# About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....



## Northstar (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision. So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc. I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.

They say they're reviewing the 135L in October...I'm correct in assuming the 135 will score higher, right? OR, did they just get a fantastically sharp copy of the 85 1.8 when they did their review? 

I'm going to buy the 135L, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this, and what the explanation is for their resolution score for the 85 1.8? 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores

EDIT...a couple of posts have come in illustrating some of the inaccurate DXO "scores" for lenses:

1. 70-200 2.8 ii is somehow scored much lower than the orginal version, and much lower than the nikon, sigma, and sony 70-200's.

2. The canon 300 2.8 ii, probably the best lens Canon makes, scores a 15 from DXO. For all the lens scores that were scored using the 5d2 as the body, (66 of them listed) they rank the 300 2.8ii in 57th place out of 66 lens scores. For context, that's about a tie with the 16 score they gave the Tamron 28-300, and the 14 for the Canon 55-200.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 1, 2012)

Did you also read up on fringing/CA on the 85 1.8? Yes it's incredibly sharp and has great DoF bokeh but the purple monster made me sell my copy. I'd rather have the 100 f/2 and the 135 L. of course.


----------



## goose (Oct 1, 2012)

you're probably better off deciding whether or not you need an 85mm or 135mm lens, rather than comparing the two


----------



## sweetcancer (Oct 1, 2012)

I would buy the 135L over the 85 1.8 any day of the week, sharpness has very little to do with this. Fantastic bokeh (to me) much more so. I would guess the 135L does other things far better also, like control of flare, chromatic aberrations etc.


----------



## straub (Oct 1, 2012)

Their lens reviews are rubbish--the 28-135 or 70-300 non-L have more resolution than 300/2.8L II according to them. You'll get more accurate resolution figures by picking out random numbers from a phonebook.


----------



## unadog (Oct 1, 2012)

I prefer Photozone.

Here is the 135. It looks very, very good. 

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d?start=1

And the 85. The MTF also look good:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d?start=1


I don't recall which lens, but one of the Canon telephotos in the 100+ range used to be the sharpest lens that they had ever tested.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> So when looking at their lens reviews...



Did you also see the part where they scored the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkI higher than the MkII? They are probably the only review/test outfit who rated the MkI higher. Just sayin' - grain of salt, and all that...

Personally, I had and liked the 85/1.8. But crasher8 is right, the LoCA on that lens is pretty bad - watch out for high-contrast transitions (reflections, chrome, etc.), unless you really happen to love the colors magenta and green.

I sold my 85/1.8 after getting the 85L II, and I also have the 135L - I'd definitely take either L lens over the 85/1.8. Having said that, depending on budget, I do think the 85/1.8 is the best lens in Canon's lineup in terms of IQ:cost ratio.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 1, 2012)

straub said:


> Their lens reviews are rubbish--the 28-135 or 70-300 non-L have more resolution than 300/2.8L II according to them.



This is what I was thinking....I didn't know they scored the 300 2.8ii so poorly, I knew they had "scored/screwed up" their review of the 70-200 2.8ii, but to screw up both of these scores/reviews...two of THE highest rated most respected lenses Canon makes??  It's just incredible that they have the ego to give such poor scores to lenses that are well known and documented to be incredible lenses by other reviewers and photographers.

It seems this outfit deserves little credibility from what I've seen....I've definitely lost confidence in their reviews.

I almost can't wait to see how they review the 135L....could they be stupid enough to give it a poor review, even further taking them down the "no credibility" hole.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> It's just incredible that they have the ego to give such poor scores to lenses that are well known and documented to be incredible lenses by other reviewers and photographers.
> 
> It seems this outfit deserves little credibility from what I've seen....I've definitely lost confidence in their reviews.



Let's be clear, though. While I agree that their "Scores" are rubbish, their Measurements (the raw data that underlie the Scores) are fine. The problem is the way they 'analyze' (you can substitute words like 'massage' or 'manipulate' there) those data. 

I've looked at their lens corrections and noise reduction in comparison to DPP and ACR, and I find that DxO Optics Pro does better than both (probably because the corrections are based on their thorough measurements). 

But their reviews and scores...I think only KR's are more meaningless.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > So when looking at their lens reviews...
> ...



Neuro...re the 70-200 2.8ii yes, I've ranted about that before and probably will again since it's my favorite lens.

