses . But I do agree, those 'discussions' will never go away..