# Review: Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II at DXOMark



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 31, 2015)

```
Let the fun begin, DXOMark has completed their review of the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II along with a bunch of numbers.</p>
<blockquote><p>With the introduction of high-resolution bodies such as the Canon EOS 5Ds and 5DsR, with their ability to highlight lens flaws, it comes as little surprise to see Canon roll out new versions of some of the older models in their line-up. The original 35mm f/1.4 wasn’t a bad performer, but it was beginning to show its age. The new model greatly surpasses the original in several key areas. It is generally sharper, but it’s the improvement in geometry and uniformity that really impresses. Not only does it have low field curvature and astigmatism, but Canon has also dramatically lowered lateral chromatic aberration, with the overall effect of greatly improving imaging performance in the outer field (where the older model was weak).</p></blockquote>
<p>According to the review, the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II doesn’t quite score as well as the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art in sharpness. However it seems to perform well in all the other categories against the Sigma and Zeiss 35 f/1.4 Distagon.</p>
<p>Comparison below (Click for larger):</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dxo3514lii.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-23132" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dxo3514lii-728x471.jpg" alt="dxo3514lii" width="728" height="471" /></a></p>
<p><strong>Canon EF 35 f/1.4L II $1799: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1180801-REG/canon_9523b002_35mm_f_1_4l_ii_usm.html/BI/2466/KBID/3296" target="_blank">B&H Photo</a> | <a href="http://www.adorama.com/CA35142.html?utm_term=UbK24x0al34oSlvW4eT8QxjoUkX3mDVXeWC-Ug0&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=Other&utm_source=rflaid64393&cvosrc=affiliate.64393" target="_blank">Adorama</a> | <a href="http://amzn.to/1Uehm5w" target="_blank">Amazon</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## Rahul (Oct 31, 2015)

Ever since the DXOMark fiasco over their "score" of 70-200 IS II, I lost respect for them. Over time, I have increasingly felt that they are way too biased for my liking. Having an opinion is fine, but indulging in pseudo-science of translating data into numbers using a "magical formula" (which they won't disclose) and present "facts" doesn't appeal much to me. 

That being said, both the 35L II and the Sigma 35A are excellent lenses. Comparing it with the Sigma is like splitting hairs. 

Personally, I got the 35L II for instead of Sigma so as to remain within the Canon ecosystem, better / consistent AF, beautiful bokeh and the red ring.


----------



## Maiaibing (Oct 31, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Let the fun begin, DXOMark has completed their review of the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II along with a bunch of numbers.



No doubt a great lens. Price is the issue. 

1.800$ in Japan and the US, somewhat more in Europe. Still holding on to my 35L (I) for now...


----------



## Corneria (Oct 31, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Ever since the DXOMark fiasco over their "score" of 70-200 IS II, I lost respect for them. Over time, I have increasingly felt that they are way too biased for my liking. Having an opinion is fine, but indulging in pseudo-science of translating data into numbers using a "magical formula" (which they won't disclose) and present "facts" doesn't appeal much to me.


Don't look at the scores, check the graphs. These are unambiguous. There you see that the Sigma is sharper when stopped down, but at more open apertures, the Canon is better.

I personally have the Sigma for my Nikon, and I'm very happy. That sharpness in the corners is not so important for me in a wide-angle lens. What I do have problems with, is AF consistency and lack of weather sealing. That having said, Canon users have now the 'best' 35mm available without any concessions!


----------



## Rahul (Oct 31, 2015)

Corneria said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > Ever since the DXOMark fiasco over their "score" of 70-200 IS II, I lost respect for them. Over time, I have increasingly felt that they are way too biased for my liking. Having an opinion is fine, but indulging in pseudo-science of translating data into numbers using a "magical formula" (which they won't disclose) and present "facts" doesn't appeal much to me.
> ...



Aye, but for me buying a large aperture prime is about shooting at wide open. Stopped down, most lenses are sharp enough for it to not matter much.


----------



## Corneria (Oct 31, 2015)

I agree! But on 36MP the Sigma is very sharp wide-open, and I think that wouldn't be much different on the 5Dsr.


----------



## Sator (Oct 31, 2015)

I agree with those who express immense scepticism about DXO Mark. Alex Cooke at F Stoppers put it extremely well for me:

https://fstoppers.com/originals/are-your-lenses-suddenly-obsolete-85888



> I take anything that comes from DxOMark with a healthy grain of salt. Here’s the problem: they refuse to publish detailed methodology. There’s a reason science is an open community: science is hard... That’s why we publish, critique, evaluate, question, test, test, test, retest, and replicate results before they are accepted as fact. The “because I said so” method simply would not fly and it’s why I highly suspect I see sparse mention of DxOMark when I search peer-reviewed academic journals, despite the scientific importance and industrial reach of the study of modern optics.