With your obvious camera tech expertise, explain to me how dxomark has achieved such a respected and credible status when it comes to sensor reviews when it seems they "get it wrong" so consistently with lenses.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision. So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc. I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.
> 
> They say they're reviewing the 135L in October...I'm correct in assuming the 135 will score higher, right? OR, did they just get a fantastically sharp copy of the 85 1.8 when they did their review?
> 
> ...



They're on crack to believe that the 85 1.8 is better than the 135L. Not even in the same league.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 1, 2012)

I've had both, and still have the 135L. Although the 85mm f/1.8 is an amazing lens for the money, head to head the 135L is superior, plain and simple. If you're on a budget, the 85mm would be a good choice, if not I'd get the 135L. Honestly the 85 is cheap enough that it may be worth getting both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> ...how dxomark has achieved such a respected and credible status when it comes to sensor reviews when it seems they "get it wrong" so consistently with lenses.



I'm not sure 'wrong' is right. Rather, I'd say their scores only apply in a very specific circumstance, which most likely is not often relevant to actually using the lens. My real beef with their scores, both for lenses and for sensors, is that the 'overall' scores are derived from the individual sub-measurements in an undisclosed manner, and also for the sensors that their normalization step is flawed (it generates 'impossible' data points, like >14-bit DR for a sensor with a 14-bit ADC). Frankly, I give them no credibility for their Score metrics, but lots for their raw measurements.

In the case of lenses, they are reporting resolution as a peak measurement - the highest resolution measured at any location in the lens' FoV, at any aperture setting, and for zooms at any point in the focal range. Maybe the lens is crap wide open and crap through most of the zoom range - DxOMark's resolution score doesn't care. So...as long as you are using it at that aperture, and your subject is in the right place in the frame, great. See what I mean about specific sircumstances? DxoMark measures lateral CA, but not longitudinal CA - and LoCA is a weakness of some lenses, particularly the 85/1.8. 



RLPhoto said:


> They're on crack to believe that the 85 1.8 is better than the 135L. Not even in the same league.



And right there, my friend, you've fallen straight down into the pit trap that leads to heated arguments and internet flame wars. :

They are *not* saying the 85/1.8 is the best lens. They are saying that it achieves a higher lp/mm resolution, with _their_ copy of the lens on _their_ 1DsIII, at a _specific_ aperture and a _specific_ location in the image field. Nothing more. The rank-ordered list you linked does not even take into account the other factors they do measure (distortion, vignetting, LCA) much less the things they _don't_ measure (color transmission, LoCA, bokeh, AF speed, etc.), and all of those are important to overall lens performance.

Honestly, you've illustrated the real problem with the DxOMark scoring - it's not the flawed normalization, not the 'black box' determination of overall score. It's the fact that by taking a complex optical system - lens or camera - and reducing it's multifaceted aspects of performance to a single number, they make it far too easy for human nature to pounce on that number and say, "This one is the best." 

To sum up, IMO, DxO's Measurements are valid and useful, their Scores are meaningless, and the inappropriate interpretation that many forum posters apply to their conflated scores is reprehensible. 

Just my 2¢.


----------



## jordanbstead (Oct 1, 2012)

Both are outstanding, but very different. The perspective of the 135 is considerably tighter. 

The 85 is the best bang-for-your-buck lens that Canon mades, IMHO.


----------



## straub (Oct 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> In the case of lenses, they are reporting resolution as a peak measurement - the highest resolution measured at any location in the lens' FoV, at any aperture setting, and for zooms at any point in the focal range.



I think this is only a part of the problem. If you check the measurement data sheet, the 300L maxes out at ~50lp/mm, whereas e.g. the 28-135 reaches or exceeds 70lp/mm across the focal length range. The 70-300 non-L also shows higher lp/mm at 300mm. Utter rubbish, even more so than their sensor shenanigans.


----------



## rt (Oct 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> I'm going to buy the 135L, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this, and what the explanation is for their resolution score for the 85 1.8?


DxO -- others have already said what they think of their scores.

The lenses -- I've had the 85mm f/1.8 for a few years, it is a good lens (with some known drawbacks). However, I don't like it since it delayed my decision to buy the 135L (having a fast 85mm prime and a 70-200, buying a 135mm did not seem that important). The 135L -- well, I *love* it. Scores cannot describe it, people will say it's the bokeh, sharpness, colors, etc. It's a bit of pain to use sometimes (I am on crop) but the photos are just wonderful. It's as much of a jump in quality for me as my first prime (50mm f/1.8 ) was (after cheap zooms). 

135L is magic.


