LenScore Updates = Strong Sigma Showing

[John Koerner]

I understand where you're coming from, John.  I agree with you, as well.  I think you're missing what I'm saying, though.  I see folks here and other places that get beautiful pictures and then try to find the lens that they got those pictures with.  It's led to a few purchases (most of which I don't actually regret).  What I was getting at is that owning a lens that has good qualities doesn't guarantee that it will render gorgeous images no matter where you point it. Buying an 85 1.4 won't turn me into a pro portrait photographer.   
Macro is one place where a few purchases have helped me a lot (BR2A, extension tubes, etc etc). 

interesting discussion, folks.  thank you for it!

Brent

Hi Brent. We agree.

Buying expensive gear won't turn me into Ansel Adams ... but even Ansel Adams would have to pony-up the cash, and buy some A-level gear, to capture competitive, crisp images of birds in flight.

In fact, back in the day, Adams didn't buy trash or "budget" gear either; he used the sharpest lenses he could find for his cameras, experimenting with a number of them to discover the best ones for his work (e.g., a 70-year-old, 12-inch Voigtlander, as well as (for him) a contemporary 121mm Schneider Super Angulon, for his large format cameras.

Similarly, renowned German screenwriter, Werner Herzog, is said to buy TEN of every top-level lens he is interested in, test them all, and only keep the very best of each. He is reputed to have an awesome collection and to be quite the lensman.

It is very important for us all to keep learning, experimenting, and trying to improve our technique, but it is equally-important to make sure the gear matches the seriousness of our efforts.

A person may go out in his backyard with a cheapo lens, and fart around to see how it does ... but if he is traveling to Africa on a $10,000 safari, or trying to operate professionally, it is vital that he aim for the better-end of the quality spectrum, if he wants to be successful.

[John G]

Sigma as a company are on a Progression and I would assume are chipping away at the market share of the Top Brands.
The fact they are at present releasing models that are being compared side by side to Top Brand Models and being reported as offering a great optical performance is a very good thing for Sigma.
There recent succes might just lead to new models offering a near performance clone of their competitors models.
I wish them the best in their advancements.

[John Harkus]

Personally I would prefer if manufacturers stuck to classical size and weight for important lenses; I appreciate that Nikon was able to reduce the weight on the 70-200/2.8 E for example, compared to its predecessor, while better maintaining its focal length in close focus and improving many other aspects of the lens. This is excellent

With the Sigma and Zeiss 85/1.4's (Art, Milvus and Otus), they basically doubled the weight of the lens compared to traditional designs. If every lens is doubled in weight, the bag gets very heavy quickly when carrying everything that I may need or prefer to have with me. I guess if Sigma was able to make a 300/2.8 that is superior to Nikon and Canon lenses but 6kg in weight, Sigma fans would be exhilarated. I would not. To me this is not a practical direction. I don't mind heavy equipment but there are limits.

Additionally to me the 85/1.4 Art sample portraits are harsh and not at all flattering to the subject. I prefer lenses that render the subject in a beautiful and flattering way.

I agree entirely about the size and weight of the latest Sigma lenses - I have one of the 24-35 f/2 zooms, a great lens in a class of one wrt aperture, but seriously big and heavy. I like the look of the new 14mm, but it looks like it dwarfs my existing one, and that's hardly a lightweight.
I'm trying to imagine a bag full of Sigma primes .. . .

John

[Jørgen Ramskov]

For what it's worth, here's a danish review of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art: https://fotomalia.dk/sigma-85mm-f1-4-dg-hsm-art-test/

He's using Canon gear, including the Canon EOS 5DS R (50,6 Mpix FF sensor). He gives the lens quite high scores. A downside is that it's a quite big and heavy lens, but it delivers in sharpness, AF, bokeh, etc.

[Erik Lund]

Bokeh? Hmmmm Not sure it is the right word 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

A bokeh of the nervous inclination ... ??

Test images that either are bad or overcooked make for difficult comparisons.

[Peter_S]

again a very interesting discussion.
As a student long time ago I owned several sigma lenses, because a photo shop closed and soled these Sigma lenses for nearly nothing.
I had time and enjoyed taking photos and got for sure some keepers.

Today I still love taking photos in my rare free time and I only use Nikkors, mostly manual focus primes chipped.
No Sigma, Tokina or whatever will touch the bayonet of my Nikon DSLRs.
I take photos for my pleasure and do not waste my time with none premium products.
You understand maybe what I mean if you repair a Nikon lens or a Sigma. At least in former times Sigma had absolutely no good quality inside compared with Nikon. Even if some optical measurements at the new lens might be ok.

Maybe there are some opticaly good SigmaTokinawhatever lenses but I will mount only the famous Nikkors like 105/2.5 AI, 35/1.4 AI, the micro Nikkors and so on for my pleasure.
If I shoot stuff like wedding or so for friends I use the D800 and the new AFS lenses, they are "good enough"   

[David H. Hartman]

I just took another look at the LenScore site and I'm left unimpressed. There are numbers for various categories it gives me no feel for how the lens might perform in the real world. It's a standardized bench test on a custom built machine but how does the lens perform on a real world camera? LenScores appears to be an exacting test the resulting number give but a vague idea of what the lens might do on my cameras.

Dave Hartman

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Well, the 200MP sensor gives an idea of which lenses will likely benefit the user the most from future sensor development. It shows that many of the fast superteles have extra resolution which makes these lenses good purchases in the sense that one will be able to crop and still get good detail and more so in the future than today. Since few of us can carry multiple of those lenses at one time, the extra croppability is particularly useful can provide us with the ability to shoot a subject at varying ranges. I guess this is obvious but the 200MP sensor used by lenscore highlights their capability and my guess is that in 10 years some cameras that are available at reasonable prices will provide this level of detail.

In general, no numerical test can tell us how images shot with a particular lens will affect us or how they feel. For that, real world testing provides the answers. But if a lens does really well on lenscore, it would be quite surprising if it lead to a disappointment in practical use. For example the Nikon VR 200/2 II is right up there with the best of them and few of us would disagree that it is a special lens. However, I would take any individual test with a grain of salt, and consider all the information available from various sources before making a purchase.

[Ethan]

One of the many wonders of Bluffography.

What exactly are such tests achieving IMA and OMA and Brick Wall and BS?

Seriously, do people buy a lens based on a bench test?

Any photographer worth his/her salt would simply test or borrow or rent the lens and few pertinent shots well analysed would tell if it is a lens to buy or not. Or ask Roger Cigala.

Different standards for different type of photography. I do not care for corners, I only care for the centre and how the lens renders color - Bouquet and DoP. Reversly, landscapist and architecture and others very much care about corners and Coma and other stuff.

Lens scores! I rather read a Lasagna recipe.

[David H. Hartman]

Lens scores! I rather read a Lasagna recipe.

I'd rather eat the lasagna.

What exactly are such tests achieving IMA and OMA and Brick Wall and BS?

One can learn a lot about a lens from properly conducted lens tests. Where lens tests fail is where a test is unlike a real world shooting situation. It easy to photograph a small chart to determine lens distortion but that won't result in an understanding of this property when a lens is use at a common shooting distance for that lens, e.g. a 50/1.4 or 50/1.2 will indicate greater barrel distortion at minimum focus distance than a subject at 3 meters or greater. The brick wall can show distortion at a common shooting distance. It can show field curve