Originally posted by mee Still seeing a little fringing in the snow, as one might with the Tamron variant, but its minor and likely easily correctable in post. Extreme case however.
What is that place? It looks like a public farm of some sorts on Google Maps.
Tess and I have often seen purple fringing out in nature looking with just our eyes. I could show you magazine images with purple fringing. "Purple fringing is always bad and always needs correction " people seem to me to be kind of a cult. Sometimes, it's part of nature. It has to be really bad, before I bother correcting it.
---------- Post added 02-10-20 at 09:31 AM ----------
Originally posted by Mistral75 400% doesn't show the lens's sharpness, only how the scaling/interpolation algorithm behaves.
Exactly.... and it's also really hard to tell if an image is sharp on a 200 plus DPI monitor. At 109 DPI, on my old 2010 iMac 27 inch display, at 100% you can clearly see the level of sharpness.
Even though I have a 4k display for my laptop, I still find the 10 year old tech better for evaluating images at 1:1.
IMHO evaluating at 400% is a waste of time, although it is conceivable that if you did all your evaluation at 400% you could learn to see the differences. But I'd put the odds of that being true at maybe 50/50, do you feel lucky?
I used to have a demo of upscaled images, showing that good upscaling software actually cleans up messy details in the photo, making it look artificially crisp, but that may look better to you. I had a test chart printed on an inkjet printer that had some fuzzy places with what looked like ink splatter. Upscaling then downsizing cleaned them right up.
The upscaled image looked better, but it wasn't an accurate reproduction of what was there. This being just one of the reasons I feel most sharpness comparisons are overrated. Tack sharp doesn't always produce the most pleasing results. I don't know if it's just the photographers not understanding how to get the most out of a lens, but most of the examples I've seen of ridiculously sharp Zeiss lenses, have not been pleasing images. I'm not sure if that's because sharp images are less than pleasing, or people who own them are crappy photographers. IN the case of the the DFA*50 1.4 and the comparable Zeiss, I'd take the Pentax straight up, even if they were the same price.
If you want to get serious about all this stuff, you can kill a lot of time for not much better results.