LenScore Updates = Strong Sigma Showing

[Jack Dahlgren]

What I like about this group is that people are very willing to experiment with equipment, making the best out of what they have and using it towards many different goals. I can't even tell what people are doing sometimes. For example, is it really so dark in Norway that only IR photography can be done all winter?

Diversity and the unexpected are what keeps it from being boring.

Equipment should expand possibilities, not constrict them.

This is why words like "new king is crowned" are irritating and nonsensical to me.

For some, high resolution ultra precise, ultra heavy lenses allow possibilities they care about. I'm more interested in color and light and pattern so even strong vignetting and distortion cause me no pain.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

"is it really so dark in Norway that only IR photography can be done all winter?"

No, not really. But tripods rapidly become indispensable.

[John Koerner]

For some, high resolution ultra precise, ultra heavy lenses allow possibilities they care about. I'm more interested in color and light and pattern so even strong vignetting and distortion cause me no pain.

For me, that is why LenScore is such a valuable tool.

If color, CA, and bokeh are more important to you, you can select each category hierarchically.

The proffered "LenScore" is only the totality brought to a mean quotient.

But each of the categories (Resolution, Bokeh, Color Transmission, LonCA/LaCA, etc.) can be hierarchically-analyzed individually, based on which one(s) are important to you.

It's worth a closer look rather than making a reflexive proclamation ...

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Either one firmly believe in agglomerated indices and their value for understanding a product. Or one does not.

My feeling is this is about as far as such a debate can advance before everything starts to go in circles.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I looked.

No lens I own is tested there.

I am content with lenses I can afford to drop.

There is some fun in fitting a 105mm P.C Auto on the front of the camera. I like photography to be fun.

[Jack Dahlgren]

No circling intended.

[Erik Lund]

Lenscore has some quite accurate estimates for values for a lot of lenses.

It is a nice tool for a 'first look' when looking for a new lens, but blindly looking at the total score can IMHO give a very wrong impression,,,

They have geometrical distortion, yes that is important but not all encompassing I believe, it is not stated how the value is estimated. So I wonder if flat field is checked,,, some lens tests do refocus for checking the sharpness as they approach the corners and does so in four directions 90 deg apart.

Very important point for a lot of photography is how the depth of focus behaves.

Flat field is very often a huge advantage or even a must in some cases! in other situation a spherical field is desirable,,, problem is;

Many/most lenses have a very wavy depth of field so very unreliable if uniform sharpness is required.

Lensretals does a thorough check for most key details on a large population of lenses to check how consistent the lenses are, there one can see that most third party lenses are much less consistent in performance, often due to the lack of possibility to fine tune the optics after they are assembled.

The Sigma Art lenses seems to have come far but I have never tried one so I don't know first hand, I have been put off by the many reports on bad performance from all around over the years,,,

The reports on issues with using the docking station for fine tuning AF being one of them,,, getting reliable performance seems to be hit and miss,,,,

[MILLIREHM]

There is no totality IMHO in Lenscore (although i do not deny that these charts can give valuable insights) I see it is just as a more in-depth analysis covering specific technical parameters. its a first look as Eric said (or confirmation) but it cant replace the personal experience with a lens and the impression one gets to derive the conclusion for ones personal work.

In the end its the image that counts, for instance does it raise emotions when watched? Good IQ is not bad but we are not talking just about technical feasibility studies here. (Rich tonality is also important but getting the perfect histogram does not alone guarantee the image nore does it to use the highest ranked lens
One can read all the numbers,  but who can tell after watching a foto which lens that is or must have been? Rarely a rendering appears to be that unique that this is possible (200/2 VR, CV125, 35/1,4 come to my mind) .
After having detected Lenscore I found that a some of my lenses actually are on the list, and it is good to have and use them often but sometimes it is more favorable for me  to take those not (highly) ranked at Lenscore, though nothaving the best quality with me leading to otherwise increased chances (better handling, robustness, size weight and such)

[MFloyd]

LenScore / SensScore has always given results which are close to my personal (subjective) experiences.

[jhinkey]

Fortunately, that metric has nothing to do with picture quality. A point sadly forgotten in so many cases.

Yes, and, as I pointed out in the posts over on FM, boiled down/single number metrics (mysteriously computed) for all those lens characteristics are virtually useless to many of us because it's impossible to really compare two lenses against each other when you care about things like, for example, sharpness uniformity, sharpness at a particular aperture, rendering, etc. etc. etc.

DXO, for all it's issues at least gives you field profiles to look at for things like MTF, etc. so you can judge for yourself sharpness across the frame, some sense of astigmatism, etc.

I guess some people don't want to be bothered with details and prefer a single boiled down mystery performance number when they go lens shopping.
 

[David H. Hartman]

Lens sharpness, resolution and acutance, is easy to check off in reviews but in practical shooting if the subject lacks contrast or its texture is not reveiled by the light the photograph will not appear sharp to the viewer. It's up to the photographer to make the most of what a lens offers. A good lens in the right hands can out perform an excellent lens in the wrong hands. Then there are many aspects to a lens besides sharpness.

Dave Hartman

Now I'm looking at my hands and I'm worried they may be the wrong hands...

[John Koerner]

Yes, and, as I pointed out in the posts over on FM, boiled down/single number metrics (mysteriously computed) for all those lens characteristics are virtually useless to many of us because it's impossible to really compare two lenses against each other when you care about things like, for example, sharpness uniformity, sharpness at a particular aperture, rendering, etc. etc. etc.

And as I pointed out there too, the LenScore idividually-rates over 10 categories, rather than just 1.

DXO, for all it's issues at least gives you field profiles to look at for things like MTF, etc. so you can judge for yourself sharpness across the frame, some sense of astigmatism, etc.

Again as I pointed out, each system has its strengths and weaknesses.

I guess some people don't want to be bothered with details and prefer a single boiled down mystery performance number when they go lens shopping.
 

Perhaps ... or, some people make assumptions about what other do and don't do in their decision-making.

Moderation: I have removed a  -  in that last sentence.

[MFloyd]

And if somebody wants to make his own aggregate scoring system, nothing is easier to download the matrix into a spreadsheet, and apply his own weightings.

The overall score ( = LenScore™ ) is a weighted average of the following 10 scores:

Resolving Power
Amount of detail a lens is able to project onto the 24x36mm square within the image circle used by full frame cameras. weight = 7

Contrast
Microcontrast performance. weight = 5

Color
Color fastness. weight = 3

Bokeh
Rendering of out-of-focus areas in front of and behind the focal plane. weight = 5
How to rate bokeh?

Star
Rendering of direct light sources at small apertures. weight = 1

Distortion
Geometrical distortions. weight = 5

Falloff
Light falloff from center to the edges (vignetting). weight = 3
How to rate falloff?

Flare
Amount of contrast reduction and ghosting caused by direct light sources within and ouside the field of view. weight = 5

LaCA
Lateral chromatic aberrations. weight = 3

LoCA
Longitudinal chromatic aberrations. weight = 5

[Erik Lund]

Moderation remark: I have asked the other moderators what they think about the tone in this thread and what action to take. As a side note I can inform you that we have used quite some time already to clean up/delete foul language among other things,,,

[pluton]

I am content with lenses I can afford to drop.

I like this.