----------



## Zlatko (Oct 1, 2012)

straub said:


> I think this is only a part of the problem. If you check the measurement data sheet, the 300L maxes out at ~50lp/mm, whereas e.g. the 28-135 reaches or exceeds 70lp/mm across the focal length range. The 70-300 non-L also shows higher lp/mm at 300mm. Utter rubbish, even more so than their sensor shenanigans.


Their results are absolutely screwed up. They run counter to the experience of many photographers. A few have testified to that very clearly in this thread. 

Is there even a single Canon photographer who would rank the 85/1.8 at the top of all Canon lenses? I doubt that there is even _one_. If the DxO lens ratings were at all meaningful, then we could all SEE that the 85/1.8 offered the best resolution.

The 85/1.8 is an excellent lens and a great bargain, but there is simply no way that it is the king of the Canon lenses. No way. This result, like so many measurements at DxO, simply doesn't accord with everyday experience. 

I find the 85 focal length much more useful than 135, but the 135L is without doubt the better resolving lens. Here is evidence:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 1, 2012)




----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

rt said:


> 135L is magic.



I wonder how DxO would quantify that?


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 1, 2012)

FL wise the 85 to the 135 is apples to oranges so why not at least compare apples to pears? I'd like to hear well respected takes (Neuro et al) on the EF 100 f/2. In my experience borrowing one a few years back it had all the sweetness of the 85 without the LoCA issues. I used one at a Harley dealership and had no fringing or other aberrations to correct in post. Why is this lens so overlooked? It is because of the dual role the 100 Macro pair play as both a Macro and a sharp portrait length for torso and tighter?


----------



## robbymack (Oct 1, 2012)

If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it. If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 1, 2012)

The issue with lens measurements is that they put them on a camera body in order to measure them rather than a standalone lens measuring device (They do exist, and are expensive).
Any misalignment in the camera mount may cause a given lens to either look better, or look worse depending on how tolerances stack up. Then, given a dozen lenses, the measurement will be different on each one.
This is the issue that all lens testers face. I tend to look at the conclusions of multiple lens testers, and when Lens Rentals posts the results of tests of many rental lenses, the whole picture begins to form.
In the meanwhile, the 85mm f/1.8 is well known for being very sharp in the center. Now that Adobe Lightroom includes the ability to remove purple fringing, I can use my 85mm wide open and not fear the dreaded purple fringing under most circumstances. It is important to understand that Lightroom removes a very narrow range of purple from your image, so if doing that happens to match a purple dress or car or whatever, it might not turn out so well.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 1, 2012)

robbymack said:


> If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it. If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.



+1

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.


----------



## elflord (Oct 1, 2012)

Northstar said:


> I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision. So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc. I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.



One-size-fits-all methods for scoring lenses are ******* to fail because the different lenses are all inherently different, have different design tradeoffs, purposes, etc. For example, which is "better", a macro lens or portrait lens ? (usually, the macro lens is better for macro and the portrait lens is better for portraits)

Besides differing constraints (e.g. a travel zoom need not have a fast aperture, and a macro lens doesn't need a fast aperture), lenses of different focal lengths aren't comparable. 

So for a review site to be useful, the review needs to do a good job at presenting and summarizing the measurements, including at least some discussion of subjective factors or factors that are otherwise not as easy to measure (bokeh, usability, AF performance), and putting it in context (e.g. how does the lens do against its peers ?). Sites like thedigitalpicture, photozone and lenstip do a pretty good job at this. 

I haven't paid much attention to their scores for lenses because the other sources do a better job at reviewing them.

Their sensor reviews are quite good but their lens reviews aren't as useful as their competitors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 1, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.



Gosh, I hate people who post something like this to correct such a minor point. Really annoying, like picking a nit. I mean, it's not like _I_ have _ever_ done something like that. I mean, really.....ummm...I mean...never... It's just so annoyi.......

Oh hell, that's as far as I can get with a straight face.





(as previously instructed, I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag)


----------



## Northstar (Oct 2, 2012)

Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews. For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude. I know I know, they're a software company...well that just makes me question the software too. 

IMO...Every review they present should be taken with "several grains of salt". I've read from other reviewers/websites that they sometimes think they have a bad copy and will make the extra effort to get another copy and retest. It seems DXO is too lazy to do this, or just too high on themselves.....by the way, isn't DXO based in France? :

Anyway, I just bought the 135L and fired a quick shot of an Ash tree in the front yard....it was a little too close but the only thing of interest for me to shoot before sunset. Cropped but otherwise untouched. I like.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.
> ...



