Forum Twitter Facebook Google + RSS

Author Topic: Useless tests  (Read 3504 times)

Offline MarineCorps

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Useless tests
« on: April 23, 2013, 05:15:04 pm »
This a comment for this page on the website
DxO, your tests are useless because you compare Nikon flagship lens with Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and 2nd grade Nikon or old analogue Nikon lenses. If you want to make proper comparison you should make 2 groups/tests, first group for flagship lenses and second group 2nd grade/amateur FF lenses. In this case you should only compare Nikon 14-24mm G lens with Zeiss 15mm lens. And this is what is interesting for us. In second group/test you should put everything else/2nd grade lenses...

Offline Emilie_DxOMark

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 530
Re: Useless tests
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2013, 03:18:11 pm »

Thanks for your interest in DxOMark.

Theses are only propositions. If you need a specific comparison you can of course use our comparison tool which enable any other comparison:

Best regards,

The DxOMark team

Offline nowellcraig

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Useless tests
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2013, 09:35:12 pm »
Hi MarineCorps... To be fair, you are trying to compare apples and oranges by pitching this lens against a Zeiss 15mm.  For a start, the 14-24 is not optimised as, nor is it intended to be, a prime lens.  If you want prime lens quality, you have to buy them that way for every focal length you need.  Although good luck carrying the bag around and swapping and changing the lenses every five seconds to get the shot (which you will have missed due to time wasted fiddling with your gear).  It is designed to offer versatility of focal lengths and, inevitably, because of this there will be slight image quality differences.  However, in truth, you really have to be extremely picky and anal about these things if you want to find the differences (namely, people who spend their lives looking at 100% pixel views in Photoshop as opposed to going out and doing some photography).  I have used the 14-24 frequently (by renting when I needed one).  I stop short of buying one because I know I won't get the use out of it that the price justifies.  But, I have to say that it is absolutely superb for what it is, and when you pair it with the Lee filter holder designed for this lens, it is just about as good as it gets for landscape, city scape or the downright whacky, if you like shooting images with a bit of artistic license thrown in.  Personally I would buy a 16-35mm as the 14-24 does weigh a ton, especially with that huge front element acting like a pendulum at the end, the former doesn't suffer vignetting nearly as much as the latter at the widest focal length.  But I would even consider the Nikon 14mm f/2.8D as a "dedicated" super wide lens.  But I think DxOMark are very thorough, scientific, and in the case of this lens, DxOMark are very correctly pitching it against it's very nearest market competition.  A Zeiss 15mm is not nearest competition.  There are people earning Fellowships of the Royal Photographic Society by printing panels using far less equipment than lenses like these.  Quality of images are not nearly about the camera, or the lens... They are about the human stood behind and looking into them.  All the best, Craig

Offline Peoplewing

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Useless tests
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2013, 08:41:44 am »
 I don't agree, you might nevertheless compare Nikon 14-24 and Zeiss 15mm! I did it, and came to the conclusion to buy the Zeiss. Although both seem to be very good lenses for professional purpuses I need neither AF nore zoom in this range of wide angel. Especially with a 25mm Zeiss up one's sleeve. ;)