[brian wright22]

I have extolled the benefits of being a member of PIXALO before ,apart from the wide range of threads which I do find interesting, the equipment reviews are to be encouraged because these reviews and comments by members are based on real useage.
The point I make with this thread is based on two IPC mags,Amateur Photographer (31st March) and What Digital Camera WDC, (April 2007).

Both of my moans are concerned with the reviews of dslr Zoom Lens tests/reviews.

The AP quite clearly shows on the 31st March edition's front cover that page 35 has a 70-300mm Nikon versus Canon zoom lens test.

Its not until you read the whole five page of results that there is not a direct like for like comparison for the Canon Lens. There is very little text about the Canon and the paragraph about perfomance relates only to the Nikon lens, which follows a very short half column about the Canon generally.
Finally the Verdict only relates to the Nikon!!!which gets 87%. No mention of the Canon.

Regarding the WDC, its had a make over ,its Front Cover now looks like any other IPC photgraphic Mag. This mag also has a lens review of "Kit Lens Megatest." My gripe about these tests is that all six lens graphs for "lens resolution" do not have the same vertical scale calibration.This scale is labelled MTF50/LWPH, does anyone know what this stands for please?.

The Canon scale is 250/division and the Nikon is 375/div,the Pentax is 237.5/div.The other three lens fall within these scales. With this variaton in the scales, the graphs have no real comparison meaning to the reader and the Nikon because of its course scale looks better than it really is.

I have written to the relavant addresses of AP and WDC but have not had a reply and I don't expect to either.

So lets have more Pixalo reviews that convey results of camera equipment in the real world by Pixalo members. If any one else has read these two reports and agree with my findings I have mentioned, please let IPC know. I must admit that it is unusual for AP to fall down on their equipment reviews.
Regards Brian

[VinnyP]

I agree it is real world reviews that I want and this site is very good in that regard but very few real world users own several makes of lens of the same type.

Comparing Canon lenses to Nikon is mildly interesting but for me to shift formats would be more about a new Body (1DS MkIII anyone?) than a slight edge on one lens. What is often useful is when the comics compare like with like on the same body to see how the independents stack up and if the brand lens is worth the extra money.

If all you want is charts, and they can help, all the manufacturers have them on line. They can only really compare like with like since they are taken at max aperture. So a slow standard zoom will chart better than a 1.4 prime. Since there is no chart at 2.8 for the prime. Likewise variable aperture zooms look good against constant at the tele end because of the stopping down.

[brian wright22]

Originally Posted by brian wright22

I have extolled the benefits of being a member of PIXALO before ,apart from the wide range of threads which I do find interesting, the equipment reviews are to be encouraged because these reviews and comments by members are based on real useage.
The point I make with this thread is based on two IPC mags,Amateur Photographer (31st March) and What Digital Camera WDC, (April 2007).

Both of my moans are concerned with the reviews of dslr Zoom Lens tests/reviews.

The AP quite clearly shows on the 31st March edition's front cover that page 35 has a 70-300mm Nikon versus Canon zoom lens test.

Its not until you read the whole five page of results that there is not a direct like for like comparison for the Canon Lens. There is very little text about the Canon and the paragraph about perfomance relates only to the Nikon lens, which follows a very short half column about the Canon generally.
Finally the Verdict only relates to the Nikon!!!which gets 87%. No mention of the Canon.

Regarding the WDC, its had a make over ,its Front Cover now looks like any other IPC photgraphic Mag. This mag also has a lens review of "Kit Lens Megatest." My gripe about these tests is that all six lens graphs for "lens resolution" do not have the same vertical scale calibration.This scale is labelled MTF50/LWPH, does anyone know what this stands for please?.

The Canon scale is 250/division and the Nikon is 375/div,the Pentax is 237.5/div.The other three lens fall within these scales. With this variaton in the scales, the graphs have no real comparison meaning to the reader and the Nikon because of its course scale looks better than it really is.

I have written to the relavant addresses of AP and WDC but have not had a reply and I don't expect to either.

So lets have more Pixalo reviews that convey results of camera equipment in the real world by Pixalo members. If any one else has read these two reports and agree with my findings I have mentioned, please let IPC know. I must admit that it is unusual for AP to fall down on their equipment reviews.
Regards Brian

I now have had a reply from the Amateur Photographer editor.
He has explained that the tests for there lens comparison was carried out at a "distant" test house and they were sent the wrong lens from Canon. By the time they looked at the results back at AP the Front Page had been printed, so to meet the dead line a far from satisfactory report was published.

AP has offered to provide me with a full report of the 70-300mm DO IS USM lens,which should have been the subject of the comparison with the Nikon 70-300mm.

One thing that has come out of this is the Canon site shows four Canon zoom lens which do appear quite similar a 70-300mm as above and three 75-300 mm one of which is an IS USM. The AP editor has explained that when you order a 75-300 mm Zoom lens from Canon you may not get what you are expecting!!,as they have found out for their comparison tests.
Regards Brian