The level of interest in our Canon 18-200mm review has persuaded us that we should test a few more superzooms in comparison (the great strength of the widget is that we don't need to have the lenses in-house simultaneously for side-by-side shooting). So expect to see some leading 18-2x0 mm zooms interspersed with our still-ongoing series of 50mm primes. Lenses on the shortlist for reviews in the near future include the following:
50mm Lenses:
- Pentax 50mm F1.4 (on K20D)
- Sony/Minolta 50mm F1.4 (on FF and APS-C)
- Canon 50mm F1.8 II
- Nikon 50mm F1.8
Superzooms:
- Sigma 18-200mm OS
- Tamron 18-270mm VC
- Sony/Pentax/Tamron 18-250mm
(The Panasonic/Leica 14-150mm would be an obvious comparison for Four Thirds users, but its limited availability and high price will necessarily affect the final decision on whether we review it.)
At some point we still hope to test the Sony 70-200mm F2.8G on both FF and APS-C, to see if it can justify its stratospheric price-tag in comparison to the competition from Tamron and Sigma.
Hi,
According to many discussion forum threads lot of quality variation may exist in superzooms like: Canon 18-200mm, Tamron 18-270mm and Sigma 18-200mm.
If you are lucky then you get a good copy but if not then you get a bad copy.
Is this situation really true?
DPreview could easily find answer to this simple question by testing some copies of these superzooms.
This kind of test would help to improve consumer protection but also quality of the lenses.
Antti
Posted by: Antti Roine | 9 Nov 2008 16:31:24
Why bother testing those 50/1.8's? They're all similar in performance and they're cheap enough that it doesn't really matter. And it's not like you have much choice in the matter. If you have a Canon, you're going to use the Canon 50/1.8. If you have a Nikon, you're going to use a Nikon 50/1.8. Is someone going to base their choice of system on which mfr has the best 50/1.8?
The f/1.4's I can see testing to see whether one should consider the Sigma 50/1.4 or stick with the OE option. Or in the case of Nikon, is the AF-S 50/1.4 worth it, and how it compares with Sigma's.
But who cares about the 50/1.8's, especially when SLRgear.com already has a full report on them and showed minimal differences between them and the obvious finding that their f/1.4 cousins are softer at f/1.4 but sharper and more contrasty than the f1/.8's at f/2 and f/2.8?
How about using the limited time available for testing on something more interesting, like a macro shootout, or a portrait lens showdown?
Posted by: e_dawg | 10 Nov 2008 08:51:32
Come to think of it, what would be most useful would be comprehensive testing of a lens' AF performance: speed, reliability, initial acquisition vs full lock, bright light vs dark, strong edge contrast vs weak, competing targets vs isolated, in-lens IS vs none (some say in-lens helps AF because it gives the AF module better edge definition to work with).
Theoretical maximum MTF from a manually focused lens is hardly representative of real world results unless the AF performance between different lenses and bodies are the same. And you know that this is not the case.
Similarly, resistance to flare and ghosting is critical to a lens' performance in sunny and especially in contra-light conditions. Again, theoretical maximum MTF in controlled studio lighting is hardly representative of real world results on a sunny day unless every lens has the same coatings, number of air-glass transitions, and flare hoods. Why not more comprehensive flare/ghosting testing? Do standardized tests in addition to the random flare testing that is done.
These factors are arguably more important than max MTF on real world image quality and, frankly, deserve a much greater emphasis than they currently receive (from most lens test sites).
Posted by: e_dawg | 10 Nov 2008 09:19:25