When someone does publish results in which methodology is laid open to scrutiny, it fails to corroborate DXO Mark's results. I point you to Lens Rental's recent study:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/09/35mm-f1-4-shootout-canon-35mm-f1-4l-ii-vs-sigma-35mm-art-vs-canon-35mm-f1-4l-i

This demonstrates that the MTF plots for the new Canon 35mm are slightly better than those of the Sigma. Notice that this study does show you mean and standard variation (I assume they show 95%iles), as well as declaring samples sizes, just as I would expect of an author if I were to review a scientific paper prior to publication. 

I guess with my science background where the importance of scrutinising methodology was hammered into me from my first undergrad year through into my PhD lab years, and beyond, I look at the "because I said so" method of DXO Mark results as being little better than witchcraft and voodoo. Worse still, my more cynical side wonders if DXO Mark keep their methods a secret to hide the fact that they make up their results depending on how much money each company "donates" in advance to a secret "independent research foundation". While this may seem too harsh, I have seen similar sorts of scandal come to light in biased scientific trials before, and until DXO Mark lay bare their methodology for independent scrutiny one should sadly assume no less.


----------



## ecka (Oct 31, 2015)

DxO blah blah blah...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
How did this happen? :


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 31, 2015)

I own the Sig 35 and 50. Though I rarely use the 35 anymore, it's a fantastic lens. I haven't used the new 35 yet from Canon but I suspect it's just as sharp as the Sig but with better bokeh (always where sig falls behind Canon) and of course more reliable and faster AF. For people who demand absolute reliability and durability, the Canon is the way to go. As soon as Canon announces the new 50mm (like the Sigma, I expect to be even more impressive than the 35mm variation) my Sig 35 and 50 are going up for sale.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 31, 2015)

And that may even be just a difference in focusing accuracy between a Canon lens and third party lens. I tend to think it's just the Canon being sharper, but either way, it doesn't matter. The Canon still wins that comparison wide open, which is the only reason I'd own such a lens anyway. If I wanted to shoot smaller apertures, I'll grab my 16-35 f4, which is just ridiculously good glass.



ecka said:


> DxO blah blah blah...
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> How did this happen? :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> *And that may even be just a difference in focusing accuracy between a Canon lens and third party lens. *I tend to think it's just the Canon being sharper, but either way, it doesn't matter. The Canon still wins that comparison wide open, which is the only reason I'd own such a lens anyway. If I wanted to shoot smaller apertures, I'll grab my 16-35 f4, which is just ridiculously good glass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, autofocus is not used in the tests. The normal procedure is to manually focus bracket then pick the sharpest shot.


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 31, 2015)

Lovely! I really love DxO for entertaining us so much.

Either DxO got a cherry picked Sigma and/or the worst EF35L II out there in the market or they'll have a really good time explaining to us why their scores and rankings don't fit to about 80% of the reviews and comparrisons and samlpe pics out there.

As far as I've seen the reviews the Sigma is a great lens, especially for its price, but the 35L II is even better. 
On test charts as well as in rl shooting. If that advantage is worth the higher price depends on each own taste. 
But as far as I know DxO didn't put the price into their calculation of optical values.

By the way: Still just testing with the 5D3 and not with the 5DS/R. : : :


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 31, 2015)

Thanks for the info! And like I said in my next line, I tend to think it's just the Canon being even sharper than the Sig. I really don't use the 35mm focal length much if ever anymore outside of my 16-35 f4. I favor the 50mm, so I expect the new Canon 50L to be spectacular and I'll be first in line for a preorder.



neuroanatomist said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > *And that may even be just a difference in focusing accuracy between a Canon lens and third party lens. *I tend to think it's just the Canon being sharper, but either way, it doesn't matter. The Canon still wins that comparison wide open, which is the only reason I'd own such a lens anyway. If I wanted to shoot smaller apertures, I'll grab my 16-35 f4, which is just ridiculously good glass.
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Oct 31, 2015)

More DXO fiction...

The more we laugh at them, the more likely they are to take down their appalling and misleading web site.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 31, 2015)

They test it with the 5D3 first because it's a control against their previous tests. I'm sure they will add the 5DSR pretty soon. The Digital Picture has shot tests with the 5DSR and the 35L MkII



Maximilian said:


> Lovely! I really love DxO for entertaining us so much.
> 
> Either DxO got a cherry picked Sigma and/or the worst EF35L II out there in the market or they'll have a really good time explaining to us why their scores and rankings don't fit to about 80% of the reviews and comparrisons and samlpe pics out there.
> 
> ...


----------



## LSXPhotog (Oct 31, 2015)

I have absolutely no idea how they come up with numbers and overall scores! Haha

From what I've seen the Canon has looked sharper with less vignetting... According to DxO, it is softer with MORE vignetting? I really don't care for this company's opinions on lenses or camera sensors.


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 31, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> More DXO fiction...
> 
> The more we laugh at them, the more likely they are to take down their appalling and misleading web site.



Remember when Dxo posted a review of their camera for Crapple idevice?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 31, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > More DXO fiction...
> ...



