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
We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.