Photozone Full Frame reviews of 35 1.4 L, 24-70 L, 24-105 L and 17-40 L

[h_._jm]

<p>Guys, I want to say first that I do like Photozone's reviews but I wanna know that as far as optical performance of these lenses go on full frame (according to photozone reviews), is it fair they gave that many stars to these lenses:<br>

17-40 L: 3/5<br>

24-70 L: 3/5<br>

24-105L: 3/5<br>

35L: 3/5<br>

100 L macro got 3.5/5<br>

Whereas 135L, 70-200 F4 IS both got 4/5<br>

70-200 F2.8 IS II got 4.5/5<br>

Do people really take these numbers into perspective when deciding and choosing lenses? Why i chose photozone is because I thought they were a bit rough/harsh on the lenses they gave 3/5, especially all those lenses are firstly used heaps by the pro's out there e.g. canon 24-70 in wedding photographers arsenal, and secondly all these other review sites e.g. the-digital-picture, luminous-landscape where giving a much more consistently positive reviews to all the lenses I listed.<br>

Ideas? Opinions? Thanks in Advance!</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Let's not forget Dr. Bob Atkins' site: </p>

<p>http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html</p>

<p>I normally read most reviews and take an average. I also go to Flickr to ask strangers.</p>

[randallfarhy]

<p>When I take the time to read in depth reviews across a particular brand, I also try to figure out if there is brand bias in play, either by the author (s) of the review or the site it's posted on. If it seems there arn't any obvious bias' (+/-), then I'll factor the results into the decision making process. Viewing "real world" imagery taken with a particular piece of equipment from various photographers also comes into play. Though nothing beats renting and getting a feel for something first hand. (Guilty of not doing this on occasion).</p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>I've never found Photozone reviews particularly good.</p>

<p>For lens reviews I think that the Fred Miranda user reviews are the best (aggregate score), when you keep in mind that it's a measure of the lens' performance against user expectations rather than an absolute rating.</p>

[stamos]

<p>For those who want to buy a lens I recomend them to read such reviews as academic studies but not to decide based on these reviews. Usually they test one copy and sometimes when they test two copies they realize differences. Imagine if they could test 100 copies and make statistic average. For me Photo.net is much better place than any other photo website just because you may read different opinions about different copies that members they used. I know some people consider not reliable all opinions but a scientific test of only one copy does not say much for me.</p>

[ulrich_brandl]

<p>I think, Photozone does a very good job. They use objective measurements of distortion and sharpness (MTF), have a look on the most commonly observed aberrations and a healthy view of more subjective critria like bokeh. Of course, these are not all aspects of lens quality. They do not systematically measure close-up performance (although you may find some hints on this). Some "optical grourmet" aspects like rendering transitions bteween in- and out-of-focus cannot easily been measured. Nor does the objective testing fulfill "true" scientific standards - the tests are based on one, sometimes on two samples. This doesn't allow any statistically based statement about sample variations. Still, I trust these informations more than purely subjective lens reviews. When I plan to buy a lens I ususally combine informations of several sites, this might compensate partially the sample variation bias. If a lens has a major design flaw (like most "superzooms"), you will find a relatively congruent picture of reprted problems.<br>

With a few exceptions, however, I find that lens tests are generally over-estimated. A today's lens with minor weaknesses ususally can produce such good image quality that you rarely can blame the lens fo a bad photo.</p>

 

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

<p>If they give the 17-40/4.0 and 35/1.4 L the same rating, they're doing something wrong.</p>

 

[ken schwarz]

<p>I like Photozone's reviews more than most because they are thorough. The star ratings are not useful for comparative assessment because the lenses under review are too diverse to compare with a single number. Also, most lenses perform "poorly" by PZ's standard when wide-open, but that doesn't mean that you should always shoot with them that way or that it even matters for real photos. Still, if a lens gets a 4/5 or a 4.5/5 from PZ, you know that it is one impressive optic.</p>

[jorgen_dalen]

<p>What I like about photozone is their testing across f-stops and zoom ranges, telling you what is the particular sweet spot of a lens. For instance, I think the 35mm 1.4 have almost magical properties when shot around 2.8-5.6 (contrast, saturation, sharpness) but is not that special wide open. For me, I think it is wrong to evaluate a lens for "over-all qualities" like the number of stars does, I am more interested in some special uses/attributes. But that's me.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I think you have to be '<em>somewhat</em>' cautious about end user reviews on the expensive lenses. It's been too many years, but I recall there were studies done for marketing that showed something along the lines of a direct correlation between the cost of an item and how the consumer felt that it was a great item he purchased.</p>

<p>Example - ever hear a Lamborghini own complain the ride is horrible on city streets?</p>