I missed that they reviewed their own device. I wonder if they liked it....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



It's got better IQ than some FF dSLRs*.






* Refers to DxO's SuperRAW™ image format, which averages four exposures for multishot NR, but we will ignore the usual caveats about merging successive exposures and pretend it's just a single image for the purpose of giving it a higher Score with our undisclosed methodology.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> They test it with the 5D3 first because it's a control against their previous tests. I'm sure they will add the 5DSR pretty soon. The Digital Picture has shot tests with the 5DSR and the 35L MkII



Agree for comparative purposes, but we're at the ~ 120 day mark since they 5DS / 5DS R review so one would expect lens testing on the 50 MP rigs soon, at which point even _modestly_ sharp EF glass will vault over any Nikon F mount score. Their scoring system for lenses is horrifically tilted (above all else) to reward how many pixels are sitting behind the lens.

I honestly can't wait, not for Canon pride at all so much as DXO owning a poor rating system and having to explain why a (for example) 70-200 f/2.8L IS II -- heretofore the 1,096th ranked lens in their database -- is now sitting 900 places higher. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



Or that they offered two ratings for their DXO One product -- one for single stills and another _for their higher res 4-shot composite format_ which they rate on par with FF sensors:


*No other manufacturer with a multi-shot hi-res mode (H'Blad, Olympus, etc.) has been afforded the same lattitude with their ratings. * They only report single shot performance for everyone but their own product.


Multi-shot modes (for resolution) absolutely require tripods, no matter how good the IS is. _Who the hell is putting an iPhone on a tripod?!_

#dxo #fairandbalanced

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2015)

Corneria said:


> Don't look at the scores, check the graphs. These are unambiguous. There you see that the Sigma is sharper when stopped down, but at more open apertures, the Canon is better.



I honestly don't understand their more detailed sharpness data (beyond the perceptual pixie stix they report), so please straighten me out.

Using any of their sharpness measurements, I either get a line chart vs. aperture or a 2D field map vs. aperture. In both cases, the lenses seem identical in that they are 'all light green' other than wide open or when you get past diffraction at narrow apertures. 

From f/1.4 to f/2.8 or so, the Canon qualitatively looks 'more green than yellow' than the Sigma does. Past f/4 or so, they look identical in 'greenness'.

Is there some numerical version of this test that might help me see a difference? (I'm not winding you up here, I truly don't understand their plots -- clarity would be appreciated).

- A


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Corneria said:
> 
> 
> > Don't look at the scores, check the graphs. These are unambiguous. There you see that the Sigma is sharper when stopped down, but at more open apertures, the Canon is better.
> ...



You can click on the profile tab instead of the field map tab to get a more readable representation of the data. On a side note, the field map is not a true field map but just the 1D profile plotted in a pseudo-2D form. Even with that said, we don't actually know how they've defined % acutance so it can be hard to understand what they're actually showing.


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 31, 2015)

Yes. I checked and the list of Cameras they have tested it with is EVERY camera Canon has ever made... except the 5DS and 5DSR. That's absurd.



ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > They test it with the 5D3 first because it's a control against their previous tests. I'm sure they will add the 5DSR pretty soon. The Digital Picture has shot tests with the 5DSR and the 35L MkII
> ...


----------



## Diltiazem (Oct 31, 2015)

Is it possible thatDXO tested the worst copy of Canon with the best copy of Sigma? Of course. But I have my doubts.

My own test actually matches other reviews.

1. Wide open, both Canon and Sigma are sharp at the center, but Canon is better. From mid frame to periphery the difference widens in favor of Canon. Around f5.6 Sigma catches up, but Canon continues to be slightly sharper at the mid frame.
2. CA is significantly less with Canon, this is so obvious that DXO had no option but agreeing. 
3. Color shifts in some out of focus areas with Sigma, but not with Canon. 
4. Vignetting is less with Canon. I don't understand how DXO got worse results with Canon. Would a bad copy affect vignetting too? 
5. Bokeh is roughly similar. With less CA/color rings and slightly sharper edges bokeh highlights from Canon looks better to me. 
6. AF is better with Canon, but that is expected. 

When all the differences are combined together, Canon seems to be in a different league. Well, at least to me.


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yes. I checked and the list of Cameras they have tested it with is EVERY camera Canon has ever made... except the 5DS and 5DSR. That's absurd.



I'm stepping off the gas on my anger on the timing aspect of things. Some others have pointed out that _other_ cameras (including Sony and Nikon) had similar time lags in lens data being offered after launch. I count some _120_ lenses having been tested on the 5D3, so repeating that on a 5DS would not be a quick effort at all.

This is also presuming they actually physically retest each older body with a new lens, which they may not... I suppose they could interpolate/downsample their sharpness testing based on pixel count for lower res rigs, but I'm admittedly not well read on that.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Oct 31, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> You can click on the profile tab instead of the field map tab to get a more readable representation of the data. On a side note, the field map is not a true field map but just the 1D profile plotted in a pseudo-2D form. Even with that said, we don't actually know how they've defined % acutance so it can be hard to understand what they're actually showing.



