Review for several Maxxum lenses.

Here is my humble attempt at evaluation my lenses:

http://voronoi.sbp.ri.cmu.edu/~esham...es/Review.html

All constructive comments are welcomed.

Elie

Excellent. I'd like to see more of this type analysis on the board.

in message ,
wrote Elie A Shammas ...

Here is my humble attempt at evaluation my lenses:

http://voronoi.sbp.ri.cmu.edu/~esham...es/Review.html

All constructive comments are welcomed.

Some grammar/spellings need to be corrected, most annoying was
"corps" instead of "crops".

Could you label the crops more clearly? Currently f/stop used for a
particular image is missing; only the lens is identified. One of
the possible presentations could be...

Lens Specification

f/stop A
----------- ------- -------
| | | | | |
| complete | | crop | | crop |
| | | | | |
----------- ------- -------

f/stop B
----------- ------- -------
| | | | | |
| complete | | crop | | crop |
| | | | | |
----------- ------- -------



- parv

--
As nice it is to receive personal mail, too much sweetness causes
tooth decay. Unless you have burning desire to contact me, do not do
away w/ WhereElse in the address for private communication.

Elie A Shammas wrote:

http://voronoi.sbp.ri.cmu.edu/~esham...es/Review.html

Thanks for doing this! There are a lot of lens comparisons for Canon
and Nikon users, but very few for Minolta. I always thought that's
because Minolta users don't care, but maybe it's just because there are
fewer of us.

I think the 35mm/2.0 definitely underexposes (by at least 1/2 stop)
at f/2.0, and this would be worth remarking on. You didn't say which
camera body you used -- was it, not the lens, at fault?

The 50/1.4 image at f/1.4 also looks underexposed, but not severely,
although corner light-falloff of the blue sky is obvious.

I'd really like to see a bokeh study (background blur in a portrait)
of the 100/2.8 macro lens.

Was the film Superia 200?

I used Maxxum 7 camera set on Aperture Priority.

I was sloppy and I should have used Manual settings to ensure equivalent
exposures.

Elie

--On Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:24 PM +0000 Bill Tuthill
wrote:

Elie A Shammas wrote:

http://voronoi.sbp.ri.cmu.edu/~esham...es/Review.html

Thanks for doing this! There are a lot of lens comparisons for Canon
and Nikon users, but very few for Minolta. I always thought that's
because Minolta users don't care, but maybe it's just because there are
fewer of us.

I think the 35mm/2.0 definitely underexposes (by at least 1/2 stop)
at f/2.0, and this would be worth remarking on. You didn't say which
camera body you used -- was it, not the lens, at fault?

The 50/1.4 image at f/1.4 also looks underexposed, but not severely,
although corner light-falloff of the blue sky is obvious.

I'd really like to see a bokeh study (background blur in a portrait)
of the 100/2.8 macro lens.

Was the film Superia 200?

Elie wrote:
I used Maxxum 7 camera set on Aperture Priority.

I was sloppy and I should have used Manual settings to ensure equivalent
exposures.



Elie,

Offhand, (and I will take a further look as soon as I can get to it):

Were filters on the lenses? The wide open vignetting on the 35,
50 and even the 100 seemed excessive.

Cheers,
Alan



--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Elie wrote:
I used Maxxum 7 camera set on Aperture Priority.

I was sloppy and I should have used Manual settings to ensure equivalent
exposures.

Elie

--On Thursday, June 17, 2004 6:24 PM +0000 Bill Tuthill
wrote:

Elie A Shammas wrote:


http://voronoi.sbp.ri.cmu.edu/~esham...es/Review.html


Thanks for doing this! There are a lot of lens comparisons for Canon
and Nikon users, but very few for Minolta. I always thought that's
because Minolta users don't care, but maybe it's just because there are
fewer of us.

I think the 35mm/2.0 definitely underexposes (by at least 1/2 stop)
at f/2.0, and this would be worth remarking on. You didn't say which
camera body you used -- was it, not the lens, at fault?

The 50/1.4 image at f/1.4 also looks underexposed, but not severely,
although corner light-falloff of the blue sky is obvious.

I'd really like to see a bokeh study (background blur in a portrait)
of the 100/2.8 macro lens.

Something I keep meaning to do...


Was the film Superia 200?

Stated as Velvia (50).


--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Yes Alan,

I forgot to remove the haze or uv filters from my lenses. I will keep that
in mind for my next review attempt.

Elie

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Alan Browne wrote:

Elie wrote:
I used Maxxum 7 camera set on Aperture Priority.

I was sloppy and I should have used Manual settings to ensure equivalent
exposures.



Elie,

Offhand, (and I will take a further look as soon as I can get to it):

Were filters on the lenses? The wide open vignetting on the 35,
50 and even the 100 seemed excessive.

Cheers,
Alan



--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--