Can we judge a lense based on the MTF only? in Nikon Posted October 10, 2002 Hi everybody, Yesterday somebody posted a link to a Nikon Japanese site http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/af_nikkor/index.htm that shows the MTF curves for many Nikkor lenses. The gentleman was claiming that the 18-35 3.5-4.5 is sharper than the 17-35 / 2.8. I own the 17-35 but I've never tried the 18-35 and I was a bit shocked about this statement. I printed then the two curves and placed them one on top of the other. Effectively the curves for the 18-35 were better than those of the 17-35. Is is the same for the curves of the 80-400VR which seem to be better (sharper) than the 80-200ED. Does it make any sense? Here comes the stupid question: I'm not an expert in determining the exact meaning of the MTF curves. Are these curves the absolute and best method to determine the optical quality of a lens? (in terms of sharpness). Can we base our lens evaluation only on that, or are there any other factors? I cannot believe that the only reason for such a big price difference between the 17-35 and the 18-35 would be just for the 2.8 opening and the AF-S. I like the 17-35 but I have to admit that it is very sharp in the center and not that sharp at edges. Is it really worst than the 18-35? Maybe I�m wrong. I know all the 17-35 owners will say: Oh I love my lens, and the 18-35 owners will say I love mine too. But let's be objectives for once. with regards, Titus
Can we judge a lense based on the MTF only?
in Nikon
Posted
Hi everybody,
Yesterday somebody posted a link to a Nikon Japanese site
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/af_nikkor/index.htm that
shows the MTF curves for many Nikkor lenses.
The gentleman was claiming that the 18-35 3.5-4.5 is sharper than
the 17-35 / 2.8. I own the 17-35 but I've never tried the 18-35 and
I was a bit shocked about this statement. I printed then the two
curves and placed them one on top of the other. Effectively the
curves for the 18-35 were better than those of the 17-35. Is is the
same for the curves of the 80-400VR which seem to be better
(sharper) than the 80-200ED. Does it make any sense? Here comes the
stupid question:
I'm not an expert in determining the exact meaning of the MTF
curves.
Are these curves the absolute and best method to determine the
optical quality of a lens? (in terms of sharpness). Can we base our
lens evaluation only on that, or are there any other factors?
I cannot believe that the only reason for such a big price
difference between the 17-35 and the 18-35 would be just for the 2.8
opening and the AF-S. I like the 17-35 but I have to admit that it
is very sharp in the center and not that sharp at edges. Is it
really worst than the 18-35? Maybe I�m wrong. I know all the 17-35
owners will say: Oh I love my lens, and the 18-35 owners will say I
love mine too. But let's be objectives for once.
with regards,
Titus