Super. Thanks!

Other than some very slight differences in favor of Sigma in the f/4 to f/5.6 neighborhood, nothing's jumping out at me that says the Sigma is sharper on aggregate. Am I missing something?

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Oct 31, 2015)

Yeah but here's a brand spanking new lens. Why not put it on the 5DS? I didn't say they had to take every old Canon lens and do it. But to test this brand new lens on EVERY Canon DSLR made in the last 10 years just now and NOT put it on the new body while your'e at it? I don't understand. What's the hold up? Why not take the handful of newer L glass starting with the 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk II and going forward, start testing. That isn't but a few lenses.



ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I checked and the list of Cameras they have tested it with is EVERY camera Canon has ever made... except the 5DS and 5DSR. That's absurd.
> ...


----------



## benperrin (Oct 31, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah but here's a brand spanking new lens. Why not put it on the 5DS? I didn't say they had to take every old Canon lens and do it. But to test this brand new lens on EVERY Canon DSLR made in the last 10 years just now and NOT put it on the new body while your'e at it? I don't understand. What's the hold up? Why not take the handful of newer L glass starting with the 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk II and going forward, start testing. That isn't but a few lenses.



Yeah I agree. It's beyond a joke at this point. I swear dxo are just a Ken Rockwell troll experiment now lol. ;D


----------



## Sator (Oct 31, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> I honestly can't wait, not for Canon pride at all, so much as DXO owning a poor rating system and having to explain why a (for example) 70-200 f/2.8L IS II -- heretofore the 1,096th ranked lens in their database -- is now sitting 900 places higher.



The Canon reps got their act together and dined DXO Mark staff at a Michelin 3 star restaurant, not just a one star joint like they condescended to first time around. But obviously they get beaten by the Sigma reps who also remembered to hire strippers to entertain them.


----------



## EddieNM (Oct 31, 2015)

As soon as I saw it was DXOMark I just rolled my eyes. Their test are B.S, look how they rated their own little camera, and the Canon 70-200 f 2.8 II got low scores. I don't believe anything these people have to say.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yeah but here's a brand spanking new lens. Why not put it on the 5DS? I didn't say they had to take every old Canon lens and do it. But to test this brand new lens on EVERY Canon DSLR made in the last 10 years just now and NOT put it on the new body while your'e at it? I don't understand. What's the hold up? Why not take the handful of newer L glass starting with the 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk II and going forward, start testing. That isn't but a few lenses.



(in a Pancho Villa voice) Testing?? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING TESTING! We just make crap up and post it.....


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Nov 1, 2015)

At the risk of sounding like a jerk...

Isn't DXO based out of France?


----------



## zim (Nov 1, 2015)

Oui


----------



## infared (Nov 1, 2015)

I put no stock in DXO....DXSchmo...I would not be honest if I didn't admit that it is a little pleasing to see my Sigma Art rated above the new Canon 35mm f/1.4 II. 8)
....But I am no fool...the new Canon is definitely the better lens from what I have read. No question...but I think that the Sigma pushed Canon to make the new lens at this level....I doubt that it would have been this good without the Sigma competition. Canon HAD to deliver to save face.
I would love to own the Canon...but that is too much coin for a 35mm prime for this photographer...also the Sigma is cost-effective and is still a killer lens, too! I do love mine.


----------



## zim (Nov 1, 2015)

A small potted history which I think just about manages to insult everyone....

Dx0é Cart-Blanche works as a waitress during WW2 at the Café Nikoné, but at night she makes money as a prostitute. Although she sells her body for paraffin, gasoline, sugar and butter, her only true love is Nikoné Artois. She is famous for her saying "Oh Nikoné" in a long growling tone. They are often caught by Nikoné's wife, Madame Soné, but the unfaithful husband always has a proper explanation for his behaviour, always beginning with "You stupid canon!".

Dx0's best friend is Mikaelé Filluppa , another café waitress, but Mikaelé goes missing after series 3; she posts herself to Switzerland by mistake. After that, the Resistance member Neuroé Labong is hired as staff, but Neuroé and Mikaelé develop quite a rivalry, usually beginning with Neuroé making a joke about Mikaelé's small stature and ending with a catfight between the two.

In the last episode, many years after the war, DxOé's biggest dream is apparently fulfilled. The episode ends with Nikoné and Dx0é driving off with the intention of eloping......


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 1, 2015)

zim said:


> A small potted history which I think just about manages to insult everyone....
> 
> Dx0é Cart-Blanche works as a waitress during WW2 at the Café Nikoné, but at night she makes money as a prostitute. Although she sells her body for paraffin, gasoline, sugar and butter, her only true love is Nikoné Artois. She is famous for her saying "Oh Nikoné" in a long growling tone. They are often caught by Nikoné's wife, Madame Soné, but the unfaithful husband always has a proper explanation for his behaviour, always beginning with "You stupid canon!".