Actually, it's a fair comment. I mentioned it in case potential buyers of the 85mm f/1.8 were put off by thoughts of lateral CA but, thinking about it, it's so easily corrected nowadays that it isn't really an issue. Axial CA, on the other hand...

All the same, the 85 is so good and cheap that everyone should have one.


----------



## distant.star (Oct 2, 2012)

.
You may find the same problem with the 135 that I've found -- it gets stuck to the body.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting an event with my regular walkaround, but took it off briefly to use the 135 in a low light area. I only intended to shoot 10 or 20 pictures, then go right back to the regular zoom. Well, I kept looking through the viewfinder and seeing great things, and I kept pressing the shutter button, knowing I was getting great pictures. And then, 700 pictures later....!!! I kept 500 of them.

It can be very difficult to go back to any other lens once that 135 gets attached to a body. 

Anyway, congratulations, and have a great time with it.

On a tangent to nothing.... I bought mine from a woman who ran a raccoon rescue organization. She needed to sell it to raise money for the coons. Made me feel bad -- I take pictures of coons now any chance I get.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 2, 2012)

distant.star said:


> .
> You may find the same problem with the 135 that I've found -- it gets stuck to the body.
> 
> A couple of weeks ago I was shooting an event with my regular walkaround, but took it off briefly to use the 135 in a low light area. I only intended to shoot 10 or 20 pictures, then go right back to the regular zoom. Well, I kept looking through the viewfinder and seeing great things, and I kept pressing the shutter button, knowing I was getting great pictures. And then, 700 pictures later....!!! I kept 500 of them.
> ...



distant...I started reading your post and I thought "oh oh"...until I read a little further - funny.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 2, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Did you also read up on fringing/CA on the 85 1.8? Yes it's incredibly sharp and has great DoF bokeh but the purple monster made me sell my copy. I'd rather have the 100 f/2 and the 135 L. of course.



+1
for a "cheap" prime I'd take the 100/2 over the 85/1.8, even tho the latter works PDG.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AdamJ said:
> ...



Of course it is. So fair, I would have made it myself, but then got busy, came back to the thread and you'd done it already. 

Big, deep sigh with double face-palm. I feel like Bill Murray's character in _Scrooged_ - "Scare the Dickens out of people...Nobody gets me."

Ok, people, let's try this again: 

I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 2, 2012)

goose said:


> you're probably better off deciding whether or not you need an 85mm or 135mm lens, rather than comparing the two



That's exactly the point. I'm sure they're both really good lenses. I can certainly attest for the 135. But if I needed or wanted a 85mm focal length then the 85 1.8 is clearly a great choice.
I just went through that with the 50L. Technically speaking the 35L is the "better" lens. Only that it's not a 50mm lens...


----------



## pwp (Oct 2, 2012)

The DXO reviews tend to look through a very narrow highly technical prism which is useful to know, but often the real world experience is contradictory to their findings. I stopped reading their reviews a long time ago. Give me the solid opinion of working photographers any day.

-PW


----------



## robbymack (Oct 2, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it. If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.
> ...



Yes my mistake.


----------



## tnargs (Oct 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ....In the case of lenses, they are reporting resolution as a peak measurement - the highest resolution measured at any location in the lens' FoV, at any aperture setting, and for zooms at any point in the focal range. Maybe the lens is crap wide open and crap through most of the zoom range - DxOMark's resolution score doesn't care....



So they measure the wrong thing then. Any chinese $50 lens maker can make a lens that has spectacular resolution at *one* point in the field and at *one* aperture setting. Silly DxOMark.



> ....the real problem with the DxOMark scoring ....they make it far too easy for human nature to pounce on that number and say, "This one is the best."
> 
> To sum up, IMO, DxO's Measurements are valid and useful, their Scores are meaningless, and the inappropriate interpretation that many forum posters apply to their conflated scores is reprehensible.



Nah sorry, if they publish data that is inconsistent with human nature, then I don't know what species they think they are talking to!

And I wouldn't blame forum posters for 'inappropriate interpretation' in this case. If DxOMark publish a number called 'resolution score' which makes good lenses look bad and bad lenses look good, then I will accuse them of 'mischievous obfuscation'! And that's being kind; I could have accused them of deliberate deception and spectacularly incompetent data presentation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

tnargs said:


> ...spectacularly incompetent data presentation.



Oooo...I like that phrase. Mind if I use that at the next scientific meeting I attend?


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AdamJ said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Lol, no I meant _yours_ was a fair comment, even though it was meant in jest. I meant that it was fair of you to point out my pedantry because my correction didn't really help anyone in practical terms.

