Before I buy I have found it difficult to deduce which lenses are good and bad, particularly from the Canon mtf charts.
I'm not daft....so if I find it difficult I assume others must do too.....if only because they are just too busy to fully research the info.
The data used by photozone and dpreview are much easier to use and compare but they don't cover every lens.
It would be nice if Canon or EOS magazine (if thats not against their remit) could offer a standard approach that we can all use.
I find it incredible that there is such a disparity between quality, cost and supposed grade (budget, L etc) across the Canon range.
i.e. the nifty 50 at £90 is better than some much higher costing glass, and the 28-135 at £370 is worse than lots of cheaper lenses.
If manufacturers want to continue to make a range of grades then surely they should be honest about what they are making.
Clarity and transparency is what I want.....and no chromic aberation in the prices!
Any comments? Do we need a campaign for clearer data?
I'm not daft....so if I find it difficult I assume others must do too.....if only because they are just too busy to fully research the info.
The data used by photozone and dpreview are much easier to use and compare but they don't cover every lens.
It would be nice if Canon or EOS magazine (if thats not against their remit) could offer a standard approach that we can all use.
I find it incredible that there is such a disparity between quality, cost and supposed grade (budget, L etc) across the Canon range.
i.e. the nifty 50 at £90 is better than some much higher costing glass, and the 28-135 at £370 is worse than lots of cheaper lenses.
If manufacturers want to continue to make a range of grades then surely they should be honest about what they are making.
Clarity and transparency is what I want.....and no chromic aberation in the prices!
Any comments? Do we need a campaign for clearer data?
Comment