[bassek]

I haven't used a lens that wasn't sharp enough.

Seb

[virusn3t]

The DA50 beating the 77ltd and the 100mm macro??? I dont believe that list, or my DA was heavily decentered o anything because even at F2 my 43mn and my 31mm were sharper than the DA50, at f1.8 never stand the match against the 77, and by f2.8 the 50 amd 100 macro laugh at their "top" sharp lens status of that list

[Krusty Surfer]

I own a few of those Aloha

[Nickrs]

The article seems to be written by an amateur for amateurs. BTW, the Sigma 70mm Macro EX DG f/2.8 is considered by some to be the sharpest lens it ever made (up until this year).

Amateur Photographer magazine, written for amateurs by amateurs, really?

Well it seems to be a fairly successful formula:

"Amateur Photographer was first published on 10 October 1884, making it over 130 years old. It has established itself as the world's number one weekly photography magazine. Some of the most renowned photographers such as Alfred Stieglitz, Frank Meadow Sutcliffe, David Bailey and Bob Carlos Clarke have written for the magazine over the years".

The results were based on something called the DxOMark optical test database, and the caveat that "the DxOMark isn't 100% comprehensive, and not not all lenses have been tested on all cameras" was included, if you want to analyse the raw data they used you can take a look at DxOMark by DxO - DxOMark.

[Rondec]

The DA50 beating the 77ltd and the 100mm macro??? I dont believe that list, or my DA was heavily decentered o anything because even at F2 my 43mn and my 31mm were sharper than the DA50, at f1.8 never stand the match against the 77, and by f2.8 the 50 amd 100 macro laugh at their "top" sharp lens status of that list

I don't think DXO Mark's scores are intended to be used this way. They really somehow do a weighted sharpness score combined with the measured t stop of an individual lens and that is what gives the end score.

Most of us would rather know where peak sharpness for center and borders is, but that is exactly what this score won't tell you.

The 77 has very good center sharpness, even wide open. However borders don't really sharpen up till f2.8, anyway. That isn't a big deal to me, as I shoot portraits with it and border sharpness isn't important wide open.

[ZombieArmy]

Amateurs worry about equipment.
Professionals worry about money.
Masters worry about light.

What if you worry about all 3?

[Nickrs]

I've just spent a pleasant few minutes looking at the DxOMark database, it reminded me of many happy hours spent as a child comparing cricket statistics or finding out which was the world's most venomous snake (of limited use here in Wales). I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the wealth of data in the DxOMark whilst interesting, will have little impact on my enjoyment of photography. One of the advantages of being an amateur is that if I don't feel like taking a photograph I usually don't have to. :-)

---------- Post added 07-21-16 at 10:02 PM ----------

What if you worry about all 3?

Perhaps you should get some help, I understand they have effective medication these day.

[yucatanPentax]

What if you worry about all 3?

Ulcers?

[ZombieArmy]

Ulcers?

Well that explains a lot

[robbiec]

Amateur Photographer magazine, written for amateurs by amateurs, really?

Well it seems to be a fairly successful formula:

"Amateur Photographer was first published on 10 October 1884, making it over 130 years old. It has established itself as the world's number one weekly photography magazine. Some of the most renowned photographers such as Alfred Stieglitz, Frank Meadow Sutcliffe, David Bailey and Bob Carlos Clarke have written for the magazine over the years".

The results were based on something called the DxOMark optical test database, and the caveat that "the DxOMark isn't 100% comprehensive, and not not all lenses have been tested on all cameras" was included, if you want to analyse the raw data they used you can take a look at DxOMark by DxO - DxOMark.

AP is a shadow of its former self. A lot of their articles are by syndicate photo journalists (you could describe if feeling cynical as being trade whores) and you see a lot of their articles republished in the monthly magazines in the UK. AP 20 years ago would have tested all the lenses themselves just to make sure.

