>"Neuman - Ruether"
>news:3d2f05a4.16890478@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 14:51:58 GMT, "Jeremy 1952"
>>
>> [...]
>> >I wish that someone could just point to two photos, side-by-side, and
>say,
>> >"HERE is why the German lens is better than the
>> >Pentax/Canon/Nikon/Minolta/etc. equivalent."
>> It would be difficult, for several reasons:
>> 1) Unless the conditions were IDENTICAL
>> (lighting, subject, focus accuracy, exposure,
>> film/processing, etc. - very difficult to
>> achieve in practice), the resulting images
>> would "lie". (I use comparative images for
>> video cameras, but the differences are more
>> "gross" with these - see:
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm).
>> 2) Images result from a blend of lens
>> characteristics - and any given set of
>> conditions may favor one lens over another
>> for particular things, and the reverse for
>> other things - and changing the conditions
>> can also reverse the results (all depending
>> on what characteristics the viewer considers
>> most important, different for different people).
>> In my Nikkor *subjective* lens evaluations
>> (see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html),
>> I make those judgements for myself, then
>> evaluate accordingly - but I tell you what
>> I base the judgements on...
>> DR
>> >At this point, it sure seems that the small margin of improvement--if
>indeed
>> >one exists--costs an awful lot more. If money is no object, then that's
>> >fine. But for most of us who have mundane things to pay like mortgages
>and
>> >auto expenses, it doesn't seem as though the German lenses give us much
>bang
>> >for the buck.
>> True - and the VERY expensive lenses are often
>> actually inferior (in ways I consider important)
>> to the less expensive. And, do not assume that
>> Leitz and Zeiss are German - Zeiss lenses are
>> often Kyocera-built, in Japan, and several of
>> the Leitz SLR lenses were relabeled Minolta
>> lenses, sold at several times the price they were
>> available at with the Minolta label on them...
>> Remember the supremacy of marketing in all of
>> this...;-)
>> DR
>OK, I accept your explanation that it would be difficult to compare two
>lenses unless the subjects were exactly identical. BUT, that is what I
>meant when I said that I wished someone could point out the differences
>between lenses in two side-by-side photos. I was envisioning having two
>photos, shot of the same subject, shot at the same time, with camera mounted
>side-by-side, using the same type film.
This would be nice, but to be interesting, it should
include, say, all the major mfgrs' 50mm lenses of all
speeds, and would be difficult to put this whole
shebang together - and it would still not necessarily
show optimum, or even average, samples of each lens
(though at f4 and smaller, this is unlikely to cause
problems...). I can't do the above, and I think few
others have the resources to do it, and I suspect that
with 50mm lenses for 35mm, you are right in that you
would not see any important differences. This would
likely change with some particular FLs, like 14-15mm
lenses, or lens types, like 28-85s, though...
>My point was that I expected to notice little, if any, difference between
>the two photos.
Yes, I have agreed with this...
>Contrast that with another scenario--the expensive German lens versus a
>really cheap, no name lens (dare I suggest Quanteray, as a possible
>example?). Take photos of the same subject side-by-side and produce 11x14
>enlargements of each. Do you think that there would be a discernable
>difference between the two photos? I suspect that one would, indeed, notice
>some difference.
Possibly, particularly at the edges and corners of
wide-angles and short-to-medium-FL zooms. With these,
even stopped down to f11, you may well see differences
(but those differences may not always be what you expect).
Even with the easier-to-design slower tele zooms, the
"cheap-brand" ones rarely have the wirey, "snappy" image
of the best Nikkors.
BTW, once again, "German" lenses are often "Japanese"
in reality...;-) "German" does not necessarily indicate
"better", though the German brands are often considerably
more expensive. Maybe "expensive" vs. "inexpensive"...?
>Whether one would elect to pay a lot more for the German lens, given the
>amount of difference in the quality of photo pruduced, is a matter for the
>user to decide. But, I suspect that once a photographer uses a
>Pentax/Nikon/Canon/Minolta/etc OEM lens, he or she will not be seeing much
>of a difference between that and a Leitz or a Zeiss equivalent.
I think this depends more on FL and lens types. For
instance, a couple of years ago I bought a used
Minolta Maxxum system, with 28mm, 50 macro, 35-105,
and 100-300 Minolta lenses. When tested, the macro
was fully the equal of the Nikkor equivalent, but
the other three lenses were niticeably inferior in
both resolution and contrast compared with the
similar-type Nikkors. All looked good in prints, but
the negatives, examined under a 10X magnifier, showed
clear differences in quality between most of the
lenses compared of the two brands... In other words,
a Minolta owner could be happy with all of the lenses
checked, but if one were trying to own the "best",
most clearly fell short of the Nikkors...
>I admit that there are differences in quality, even between the run of
>lenses by the same manufacturer. But, one would hope that, for the money
>charged, there would be some discernable consistent quality difference (one
>that is MEASURABLE) between a $2000 lens and a $300 one.
Marketing is everything, and it separates people
from their money. No other assumption about
pricing and quality differences should be inferred...;-)
>Now I'm beginning to wonder whether there is all that much difference
>between the Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Minolta lenses and the
>Quanteray/Tamron/Sigma/etc. But that's another subject altogether :-)
See: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html ...;-)
More: as I pointed out earlier, optical quality
across the line and breadth of offerings was
probably greatest in the Nikon line, though other
main-line brands produced lens lines that were
certainly good enough for most purposes (but
sometimes were without good lenses in important
particular FLs and speeds), and sometimes had
particular outstanding lenses. The "off-brand"
manufacturers often produced particular lenses
that approached the performance of a few of the
best of the main-line offerings, but the line
consistency was not good enough to depend on
them for all lenses of interest. Currently, the
pressures of the need to sell quantities has led
Nikon to offer lower-than-normal-for-Nikon lenses,
while Canon and Leitz are finally living up to
their marketing-hyped reputations - and some
few "off-brand" products are finally about as
good as the best by others... The above is a
bunch of generalities, but it may give you
some bit of an answer to your question. With
particular types of lenses, especially ones that
are unusual or difficult to design/build, you
may see obvious optical quality differences
(a complex issue in itself...), but with simpler
lenses, the differences may be subtle or even
invisible except under very close examination,
and their importance depends on the particular
tastes and preferences of the examiner...
In other words, compare 10 different 50mm f1.4s,
85-90mms, or 100-105s at f4 with essentially flat
subjects, with all other conditions the same,
and, regardless of price, you probably will not
see any obvious differences; compare 14-15mms,
full-frame fisheyes, wide-range wide-to-tele
zooms, etc., and at f4 or even f8 you will
probably see obvious differences, but higher
price may not buy higher image quality (it may
bring the reverse...).