TallPaul
newbie
Reged: 28/03/2008
Posts: 17
Loc: Berkshire
|
|
I would like to make a suggestion for the magazine.
I was really disappointed in the group Macro lens test last week, not on the test itself the content was excellent as usual, just that there the Sony 50mm Macro lens was not included.
Lenses from Canon, Nikon and Olympus were all tested, along with the third party Sigma - why not a comparable Sony model?
I assume its due to obtaining a test lens from Sony, or the extra work involved in testing another lens?
During Sony camera reviews however you always have a wide selection of lenses and flashes available, and I find it hard to believe that Sony do not have a pool of test lenses like Canon and Nikon.
Equally, if its a question of resource, why not drop the Sigma lens and concentrate on manufacturer lenses, then at a later date third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron and others like Tokina could be tested as a separate exercise.
I am not speaking from a position of someone who has a fanatical following for a particular brand, just as a keen reader of AP who has been considering buying a macro lens for some time but yet to read a review of a lens that fits my available lens mount.
Unfortunately I am left none the wiser now on if the Sony lens is worth the exceptionally high price they want, or if the third party options are the sensible choice with comparable quality.
Equally it would be nice to see the Sony camera's lined up against the big guns, the Sony A700 would have lined up nicely against the Canon 40D and 5D and Nikon A300 in the test the week before. Especially as Sony and Nikon are both about to launch their "semi-pro" full frame cameras in direct competition with the Canon 5D.
My Konica Minolta 5D is a bit long in the tooth compared with today's models, but its not clear if I should change brand/mount or upgrade to a newer Sony model. All the cameras mentioned here have been reviewed in AP, but its the comparison tests that us "might buy's" are desperate to see and the two horse race reviews currently in AP do not help my decision!
I know its a hard line to keep anyone not owning a product from Canon or Nikon happy, while still appealing to the masses, I really understand your difficult position.
Speaking openly though, in my view AP needs to try and swing the balance back a little bit the other way 
I know new Sony camera's have had as much coverage as other brands, but it would really be nice to see the a-mount options included in the group tests, please AP?!
|
Norman
Reged: 23/09/2004
Posts: 1535
Loc: West London, UK
|
|
I also wonder about the relevance of testing a Nikon lens against a Canon lens (or other makes). I'm unlikely to swap brands on the strength of one lens test. Tests of 3rd party lenses would be worthwhile if we can be sure that a Canon mount Sigma will perform the same as Nikon mount Sigma etc.
--------------------
Regards,
Norman
www.photobox.org.uk
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the start of a new argument.
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5161
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
I also wonder about the relevance of testing a Nikon lens against a Canon lens (or other makes). I'm unlikely to swap brands on the strength of one lens test. Tests of 3rd party lenses would be worthwhile if we can be sure that a Canon mount Sigma will perform the same as Nikon mount Sigma etc.
No, but someone may be swayed in buying one system over another by lens reviews. Don't forget that these reviews are available to buy and switching brands is not unheard of.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 948
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
I'd be particularly interested in reviews comparing say the kit lenses and the top grade alternatives. For example, as we are talking of Sony, the Sony 18-70mm and the Carl Zeiss 16-80mm. Even better would to be include such alternatives in the camera tests. I never feel sure whether it is the lens or the body that is providing the end result.
|
APchris
veteran
Reged: 06/05/2006
Posts: 1478
Loc: Lincolnshire
|
|
Quote:
I never feel sure whether it is the lens or the body that is providing the end result.
In the good old days ( ) the answer was easy - The lens and film, the body didn't matter.
Now, with the sensor built in and digital processing having a marked effect on image quality, the body is just as important as the lens if not more so.
--------------------
Chris
Better a bad day on the water than a good day at the office 
My Flickr sets
|
LargeFormat
old hand
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 948
Loc: Buckinghamshire and Cumbria
|
|
Quite so. An example of what I'm driving at is in the current AP comparing the a350 and the EOS 450D:
"The Alpha 350's sensor has two million more photosites than that found in the Canon EOS 450D, but their presence does not translate into appreciably greater 'resolution' in most images"
Fair enough as far as it goes. What I'd really like to know is whether replacing the kit 18/70 with the CZ 16/80 would reveal extra resolution and indeed whether a superior Canon lens would enhance image quality on the Canon.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4194
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
the body is just as important as the lens if not more so.
But, as you point out, sensor and lens hardware together with software in the body all contribute to the quality of the image stored in the camera - even the raw version - they simply have to be evaluated as a package.
It still follows, however, that silk purses aren't made from sows' ears; a good lens is still essential in order to get the best out of the hardware and software in the camera body.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
