Most of you realize that for me a lens test doesn’t require a fancy lens testing chart or a brick wall. It’s not that I don’t think that this type of test is valid, it’s just that I don’t think that photographing charts has much to do with real life photography. The only real exception to this that I can think of is maybe photographing paintings but even then I would be using a fixed focal length flat field lens, not some extreme wide angle zoom.
Over the past few years I have rambled on about real world photography using certain lenses that I have purchased. While this may or may not be a good way to compare lenses, it will give you an idea of how a lens performs, this from a guy that likes equipment to work well but at the same time doesn’t pixel peep.
Is this valid? I’ll leave that up to you to decide.
I thought I would list these ramblings in one place, let me know what you think!
I'm beginning to feel like an equipment junkie having purchased a couple new (used) lenses recently. One of these, the Nikkor 10.5mm fisheye I hav ...
I'm often asked what type of equipment I use or have used. Here we go with the digital era! I've been shooting digital for a number of years, i ...
I haven't owned a macro lens for a number of years since making the move to digital. At that time I was using a classic manual focus 105mm Nikkor ...
(Originally posted June 18th, 2007) I spent the past weekend in Portland, Oregon. As is usually the case I take advantage of the fact there is no ...
There are a number of ways to get into macro photography ranging from inexpensive to outrageously expensive. Tough decisions to make, especially f ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Kevin,
Thanks for the reviews! Hope you don’t mind but I linked to this post. I’ve been wondering about the whole Canon vs Sigma quality thing lately. I’m sure that the Nikon vs Sigma is similar.
It seems as though many of us go through the same scenario, are the third party lenses as good? One of the interesting tidbits that I have stumbled across on forums is that many photographers seem to have more of an issue with Sigma lenses having problems on Canon cameras than Nikons. I’m always a little skeptical about comments like that because I think many people that are having issues might just be caused by bad technique.
Oh, the Nikon thing; I grew up with Nikons and while I know they’re completely inferior I just have to make do!!!
[…] Dedicated macro lenses are the best way to go if you are serious at all about doing this type of work. It does not have to be pricey, I purchased a excellent 50mm Sigma Macro lens used for all of $120 (brand new about $270) and it's tack sharp and produces amazing images. My main macro lens is a Sigma 150mm Macro and cost a huge $700, the best money I have ever spent. This gives you an idea about the price range available and the sky’s the limit with a number of highly specialized Nikon macro lenses in the $1,500 range. Why the difference in focal lengths? I’ll get to that soon in another article that I’m working on! If you are really serious about macro photography buying a lens specifically designed for the purpose is the best way to go. The lens designs are optimized for close focusing and the lenses are also generally flat field (focus in a flat plane) producing sharper edges on flat subjects such as fragments of timber or slabs of rock. Flat field may be a term that many have not heard of and I’ll elaborate in the future on this as well. […]