> 
> ...



Lol!!! Magnifique!!!


----------



## Click (Nov 1, 2015)

;D ;D ;D 

Excellent, zim.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 1, 2015)

Yes, CR for humour or is it humor.

Jack


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 1, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> They test it with the 5D3 first because it's a control against their previous tests. I'm sure they will add the 5DSR pretty soon. The Digital Picture has shot tests with the 5DSR and the 35L MkII
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You mean yet another 112 days plus X? Like discussed here:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27385.msg541386#msg541386

To me this has a taste...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 1, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. I checked and the list of Cameras they have tested it with is EVERY camera Canon has ever made... except the 5DS and 5DSR. That's absurd.
> ...



If someone offered me even odds that they extrapolate for higher resolution bodies, I'd take the bet.


----------



## tomapaul (Nov 1, 2015)

I was sceptical at first regarding this review for Dx0...but found to be true.

Just check this test here:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

The Canon is sharper from 1.4 up to f2.8, kind of the same at f4 and the sigma becomes sharper at f5.6
Now depending on the copy they tested...maybe the average sigma sharpness was indeed greater by 5%. However at 1.4-2.8 where it actually counts for this lens...the canon is clearly way better(Dx0 & the-digital-picture)...it's brilliant actually. And if I may say... it's on par with the Otus 55...maybe sharper in the center @1.4.

So no point in waiting for a 35mm Otus... canon did it 
I don't know why but I think we have to thank sigma for this amazing canon 35mm II


----------



## FunkyCamera (Nov 1, 2015)

Why do you insist on publishing all these dxo hoaxes? It's pretty well known by now that it's a site funded by Sony to give Sony powered cameras (Sony and Nikon) suspiciously high scores and spread likes about Canon.


----------



## infared (Nov 1, 2015)

tomapaul said:


> I was sceptical at first regarding this review for Dx0...but found to be true.
> 
> Just check this test here:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
> ...



+100
Like I said above..I own the Sigma....but there is enough info out there to see that this new Canon Lens is an amazing achievement and CLEARLY surpasses the Sigma. DXSchmo is a sham. No doubt. It's just so obvious.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 1, 2015)

I refer the honerable gentleman to my earlier comment

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27981.0

But for the record, I am tempted find the raw DXO data to hold just a little bit of water but due to their clearly made up numbers in some regards I am forced to disregard all their data. The DxO ONE test was blatantly biased, averaging frames in a "raw" test is the clearest case of cheating.

What is also beginning to stink is the TOTAL lack of ANY lens data on the 5Ds/r. One would have thought they could publish data on NEW canon lenses on the 5Ds/r as they are released, after all they're going to have to do that in due course, and if their software recognises the 5Dsr then they are clearly capable of measuring this.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 1, 2015)

There is a key point to understand in their lens testing methodology which can be found here: http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores/Metric-Scores

"The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination *averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges*."

For the Canon 35mm measurements were taken at the following f-stops: 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, *22*
For the Simga 35mm measurements were taken at the following f-stops: 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, *16*

From f/1.4-f/2.8 the Canon has some advantage. For a f/1.4 prime this is the key performance range.

At f/4 they are essentially the same. At f/5.6 and f/8 the Sigma has a slim advantage. By f/11 diffraction has already become apparent and they are essentially the same. At *f/22 vs f/16* it is not a apples to apples comparison. (See attached) 

So by averaging over the whole aperture range lenses which close down more are being disadvantaged. This is the methodology that DxOMark use and explains why the Canon has a lower "sharpness" rating despite its superior wide open performance.

From various sources it is quite obvious that the 35L II is pretty much an autofocus Otus. I'm looking forward to getting a hands-on an evaluation copy towards the end of the month. When you dig into the DxO data and understand their methodology then their ratings have meaning. On the other hand, if you look at their ratings at face value then you don't get a true reflection of the situation.


----------



## Sator (Nov 1, 2015)

Rahul said:


> Ever since the DXOMark fiasco over their "score" of 70-200 IS II, I lost respect for them.



BTW, while I own the Canon 70-200mm IS II, it is their "score" of the 100mm macro L lens that really worries me. 

In independent measures of MTF plots higher-end macro lenses almost invariable perform extremely well in lab. Yet, according to DXO Mark the Canon 100mm L macro allegedly has an acutance no better than the Canon 24-70mm L zoom lens. I would regard this as most improbable.

I am sure there are those reading this thread, and thinking that we're a bunch of Canon fanboys sour over the fact that our pet lens has been slighted. However, I also shoot on a Sony a7. I made the BIG mistake of being swayed by the stellar ratings given by DXO Mark to the new Sony 90mm macro G lens. It allegedly rivals the Zeiss Otus for sharpness. So I went and bought the Sony macro, and while it is a nice enough a lens, it is nowhere near as outlandishly spectacular as DXO Mark allege it is. Here is the proof:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/10/sony-e-mount-lens-sharpness-bench-tests

The Lens Rental tests show that the new Sony macro G is just slightly behind on acutance compared to the Canon 100mm L macro, although both measure up well, as you'd expect of quality macro lenses. Yet according to DXO Mark we are lead to believe that the Sony is almost twice as sharp as the Canon, which, astonishingly for a macro lens, only rates as highly on acutance as a zoom lens.

