[swanlefitte]

Yep another thread got me curious. so I did a study. Didn't know quite what to test for so I decided on center at 1 stop up from the slowest.
55-300 PLM
50-200 dal
18-250 tamron
200 takumar f4
150 takumar + the da 1.4x tc

I set up at what the 200 takumar said was less than 10 meters but more than 30 feet. I used a modeling light for 100% live view focus and a flash. I put the skull dead center or as close as I could get. Shot from tripod with 2 second delay.
In photoshop I auto aligned and cropped to 400x400 pixels. confused on the 150 +tc one did the fstop spin?
first is to show the focus light entering the images.






They are named on my flickr page.

[stevebrot]

They are named on my flickr page.

Are you aware that the BBCode that Flickr provides with the "share" icon includes the title? That is a fairly painless way to provide the link back as well as document what is being shared.

Edit:
Well, that is strange. The forum software stripped the descriptive text from the Flickr BBCode and only rendered the photo as link part. In other words, no text to go with the photos. The preview did not look like that I will edit the id in...

As a courtesy...


Takumar 200


Takumar 150 + 1.4x TC


DA 55-300 PLM


DA 50-200 DAL


Tamron 18-250

Time to buy a SMC Takumar 200/4?




Steve

[swanlefitte]

Frankly I think the difference is not worth much
the 150 + tc is my least favorite and I dislike the color contrast of the 50-200. Handheld best focus would seem to matter more and speed to focus which I didn't test.

Experience wise the tamron has creep, and a very tight focus ring but light. The PLM has great afc focus and wr. The tak is the most pleasurable to use but a pain to dig out the m42 adapter and screw it on.

[normhead]

I've always said, buy the focal length you want with the features you want. Differences tend to be vastly over emphasized.

Too bad you didn't have the 150-450 and 70-200, DA* 200 and DA*60-250. The difference between good glass and average glass is usually best observed in the out of focus areas. My Sigma 18-250 does well compared to my DA*60-250 on many images, if you just look at the subject. Not so good if you look at the out of focus areas.

You've kind of eliminated an important metric by using a uniform background.

That being said, if you construct your test to show the differences, you can show that the 60-250 is stellar and the 18-250 is awful, just by shooting just beyond the range where the 18-250 can produce an acceptable image, and before you reach the point where the 60-250 won't. That extra 5%-15% resolution does make a difference 5% to 15% of the time. Just not in every image.

Thanks for posting in any case. These things are a lot of work.

[swanlefitte]

Well, that is strange. The forum software stripped the descriptive text from the Flickr BBCode and only rendered the photo as link part. In other words, no text to go with the photos. The preview did not look like that
Steve

Same for me, thanks for adding the info.

---------- Post added 04-29-18 at 08:37 AM ----------

Too bad you didn't have the 150-450 and 70-200, DA* 200 and DA*60-250.

I agree, but I think its too bad I don't have lots of things.

---------- Post added 04-29-18 at 08:57 AM ----------

you can show that the 60-250 is stellar and the 18-250 is awful, just by shooting just beyond the range where the 18-250 can produce an acceptable image, and before you reach the point where the 60-250 won't.

Constructing the test was hard finding an area. I was hoping the pinecone and shading of the background was going to show some reasonable oof. Just checked a dof calculator and i need about twice the distance behind. I do like the ruler for a check of nailing focus though its very hard to see. I like the craft horns for the shading and the intense color of the skull. I might have another go with things staggered back at 1 foot distances.
There aren't enough tests like this done in my opinion. Too much confirming belief by siting specs and not enough trying to disprove beliefs to see if they hold up.

[stevebrot]

There aren't enough tests like this done in my opinion. Too much confirming belief by siting specs and not enough trying to disprove beliefs to see if they hold up.

To be honest, I was surprised at the performance of the DA 50-200. I have shot with that lens and was underwhelmed.


Steve

[normhead]

Constructing the test was hard finding an area. I was hoping the pinecone and shading of the background was going to show some reasonable oof

I sympathize completely. I've spend a half an hour to an hour just looking for suitable test subjects and environments, and you never get exactly what you want. I'm usually an hour in before I even start shooting.

To be honest, I was surprised at the performance of the DA 50-200. I have shot with that lens and was underwhelmed.

Even the cheap lenses wil do well on subjects that don't tax the resolution of the lens. My Sigma 70-300 which is just awful on the test charts has given me a number of tack sharp images, because the resolution required to resolve the subject just wasn't that high.

When I look at the IR test charts I always try and do a thread count on the fabrics. But, I don't require that level of resolution on most of my images. Many lenses used for everyday use have a lot of unused capacity in terms of resolution. They are't using all they have because the subject doesn't require it. This seems to be one of the biggest misunderstandings in current photography.

Extra resolving power beyond is need to produce an acceptable rendering is wasted. If the 55-200 can acceptably resolve all necessary elements, using a better lens doesn't improve anything.

[pres589]

My own anecdote is that the 55-200 is bad at things far away and good at close things. Distant birds, or buildings, it doesn't really do so great. A house cat, or some plants, things within 20 feet? Pretty solid! And that's basically what this test was, "set up at what the 200 takumar said was less than 10 meters but more than 30 feet", whatever that works out to...

Go shoot some high contrast stuff in bright light and I think the differences would be much more apparent.

[normhead]

I'd guess the DA*200 would give good sharp images for at least another 15-30 feet after the 55-200 gives up.

My Sigma 70-300 is reputed to be not as good as coke bottle in the long end, but 8 feet away, it gets the job done. Not as good was better glass, but enough to keep you shooting.

[swanlefitte]

I just devised and set up another test. I got my tripod release unstuck. I had all the lenses ready. I had my subject set up. Then my landlord came to weedwack and i had to take it all down.

[normhead]

I usually get set up in the yard and a cloud passes in front of the sun or it starts raining.

[swanlefitte]

Finished the test. Conditions stayed pretty stable. Closer to noon would have helped. All set at 6.7 1/180 except the 150+1.4tc at 5.6. all cropped to 1550 square. The center was the blue on the ladder. auto aligned in ps. I should note that that made the 150 + resized a tiny bit.
Starting to see differences now. The 150 loses out but the rest are all still so close.
This time Focus was at just about 20 meters.






Same order as before
tak 200
tak 150+ tc
55-300 PLM
50-200 dal
tamron 18-250

[pres589]

Thanks for sharing. The Tamron 18-250 seems to be holding its own here in the tests performed so far.

[swanlefitte]

Yes the tamrom is killing it
I majored in philosophy of science. I am loving figuring out tests and what it reveals about my mind and lenses.
Ok then. What 200 test will prove a winner? Suggestions welcome.

---------- Post added 04-30-18 at 03:15 PM ----------

Interesting cross data at this point.
Ratings.
Scores of sharpness and value.
Dal 8.6, 9.3
Plm 8.9, 9.2
Tamron 8, 9.3
Takumar 9, 9.3
Takumar 150 9.2, 8.8

[pres589]

Leafless trees to check for color fringing in areas of high contrast?