You are always perfectly clear, especially with your helpful end tags.

</clarification>


----------



## lopicma (Oct 2, 2012)

You could just rent both lenses and make your own determinations...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 2, 2012)

AdamJ said:


> </clarification>



Touché, Sir. I have been out-pedanted... ;D


----------



## funkboy (Oct 2, 2012)

for the record, I've *never* bought a lens based on DXOmark. Photozone did persuade me towards the tokina 11-16 f/2.8, voigt 20mm, and canon 40mm pancake though.

85mm f/1.8 USM = very nice, extremely good bang for buck

135mm f/2L = even better

My advice: get the 85mm for now, which will get you accustomed to using fast short telephoto lenses.

When you're used to it & happy with the 85, the next time a round of rebates roll around, get the 135L. It's like the 85 USM on speed . I have and love them both. But the 135L is one of the main reasons I keep clinging to the EOS system.

If one day you get bored with the 135L (not bloody likely but hey...), get yourself a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to go with it. I sold my 70-200 f/4L non-IS long ago because although it was very good, the 135L + optional 1.4x TC was 1-2 stops faster & easier to carry around.


----------



## expo01 (Oct 2, 2012)

I had both the 85 1.8 and the 135L. 

The 135L was the first lens that immediately wow'd me. Fully open it's very sharp and has very little CA. I bought it together with the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 85 1.8.

I have sold 3 of the lenses again, which only leaves me with the 85 1.2. 

Here why I sold them:

- 35 1.4: It's the only lens I've had trouble with. Sent it in a couple times, even 2 times with 2 bodies. Back-/Frontfocus was an issue. I could correct it via micro-adjustment on the fullframe, sent it in, came back, had to adjust even more which had the effect that it wouldn't be adjustable anymore on APS-H (out of range). Ultimately I decided to sell it off.

- 85 1.8: It's a good bang-for-your-buck lens with pretty good AF speed. But I mostly wanted to use the 85mm range for portraits, so it almost never made its way out of the bag, because the big brother 85 1.2 was there. I initially bought the 85 1.8 for concert/sport...for both of which I've used the 70-200 2.8 II alot more. That extra stop of light is not that big of an issue anylonger.

- 135L: Use of the lens got killed by the 70-200 2.8 II, yes I think it's just that good. 135L has a much slower AF speed aswell. With a bit of distance you can get (at 200mm, 2.8) a pretty pleasing bokeh for portraits with the 70-200. If you however like the 135mm range alot and want to do portrait more than sports/concert/catwalk shows etc, then the 135L might just be the lens for you.


----------



## Mr Simpleton (Oct 2, 2012)

Even if somewhat old, this compares the 85/1,8, 100/2 and 135/2:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

He used both cropped and full sensor.


----------



## dirtcastle (Oct 2, 2012)

I agree that the 85mm f/1.8 is perfectly good for the price. And it's true that the CA is something to watch for. I've had good results correcting CA in Lightroom 4.


----------



## elflord (Oct 3, 2012)

Northstar said:


> Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.



Their lens reviewers aren't the best, but their sensor reviews are excellent (in my opinion, there isn't a better resource for sensor benchmarking).



> For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude.



On the contrary, a good reviewer should be willing to shine some cold hard factual light on what they are reviewing, and should not feel obliged to validate whatever prejudices are held by the general public. In fact it's their role to do precisely the opposite -- to burst some of those bubbles and set the record straight.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 3, 2012)

elflord said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.
> ...



wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses...pull your head out of the sand DXO. Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...and a couple of guys at DXO say "hey, this lens sucks compared to the old one".

In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+". I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.


----------



## elflord (Oct 3, 2012)

> wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses..



I agree that their lens reviews aren't great, some of the competition are better (especially photozone, lensrentals and lenstip) I didn't suggest otherwise. Where we differ is in the view that the reviewer is obliged to show deference to products that have better reputations. 



> Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...



In my opinion, the labor of canon's engineers shouldn't be a factor in the review.

Again, this is where we just don't quite agree -- you seem to think that reviewers should be required to show some deference based on the reputation of the product, the manufacturer, or the general public's prior beliefs about those two things. Nor should they be trying to fudge their scoring systems to make certain products look good. 



> In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+". I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.



No, that's just silly. I'm not trying to suggest that the reviewers criteria should be to oppose widely held prejudices for the sake of being contrary, I'm suggesting that these shouldn't be a factor. 

