What about other more subjective IQ factors besides sharpness? one of the things that struck me about the best of the 135/2 shots I got was that sort of indefinable 3D quality that great lenses have, along with an exquisite way of rendering physical features.
Although this is shot in contrasty stage lighting, and maybe not the best example, this shot has just a little of what I'm talking about: http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view;jsessionid=aFbgNQpPBzV__wUo-e?id=1947700 Ken On 3/10/07, Peter K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did a recent test with the 70-200mm F2.8L IS against several primes. It holds its own very well. But that said you can see the primes are slightly sharped at great magnification. Would you see this in your images? Most likely not, but depends on how you crop and bow large you make them. One interesting note, the Canon lenses are very much like the Zeiss lenses. They are sharp but not contrasty. Tamron lenses are nearly as sharp at the mid apertures but offer higher contrast so the "perceived" sharpness is there. One reason they look so good. Now before you all jump on this, realize the unsharp mask and sharpening in photoshop are doing this too. They neuter the original image. Peter K
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