I can assure you that when you shoot both the Canon 100mm L macro (which I also own) on a Sony a7II (with Metabones adapter) alongside the Sony 90mm macro G, they are equally as sharp, and neither is obviously better. What my eyes see is well reflected in the MTF plots published on Lens Rental. 

So that means, irrespective of brand, whether DXO Mark rate something highly, mediocrely, or poorly, none of it seems to make even the slightest of sense. They seem to post what are little more than random numbers on their website without the slightest of explanation as to how they arrived at them. 

It's like the end of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where we are told that the meaning of life is some seemingly random number like "42". We are expected to credulously believe these absurd magic numbers that miraculously pop up on their website like "ex cathedra" pronouncements with little more explanation than "God said so".


----------



## Sator (Nov 1, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> There is a key point to understand in their lens testing methodology which can be found here: http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores/Metric-Scores



You should not have to dig through their website to fish this stuff up. They need to explain their application of their methodology in each lens/sensor etc including a discussion of the strengths and shortcomings of their methods in each particular instance. Nor do you get any info on sample size (preferably with data about power, mean, standard deviation, or even p values and what statistical method they used to calculated these).


----------



## infared (Nov 1, 2015)

Sator said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > Ever since the DXOMark fiasco over their "score" of 70-200 IS II, I lost respect for them.
> ...



I was not aware of DxO's complete and utter disservice to the Canon Macro. I own that lens if you are talking about the modern f/2.8 IS version. It is among the sharpest lenses that I own. When I open the files in LR I am always stunned by the sharpness WOW factor. I am begining to believe the Sony/DxO conspiracy theories...Many of DxO's reviews are just not balanced or credible. At least DxO makes website like the TheDigitalPicture seem soooo soooo vital!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2015)

DxO's "data" show that the 17-40/4L is as sharp in the wide open corners as the center, and sharper than the 16-35/2.8L II stopped down. Reality differs significantly.


----------



## DLD (Nov 1, 2015)

I am currently using Canon (came from Nikon) the digital picture is far off on a lot of Nikon lenses... their results favor Canon heavily... so I don't think they are any better than dxo mark in regard to favoring brands..


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 1, 2015)

DLD said:


> I am currently using Canon (came from Nikon) the digital picture is far off on a lot of Nikon lenses... their results favor Canon heavily... so I don't think they are any better than dxo mark in regard to favoring brands..



interesting, when you say "far off on a lot of Nikon Lenses" do you mean the reviews or are you talking about the "lens image quality" tool?


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 1, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Chaitanya said:
> ...



Words like compromised, sophistry, corrupt, immoral, twisted, devious, distorted, destitute of truth or trust....come to mind when ever I view their torrid "we love Nikon" site. Every lens which I hold in high regard (which I own and use on a professional basis) and others seem to agree with my opinion of the lenses I use and own...seem to only fare as mediocre on their testing scale. Lenses like the 100mm LIS macro, 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, 85mm f1.2 IIL, 135mm f2.0 L and a 200mm f2.8 IIL.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 1, 2015)

DLD said:


> I am currently using Canon (came from Nikon) the digital picture is far off on a lot of Nikon lenses... their results favor Canon heavily... so I don't think they are any better than dxo mark in regard to favoring brands..



I've heard this once before but I'm not sure how the way he's testing can really favor one brand over another. There's no real interpretation of the results going on like with DxO, he's justing taking pictures of a test chart with the lenses and then posting them. Unless the suggestion is that he's sorting through multiple copies of Nikon lenses to find lemons and/or dropping the Nikkors down a flight of steps then I don't see how he's favoring one brand over the other.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 1, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> DLD said:
> 
> 
> > I am currently using Canon (came from Nikon) the digital picture is far off on a lot of Nikon lenses... their results favor Canon heavily... so I don't think they are any better than dxo mark in regard to favoring brands..
> ...



Compare the 85mm 1.8 from both Canon and Nikon in the image quality tool. That is a real result. Then look at DxO and see numbers that are comically wrong for the Nikon 85mm...its apparently one of the sharpest lenses in the world for $450 and no CA to boot!!

The Digital Picture has a bias to Canon, yes. But that's to be expected by a Canon site. With the lens comparison tool you're usually looking at the best results from two, three, sometimes four copies of a lens. Nikon lenses aren't tested for multiple copies, so the results are just a drop in the bucket.

They're still real results. Nikon still makes inferior lenses to Canon.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 1, 2015)

DLD said:


> I am currently using Canon (came from Nikon) the digital picture is far off on a lot of Nikon lenses... their results favor Canon heavily... so I don't think they are any better than dxo mark in regard to favoring brands..


