|
Ok, thanks guys... I guess if I'll find myself in the same situation some later night I might just try out the same method at a larger distance (other than that, I think I pretty much did it alright already - image as perpendicular to the optical axis of the lens as possible, using the digital orientation marks in the liveview for horizontal/vertical orientation, and positioning the camera so that it was centered on the test sheet, always trying to fill the frame between two reference marks on the printout - same shooting position for same focal length lenses). Next time, I'll just set it up in the center of my small whiteboard and use the whiteboard itself as reference for the frame.
And yes, this testing is probably not going to reveal much useful information, and it's certianly not going to improve my skills as a photographer in itself - again, don't get me wrong, the main reason to do this is boredom in times and situations when a photo-trip is pretty much out of the question, the second is deciding-which-of-these-three-similar-lenses-could-I-sell-without-doubting-my-decision-forever. It's not like I need the perfect lens to take photos, it's just that sometimes I'd like a little bit of non-subjective testing involved in the whole process - if I only looked at the "good" pictures I've already taken and though "yes, that lens must be good, I've taken many memorable photos with it, let's take it with me again", then the other lenses will never even get a chance. Actually, the testing session here revealed that the Porst 35/2.8 wasn't nearly as bad as I thought, at least not when stepped down a bit. Yes, I like my lenses to be acceptably sharp from wide-open (and I soon found out this one is isn't), but still, since it is my only 35mm prime at the moment and doesn't perform badly when stepped down, I might indeed carry it around a bit more and see how the results look. That's about the only kind of usable real-world information I was ever about to get from that testing.
Chris
| 
Similar Threads 