<p>I think some of the more scientific tests you find on some of the websites to be way more useful in terms of the image quality.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I have come to respect photozone because they take a scientific approach. I look at the particular technical qualities that I want in the lens, because the "overall ratings" can be a bit ambiguous and more prone to bias.</p>

<p>I also think that PZone has a preamble at the beginning of the reviews which sets the stage for what the lens is intended for, etc etc, so I reckon the rating is based on what the lens' intended use is.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>My favorite lens is the 50L which PZ gives a terrible review, it may not do well shooting a test chart or be sharp in the corners wide open but I love it for shooting photos of real subjects. I also really like 24-70. I do read the reviews there but I don't base my overall decision on what they say.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I read Photozone reviews with interest and with caution. They are thorough but unless the outcome of the testing is out of line with expectations they only test one sample. So there is little allowance for sample variation.</p>

<p>Fred Miranda reviews are also interesting and if enough samples have been submitted their overall scores seem to agree quite well with my own experience of the lenses I have used.</p>

<p>I would not go with just one review but instead look at the commonalities you find in all of them.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Photozone's review of the EF 85/1.2 L II caused quite a furor on this forum awhile back. In that review, the border and corner sharpness of the 85/1.2 is claimed to be inferior to that of the 85/1.8. This led some to conclude that the 1.2 is inferior to the 1.8. That same review, however, found that the center sharpness of the 1.2 (not to mention its bokeh) to be unrivalled. Since the primary application of these lenses for many photographers is potraiture, where edge and corner sharpness are largely irrelevant, the 1.2 is clearly "superior" in this regard (I've used both).</p>

<p>The moral of my story is that lens reviews are not absolute or categorical. Which lens is "better" or "best" is relative to one's intended uses (not to mention one's budget!).</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Photozone lens reviews on full-frame cameras are graded quite toughly. They're basically designating a perfect lens which has no deviations from ideal on a 21 MP sensor five stars and then they try to grade the lenses so that the full scale from one to five stars are used ... even though everything they review (on these cameras) are pretty good lenses. Few lenses don't show any aberrations on 21 MP full frame, so most lenses get surprisingly bad scores. You should probably think three stars (on this scale) a really good lens, and anything above that truly excellent.</p>

[zml]

<p>Reviews, including photozone, are great if your hobby or profession is resolution charts photography but lab tests often translate rather poorly into pictorial photography so if you are unsure whether the lens in question will work for you rent one and see for yourself.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>At least PZ add "field results" assessment in their conclusion sometimes which attempts to show that even if the lens is not perfect optically it is of great practical use. The stars are necessarily somewhat subjective and are bound to represent a more personal summary. It is better to look at the real data and the image files. I am sure that PZ would agree.</p>

<p>I think they do an excellent job. As far as I know no review site habitually tests more than one sample of each lens. I don't blame them.</p>

[drpath]

<p>I like Photozone. In my experience the technical part of their reviews is quite accurate. That star rating thing they do at the end of the review is rather less useful. Lens nerd that I am, I also like the graphical interface of IR/SLRgear,DPR, and the test chart crops on The_Digital_Picture. And, yeah, I also read Bob Atkins's Lensplay, and Fred Miranda too. Obviously, I've got it bad. When you do this, you soon realize that the lenses everybody praises are bound to be good. No matter how many stars they have.</p>

[brians.]

<p>I suspect that Photozone's bench tests are what they are, while Klaus has his own preferences that are reflected in the reviews. I find the sample photos to be more revealing than the tests. Of the lenses I own, the samples are spot on, while the bench tests and comments are only close. Also, by Photozone's own statements, versions of the same lens very greatly, even with major brands and popular lenses.</p>

[jimi_james]

<p>"Pro" photographers buy L heavy and expensive lenses to justify their mediocrity. In fact simple lens is often better...</p>

[dan_south]

I own two of these lenses. I would agree with the 24-105 f/4. Good, solid lens with a high level of utility but with room

for improvement, especially in terms of distortion.

 

 

The 100 L macro, on the other hand, is sharp, fast, has great contrast, focuses accurately, and has little or no

distortion. I would rate it very highly, at least 4.5/5.

[fotograf]

<p>Jimi- photographers buy L lenses because they like their optical performance. Hardly "mediocrity." And how do you define "simple lens?" I think your post was one made in confusion</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Another review site to knock yourself silly:</p>

<p>http://slrlensreview.com/web/canon-lenses.html</p>

[jimi_james]

<p>Brian, "their" I meant - photographers. Simple lens - simple formula.</p>

[jim_mcdonald3]

<p>Jimi, I do recognise your sentiment.<br /> I own several <em>L </em>lenses almost as presents to myself, better to express my passion.<br /> I find the PZ reviews of help in a "benchmark" way but not beyond.<br>

To be honest, I'm concentrating on improving my technique these days and completely recognise that gear is not a limiting step for me.</p>