The lens image quality tool relies on a Nikon D3X for Nikon lens tests. The Nikon D3X is definitely an older body with a strong AA filter so images would definitely look better with a modern body like the D750, which has a weaker AA-filter. I mail them regarding this issue and their reply was that testing the Nikon lenses "on a D810 is definitely something they want to do at some point."

Now on the other hand, the default Canon camera used in comparisons is the 1Ds Mark-III, which is lower resolution than the D3X and of the same generation, so its has similar AA-filter strength characteristics. So if you want to compare lenses head to head the 1Ds Mark-III vs D3X seems fair enough. 

A fair criticism is that TDP do not test a large sample of lenses so sample variation comes into play. They haven't even tested multiple copies of all the Canon lenses. If that is your concern then you can refer to the Lensrentals MTF data (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/MTF.aspx) which averages (at the very least) 10 samples of each lens and also includes sample variation graphs. Lensrentals is independent of TDP and it is definitely not in Lensrentals interest to favor one brand over another as they rent to a wide range of users on different systems.


----------



## ecka (Nov 1, 2015)

tomapaul said:


> I was sceptical at first regarding this review for Dx0...but found to be true.
> 
> Just check this test here:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5
> ...



Who on earth would buy a 35/1.4 lens to use it @F5.6? Just get a pancake and be done with it.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=829&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 1, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> Compare the 85mm 1.8 from both Canon and Nikon in the image quality tool. That is a real result. Then look at DxO and see numbers that are comically wrong for the Nikon 85mm...its apparently one of the sharpest lenses in the world for $450* and no CA to boot!!*



DxO only measures lateral chromatic aberration which is indeed reasonably well controlled on the 85 1.8G. It's the longitudinal chromatic aberration that's quite bad on that lens but DxO doesn't bother measuring that at all.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 1, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination *averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges*."
> 
> For the Canon 35mm measurements were taken at the following f-stops: 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, *22*
> For the Simga 35mm measurements were taken at the following f-stops: 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, *16*



Great catch on f/16 vs. f/22 with the two lenses. Surely that's why the Canon got the lower sharpness score -- every other aperture (other than where the Canon outperformed) the plots were neck and neck.

- A


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Nov 1, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination *averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges*."
> ...


That's pretty freaking lame on their part. So a lens gets a lower P-MP score just because it happens to stop down to a smaller aperture? How idiotic does one have to be to think that is in any way going to be of use to people buying gear and deciding what to get? 

I can now see why some of you guys on this forum who are more scientifically minded have steam coming out of your ears when stuff like this is discovered. 

How hard is it to make some visuals like Photozone does? Is DXO making an extra effort to pander to people who have far more money than intelligence? "Duh... 20 is a bigger number than 18! I'm getting the one with a number 20 cause it's better! Duh... Drool..." 

Photozone graphs are pretty easy to read and show the whole story for different apertures and focal lengths.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 1, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> How hard is it to make some visuals like Photozone does? Is DXO making an extra effort to pander to people who have far more money than intelligence? "Duh... 20 is a bigger number than 18! I'm getting the one with a number 20 cause it's better! Duh... Drool..."
> 
> Photozone graphs are pretty easy to read and show the whole story for different apertures and focal lengths.



I use PZ quite a bit, yes, but even they suffer from the critical flaw of most review sites: 1 copy of a lens only. That's farcical statistically.

So the only data I can take sight unseen as money is Uncle Rog at LensRentals. His rig is resolution-irrelevent, he runs 5-10 copies of each lens, and he gives a boatload more optical info than anyone else. 

His downside is that he lacks the TDP / LensTip 'all things considered' factors like handling, autofocus speed, usage quirks, focus breathing, autofocus inconsistency, flare, etc.

But, in the end, _for resolution_, he's far and away the best lab there is.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2015)

Look, people...this is really, really simple. All you need to do is make the conscious, affirmative decision to do all of your photography inside a dimly lit warehouse. Portraits? Tell your subjects to head on in. Birds? Capture 'em and toss them in through the door. Mt. Rushmore? Well, you just need a big warehouse, a construction crew, and the cooperation of the National Park Service. The point is, once you make that decision and stick to it, DxOMark will be of the utmost relevance and utility to your photography. Like I said...simple.


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 1, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Look, people...this is really, really simple. All you need to do is make the conscious, affirmative decision to do all of your photography inside a dimly lit warehouse. Portraits? Tell your subjects to head on in. Birds? Capture 'em and toss them in through the door. Mt. Rushmore? Well, you just need a big warehouse, a construction crew, and the cooperation of the National Park Service. The point is, once you make that decision and stick to it, DxOMark will be of the utmost relevance and utility to your photography. Like I said...simple.



I just can't wait for them to either (a) explain that the same old lenses previously regarded as 'meh' are now a resounding _'F yeah'_ with 50 MP now sitting behind them or (b) abruptly change their entire rating system to eliminate the 'resolution bias of lens performance' before 5DS retesting is reported.

