A former staffer for DPReview posted his assessment of the TTArtisan 90mm f1.25 lens on that site today. He suggested that the lens he shot with was "soft." After I read his piece and looked at his samples I went back to look at the images I made with the lens to see what it was I might be missing.
In a way we might be comparing apples with oranges since my lens is outfitted with a Fuji GFX mount and his was mounted on a Nikon Z9 --- which leads me to believe that his is outfitted with a Nikon Z lens mount.
There are lots of things that can contribute to a lens being perceived as "soft." It could, in fact, be the design or manufacturing of the lens. There's a reason some products are less expensive than others. But it could also be a tester's unfamiliarity with a new camera and how best to use its manual focusing aids. Or it could be an issue with the way image stabilization is being used with a lens that doesn't "speak" to the attached camera. It could be that one of the reviewers is just settling into middle age and over-estimates the acuity of his eyesight and his ability to sharply focus on a screen. It could be too much Seattle coffee causing hands to shake.
Or, I could have been wrong. But I dragged this 100% crop from my recent take and looked at it carefully. It seems sharp to me. Sad that good lenses get trashed because of bad reviews. I remember Roger Ciccala at LensRentals remarking that they test five or more copies of a lens when reviewing it. They want to establish a median parameter that can take into consideration sample variation. And they also test with the camera on a tripod which allows for very careful manual focusing. And, what we may be seeing is a combination of handholding and a very narrow plane of sharp focus. Breathe in and it goes one way. Breathe out and it goes another way.
I'll stick to everything I wrote about the lens here: https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2023/08/i-finally-got-to-spend-some-time.html
It stands in stark contrast to DPR's assessment of the lens. I'm okay with that but I wish I knew how we got different impressions and, maybe more importantly, different results. We might never know.
100% Pixels. Grabbed from a very small fraction of the full frame.
3 comments:
Your stuff sure looks good to me.
I've never had much faith in DPR reviews. When I read them it is for the feature lists and operational info. I mostly ignore the parts about image quality.
Practical vs laboratory. Sample variation. Subjective opinion. Many variables.
I'm not into perfection. I see sharp. It's sharp. How sharp? How much sharper than sharp does anyone need?
I think how it feels and ease of use for intended purpose is crucial. Are images adequate, if so, then fine. Sample variation definitely possible, but I am inclined to think use of any lens on different sensors is likely to produce slightly different results. I had to readjust my take on an old Pentax 35mm M42 lens when I used it on a FF camera vs an M4/3. Might be cover glass thickness, pixel size, etc., but if it works, it works. Why use an 85 1.4, or a 90 1.25, when almost always stopping down a couple notches? Well, with that big front glass, it looks so professional to an acutely observant model. Exactly why I hang onto my Contax 85 1.4, though the 100 3.5 is superior. For use on a “MF” body, primarily for studio portraits, I probably would have gone for a 645 120 macro or a 110 2.8, but those might not have the pizzazz. Of course, one could always put on a big ass 82mm hood for looks.
Post a Comment