Ref the whole sharpness thing.. It works for the Internet experts and those that are binary in nature. Gram for Gram nothing touches a 77 or a 43 in overall brilliance of design. Sure you can build a monster lens that tests well but what's the point if you are not going to take it out and use it - looking at the Zeiss Otus and Sigma ART range in particular, both 50s, but I wonder how many Street shooters following in the footsteps of Henri Cartier-Bresson would pick one of those over say the aforementioned 43? or perhaps they are looking for 'sharp' bokeh as well

[virusn3t]

I don't think DXO Mark's scores are intended to be used this way. They really somehow do a weighted sharpness score combined with the measured t stop of an individual lens and that is what gives the end score.

Most of us would rather know where peak sharpness for center and borders is, but that is exactly what this score won't tell you.

The 77 has very good center sharpness, even wide open. However borders don't really sharpen up till f2.8, anyway. That isn't a big deal to me, as I shoot portraits with it and border sharpness isn't important wide open.

Then i dont understand, why create a list of the sharpest lenses under 2000p, and avoid the sharpest lenses wide open like the 77, then they included the DFA50mm but no the DFA100mm, idk about the price of the DFA*70-200 in the UK but in the USA is under that price and is definitevly sharper wide open. The DA35 is almost as cheap and for me it was sharper wide open (but f2.4), so i dont get the use of the list, my cheap 20usd flea market A50mm F1.7 was sharper wide open. Again idk if a get a lemon DA50 but is was soft at 1.8 ok images but not razor sharp images, the lens was better from f2.8, but at that aperture both 31 and 43 were better, higher priced lenses but still under 2000p

[monochrome]

Every lens I own is sharp enough at f/5.6, where I often shoot (it's an old habit). I'm not good enough to focus on an eyelash anyway, so I rarely shoot wide open.

[Dlanor Sekao]

Interesting article....interesting reading !
The only lens I ever had that just didn't cut it was THIS one out of over 100 lenses.......what a Dog ! It was built nice and did take pictures......but there was nothing that could really be used on prints larger than 8 x 10.....I rated it an 8 overall , but still it was the Dog of all Dogs I ever used......image quality just wasn't there and if I rated it today it would only get a 6 rating.
Sigma 21-35mm F/3.5 - 4 Lens Reviews - Sigma Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[RobA_Oz]

AP is a shadow of its former self. A lot of their articles are by syndicate photo journalists (you could describe if feeling cynical as being trade whores) and you see a lot of their articles republished in the monthly magazines in the UK. AP 20 years ago would have tested all the lenses themselves just to make sure.

Ref the whole sharpness thing.. It works for the Internet experts and those that are binary in nature. Gram for Gram nothing touches a 77 or a 43 in overall brilliance of design. Sure you can build a monster lens that tests well but what's the point if you are not going to take it out and use it - looking at the Zeiss Otus and Sigma ART range in particular, both 50s, but I wonder how many Street shooters following in the footsteps of Henri Cartier-Bresson would pick one of those over say the aforementioned 43? or perhaps they are looking for 'sharp' bokeh as well

I regret to say that I think you are correct, regarding AP. They haven't fallen to the depths of Popular Photography (an even paler shadow of what it was forty years ago) but I do note the commonality of some writers there and on DPR.

They are, in a couple of ways, mirroring their commercial and readership stakeholders, with their respective financial and brand-loyalty interests given more emphasis than is probably necessary for continued survival, in my view. Then again, I don't run a publishing business, but I am (or was) a stakeholder in both.

[virusn3t]

Every lens I own is sharp enough at f/5.6, where I often shoot (it's an old habit). I'm not good enough to focus on an eyelash anyway, so I rarely shoot wide open.

Yes, but why spend 2000p on a lens if you use it at f5.6 (unless is a zomm with 500+mm)? DA50 is very good at that aperture, same as 43mm; color or rendering may vary but sharpness they will be close if not equal, yet the 43 will cost 4 times more.