BTW, for all the DxO bashing, I'll say this again -- there is noone who does better sensor reviews.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 3, 2012)

elflord said:


> > wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



elford...agree to disagree...it's a fact that the 70-200 2.8ii and 300 2.8ii are superb lenses...to say otherwise discredits your rep. this is my point pure and simple. with that said, how can you trust ANY review, lens or sensor, from an outfit that as a matter of fact, has screwed up multiple lens reviews not just to a small degree...but to an enormous degree.

crazy how people see things differently. no disrespect to your opinion though elf.


----------



## elflord (Oct 3, 2012)

Northstar said:


> elford...agree to disagree...it's a fact that the 70-200 2.8ii and 300 2.8ii are superb lenses...to say otherwise discredits your rep.



I didn't say otherwise. Where did DxO say otherwise ?



> this is my point pure and simple. with that said, how can you trust ANY review, lens or sensor, from an outfit that as a matter of fact, has screwed up multiple lens reviews not just to a small degree...but to an enormous degree.



I would trust their sensor reviews, because their track record on sensor reviews is unparalleled. I don't see why their failure to deliver good lens reviews discredits their sensor reviews. I can see why fans (especially fans of brands that don't use Sony sensors) will go out of their way to reach for reasons, valid or not to discredit their sensor reviews. It's kind of like saying that you don't trust Jack Nicklaus's golf playing because he doesn't know anything about lenses. You might argue that reviewing lenses and reviewing sensors are related skills, but the evidence suggests otherwise (the best lens reviewers aren't notable for good sensor reviews and vice versa)

As for their lens reviews -- what I don't like about their lens reviews, as I stated previously, is that an attempt to summarize lens performance with a single number (or even three numbers) is likely to be unsuccesful. 

Their lens reviews do require more insight. In the case of the 70-200 f/2.8 lens review for example, giving the lens a weak score and running away doesn't quite cut it -- it requires a bit more explanation. Why does the lens get a lower score ? Is it just plain worse than the 70-200 f/2.8 ? How does the weaker benchmark result play out in terms of performance in the field ? etc. 

With their sensor reviews, they do go into more depth (for example, they pinpoint exactly where the Canon 5DIII sensor falls short compared to the Nikon -- it's basically low ISO shadow noise).


----------



## straub (Oct 3, 2012)

elflord said:


> As for their lens reviews -- what I don't like about their lens reviews, as I stated previously, is that an attempt to summarize lens performance with a single number (or even three numbers) is likely to be unsuccesful.



That's only a consequence of the real problem. It's their "measurements" that are so incompetent it's almost unbelievable--e.g. the 17-85 kit-lens is "measured" as sharper across the field than the 300L, both mounted on a 7D. Check their resolution maps, MTF charts, whatever, it's all there.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 5, 2012)

straub said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > As for their lens reviews -- what I don't like about their lens reviews, as I stated previously, is that an attempt to summarize lens performance with a single number (or even three numbers) is likely to be unsuccesful.
> ...



Another example of why I don't trust dxo's scores...good point straub. 

I came back to this post to say that I decided to return the 135f2 (within the 30 days return window) because the IQ just isn't any better than my 70-2002.8ii, except for slightly better bokeh.( i spent considerable time shooting both at 135 and studying the results)It does have the f2 advantage but I found the 70-200 zoom much more useful for my needs, and therefore it was too redundant.

Another surprise...I also found the AF to be more accurate and quicker using the 70-200. My hit rate was higher with the 70-200(sports). I'm wondering if that is normal, or if others have had a similar experience?


----------



## Bosman (Nov 6, 2012)

I really don't like DXO. I really DO like personal reviews and their images, this tells me more about a lens. Personally I have owned the 135L and there is no flaw, F2 is dead sharp, accuracy results in never a missed shot. You can shoot at F2 and never worry. I only like it on FF personally unless its for sports. The thing is I had the 70-200 too and I was carrying all this equipment and for what? I never or at least can't recall a single shot that didnt look spectacular. The weight is so much nicer than 70-200 and the build is very solid. The glass looks just like my 85L II thick and heavy, not the lens but the glass. You kinda need to expect to be doing head shots and the like more than anything so if you don't shoot stuff like that you might not like the focal length. I recommend getting a plug in for LR4 and having it tell you what focal lengths you use most.
I use this plug in, it tells me focal lengths used. It took a while to read everything but i had it go thru all my wedding photos to determine what lenses i'd like ot limit myself to using given how i used the lenses i have owned.
http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/data-plot
He does ask for a donation and its totally worth it!


----------