Either way, I'll have a tub of popcorn ready.

- A


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 1, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination *averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges*."



I had the same thought earlier but it was pointed out to me that the reported sharpness number corresponds to a local maximum sharpness rather than looking at the entire frame, at least according to DxO.

[quote author=DxO]While the 35mm f/2 has slightly higher peak sharpness, the new 35mm f1/.4 is sharper across the image field wide-open than the 35mm f/2 is at its initial aperture. It’s really only at f/2.8 onwards that the slower model has slightly higher center sharpness (which accounts for the higher peak sharpness results), but what’s so good about the new lens is its uniformity. It has low levels of astigmatism, and this greatly improves the imaging performance in the outer field.[/quote]

It seems like there may be a case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing over at DxO.


----------



## benperrin (Nov 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Look, people...this is really, really simple. All you need to do is make the conscious, affirmative decision to do all of your photography inside a dimly lit warehouse. Portraits? Tell your subjects to head on in. Birds? Capture 'em and toss them in through the door. Mt. Rushmore? Well, you just need a big warehouse, a construction crew, and the cooperation of the National Park Service. The point is, once you make that decision and stick to it, DxOMark will be of the utmost relevance and utility to your photography. Like I said...simple.



Very funny Neuro. Really enjoyed that post!


----------



## ecka (Nov 2, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> How hard is it to make some visuals like Photozone does? Is DXO making an extra effort to pander to people who have far more money than intelligence? "Duh... 20 is a bigger number than 18! I'm getting the one with a number 20 cause it's better! Duh... Drool..."
> 
> Photozone graphs are pretty easy to read and show the whole story for different apertures and focal lengths.



Actually, I find their graphs being very misleading, because of the disproportional center and border peaks. Limiting it to show only the 1200-3700 part, makes the border resolution look really bad (twice lower than central).
It should look like ...


----------



## grainier (Nov 2, 2015)

Canon should have put Sony sensor in it.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 2, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > "The DxOMark resolution score shows sharpness performance of a lens-camera combination *averaged over its entire focal length and aperture ranges*."
> ...



Those are not my words, they are directly from their methodology page. (I just highlighted the red text)



raptor3x said:


> [quote author=DxO]While the 35mm f/2 has slightly higher peak sharpness, the new 35mm f1/.4 is sharper across the image field wide-open than the 35mm f/2 is at its initial aperture. It’s really only at f/2.8 onwards that the slower model has slightly higher center sharpness (which accounts for the higher peak sharpness results), but what’s so good about the new lens is its uniformity. It has low levels of astigmatism, and this greatly improves the imaging performance in the outer field.



It seems like there may be a case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing over at DxO.
[/quote]
I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## DLD (Nov 2, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> DLD said:
> 
> 
> > I am currently using Canon (came from Nikon) the digital picture is far off on a lot of Nikon lenses... their results favor Canon heavily... so I don't think they are any better than dxo mark in regard to favoring brands..
> ...


The lens image comparisons. 

Photozone.de has the most accurate results I have found... however there's limited testing done there as far as lens flare and other issues like contrast which can also improve lens performance... But given how biased or even doctored thedigitalpicture seems to me I take anything they say with a grain of salt... Those image comparisons are just not what I'm seeing, or reading elsewhere...


----------



## Larsskv (Nov 2, 2015)

DLD said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > DLD said:
> ...



I agree to some extent, that TDP rave about Canon, but I also thing their reviews are very accurate. When TDP rave, it usually is deserved, I think. Further, everything negative about a product is usually mentioned. 

if you compare say the Canon 50L review, to the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Macro Planar review, you will see that TDP gives a lot of credit to other brands as well. TDP also have a lot of positive things to say about Sigma Art lenses. 

It's hard for me to understand that the lens comparison tool is unfair to Nikon. What is it that TDP does wrong?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 2, 2015)

DLD said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > DLD said:
> ...


The magenta hue in the blacks is due to longitudinal Chromatic Aberration. Which is also identified in the photozone review:





I believe that with resolution testing the methodology is to focus bracket and choose the sharpest image. Now pixel peeping at that photozone shot. It looks like with 3 increments of backfocus you actually produce marginally sharper detail than if there is no LoCA. Maybe this is why TDP chose the purplish shot as the highest resolving one out of the set of bracketed shots.

Also, with field curvature you if you don't see it in the centre of frame then you will definitely see it in the corners. From the TDP crops the corners look very good with no LoCA. In real world shooting however, with 3D subjects, the LoCA will affect your wide-open, shallow-depth-of-field shots whether you like it or not. 

What I gather from the TDP crops (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=791&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0) is that the resolution of fine-detail on the Nikkor 85mm looks very good from centre to corner and it thoroughly trounces the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 in mid-frame and the corners when shooting wide open. Do you have another example that shows TDP's "bias" towards Canon?


----------

