Today on Rumors, a new Lenscore - and - Senscore -

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
edited December 2014 in Nikon DSLR cameras
Is on Nikon Rumors today, the idea seemed interesting. I looked at Lenscore.
The 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 is better then the 24-70mm f/2.8 ED, in there list.
No it is not !!.

http://www.lenscore.org/

Any thoughts on - Senscore - and - Lenscore -
They test one body or lens in the field, due to there FAQ, for these numbers.

Not so interesting any more for me, because I can do that myself.
Even more, this site is just rubbish in my opinion.
Post edited by [Deleted User] on
Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!

Comments

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    I can't see how you can compare a f2.8 midrange zoom with a tele zoom with max aperture of f4.5
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2014
    Neither do I. But it is a rating, look at there - scores - it is a list.

    http://www.lenscore.org/
    click on - Lenscore - Scores - Zoom Lenses - Nikon.
    Or any other list you want to see.
    But read the FAQ, you see they test one (1) camera or lens, that's it.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited December 2014
    This is in there FAQ, I quote:

    What can we do as a manufacturer if we suspect the lens tested was defective?

    Get in touch. We will provide you with the serial number of the measured lens and schedule testing with a different copy. If the results of the second test are significantly better, we will update the database accordingly. We do not test lenses provided by manufacturers. Re-testing will be done with a lens acquired independently. We will not do more than one re-test for any given lens model.

    They test 1 lens on a custom-built camera using a 200MP super high resolution CCD sensor.
    This camera does not exist in the real world, you never know how it works on a real camera.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,199Moderator
    Even more, this site is just rubbish in my opinion.
    Agreed.
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited December 2014
    OK, I looked and got caught in the f/2, 50mm Apo Summicron..... too bad it does not have an "F" mount.....LOL Of course for about $16,000 I can have the M body and this lens.....oh yeah!

    IMO, the testing of any lens, regardless of the scientific methods, can only be a report on that individual lens. I think the impression from someone like BorrowMe or any lens rental company from their customer feedback is far more significant than any individual lens testing. Maybe the test data is a place to start, but the results in the field are what makes it all of value for me.

    And, if one chats for a few minutes with a full time professional, one who works at a national level, the truth will out. An example is at a sporting event...all those gray lenses....well, the Canon pro bodies have, for many, an easier way to edit and they may tend to focus quicker than Nikon. But, Nikkor lenses may have an edge in sharpness. All very subjective, but these are the folks who can tell us what is going on in the real world.....

    And, that is only my opinion.....which we all have...... :D
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,176Member
    any testing data that aims to be consistent is a good thing. You just need to factor in your own bias and your perception of their bias.
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    Trying to boil down multiple sensor characteristics (noise, resolution, color gamut etc.) into a single 'rating' is a fools errand. One needs to understand the relationship of the various parameters to the mission to make a rational choice.

    How does per pixel DR rate against number and density of pixels ?. Give me a use case and I can have a narrative, a single number is not useful and fools those who do not understand into thinking they are 'scientific'.

    The same is true of lenses, where one balances sharpness wide open against max f-stop against sharpness at various apertures against focus capability, and of course focal length.

    Once again, One needs to understand the relationship of the various parameters to the mission to make a rational choice.

    This of course means it is necessary to understand the basics of the photographic craft.

    For lenses, I find imaging-resource has the most useful measured tests, and Thom Hogan the most useful analysis.

    ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    If you go to the "about" section on lenscore.com you can see how they weight the individual parameter scores. The 24-70 and the 70-300 differ by only 16 points out of ~700, or about 2%. But that is the overall score. If you look at the individual scores, and how the weight them it becomes clear. The 70-300 beats the 24-70 in flare, distortion and contrast. The 24-70 wins in resolution, color, star, and LaCA. This actually seems pretty right to me, the 24-70 is a bit of a flaremeister, and has a fair amount of distortion. They do weight flare as a 5 in the overall, you could argue that, but they argue that anything that can ruin an image is important.

    Look at the individual parameters, not the overall, weighted score. They even say this on their site.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,199Moderator

    IMO, the testing of any lens, regardless of the scientific methods, can only be a report on that individual lens. I think the impression from someone like BorrowMe or any lens rental company from their customer feedback is far more significant than any individual lens testing. Maybe the test data is a place to start, but the results in the field are what makes it all of value for me.
    Yep.
    Always learning.
  • ThomasHortonThomasHorton Posts: 323Member
    Since way too many photographers want to know what is the "best" lens (as if anything in photography can be "the best"), one can't blame these companies for trying to come up with some metric.

    What kind of metric could exist that would represent/model the overall artistic quality of a lens? Probably no kind. So these companies try to metric that which is difficult to measure. As the demand from photographers for more tests and more numbers increases, these companies have to get creative with their methodologies. And then photographers complain. Such is the world of photography. :)

    I think the best methodology is to borrow/rent a lens you are considering. Then go out and do the type of photography that you do (a lens that works well for one type of photography may not work well for another). Then determine if you, the artist, likes the photographs that this lens helps provide.

    It really does not matter what some other photographer's opinion of the lens is.

    It does not matter what the "score" of a lens is, if the lens does not take a picture you like.
    It does not matter what the "score" of a lens is, if the lens does take a picture you like.

    The picture is the thing.

    However, on the Internets Tubes discussion forums, what a lens can and can't actually do is immaterial.
    :P
    Gear: Camera obscura with an optical device which transmits and refracts light.
Sign In or Register to comment.