CharlesH
LMF-Patron Gold
Yes, nice review.I saw this review yesterday. I think it is very interesting:
Yes, nice review.I saw this review yesterday. I think it is very interesting:
I agree with that. I did take it for what it was, more a features piece, not an optical review. The features are very interesting. I get my lens on Monday and will try to post a few shots later in the week. I do not have a test setup to for any kind of formal review, so it will be whatever macro and normal shots I feel useful to me. And we have heavy rain in the forecast all week, so there probably won’t be much outdoor shooting. Given all those limitations, if there is something you would like to see let me know.Nice tutorial with good production values. But it's not a review. No aspect of the lens was critiqued
I agree with that. I did take it for what it was, more a features piece, not an optical review. The features are very interesting. I get my lens on Monday and will try to post a few shots later in the week. I do not have a test setup to for any kind of formal review, so it will be whatever macro and normal shots I feel useful to me. And we have heavy rain in the forecast all week, so there probably won’t be much outdoor shooting. Given all those limitations, if there is something you would like to see let me know.
I got the lens and worked with it a little today. In terms of macro it seems very sharp, but I have never done much macro and may not be a good judge. I've mostly been learning how to set up, and how to do reasonable focus stacking with Lightroom/Photoshop. I still have lots to learn.btw Charles, I'm looking forward to hear what you think about this lens. Hopefully your view will be similar to what I said in my review, but even if not, I would love to hear what your thoughts are.
He only measured his studio test chart. He doesn't say anything about sharpness an longer distances.Unfortunately my university German expired long ago. Does he say anything about optical performance at longer distances?
From this review it is essentially a perfect lens. That it rarefied air.I don't think I've ever seen a lens review in which, under the "Cons" section it just says "nothing"
I agree. I don't have a S1R; but that's why I want to shoot the 100mm lens with the S5II in High Resolution (Mode 1), to try to get a practical feel for its capability beyond 24MP.Hope somebody is testing the more high demanding 47 MP Lumix S1R.
Actually there is only the test from digital camera world, that differs from the others. Most other tests are fitting good together....
By all these difference tests, there is to much variation within the test results.
Hope this is not the case as by the products itself, that do have a big variation within one lens copy versus another lens copy.
Quite different tools to an extent, however it would be interesting to compare both for portraiture, the 100mm is 'only' f2.8 and the 85mm is no macro. I remember other macros being described as too flat with no 3d pop hence a comparison will soon show any such traits. They certainly didn't pop like a Pentax FA 77mm f1.8 Limited.It does look a nice lens. I think if I ever convince myself I need a lens at this focal length, I'd go for this rather than the 85/1.8. But at £/€/$ 1000 it's really a bit pricey.
No that is not true.Actually there is only the test from digital camera world, that differs from the others. Most other tests are fitting good together.
Digital camera world results are very, very bad wide open.No that is not true.
- Digital camera world test, results are bad
- Test of Ephotozine seems to good to be truth as there seems no difference in quality as from full wide opening F2.8 to just under about F8
and no difference as from centre to corners.- Where as most other other tests, at least do find some differences centre vs. corner, (specially wide open).
And general sharpness (and contrast) is becoming better when closing aperture values. Best sharpness at F 5.6