Zoom lens tests...

[Evin Grant]

I'm going to start testing zooms soon and I'd like to get some feedback from you guys. So far the response to the reviews has been positive, the consice format is working well. Unfortunately I'm unable to post more than four photos per article (I've bugged Jarred on that one) so the question is...
What would you prefer:

1: A single article containing huge images that show smaller 100% crops and fewer apertures but the three relevant focal lengths.

2: A separate article for each of the three most obvious focal lengths in the zoom range each treated like a prime review (IE 17mm, 24mm & 35mm for the 17-35)

3: Separate mini articles for the five marked focal lengths (17, 20, 24, 28 & 35mm) which would have fewer apertures per focal length but more zoom coverage.

4: A separate full review of all the marked focal lengths.

Bear in mind this list is from quickest to longest so the longer the review the longer it'll take me to finish them.

Let me know.
E.

[Don Woods]

I would have to say A Evin just throw it all in one. Makes it easier to find and read. Thanks again for doing this.

[joe 1008]

Yes, definitely 1 or 2, for a basic overview. Put some emphasis on focus pulling...

[chuck colburn]

Hi Evin,

#4 of course would be the best, but would be lotta work on your part. I think that #3 with examples at maximum aperature and two stops down would be good enough to show what the lens can do. Why I say this is all zoom lenses suffer from what is refered to as the "S" curve. That is as you zoom from the longest focal length to the widest you go out of optimum focus on one side of the film plane then cross back to it at appx. mid focal length and then cross over to the other side of optimum focus and return to it at the widest focal length. This is assuming that the front and back focus has been properly set up for the camera it is being used on. So I think that the focal lengths of 20mm and 28mm are going to be close enough to these focal shift points to show the greatest diviation of optimum focus for this particular lens.

Chuck

[Milan Nikolic]

I vote for the option 1. And, thanks again Evin, you are our lens guru.

[Jaime Vallés]

#1 baby. If any questions arise, they can be addressed by others in the same thread. Making multiple threads will make it harder to find the necessary info.

Can't wait for the 17-35 review!

[tj williams]

1 should be more than adequate as the really important differences are probably breathing and problems in use ie shutter control/distance between focus marks etc.

The still writeups seem to indicate very little realworld difference fm primes in rez. Color rendition is good. Shooting open seems similiar to primes...

Thanks again for all your work on this issue!!!!

[Chris Gearhart]

#1 is my thought too.

[Antoine Fabi]

#1 would be great for me.

thanks Evin

[S. Um]

I vote for number 1, too. One thread per lens would make it easier to read/find. If you need more pictures, you can post links or put them in another post.

[Bruce Allen]

#1 or #2, Evin.

Although, to be honest, at this point you have built up so much trust with us that I think many of us would be happy with just a few lines of text from you saying "I tested the 17-35 fully from a cine perspective and give it my seal of approval. I wish it breathed a little less and that the focus and zoom rings turned further and adjusted things more gradually... but their mechanism is good and there's not much play in them, so you can probably fix that with a geared follow focus. It's heavy for a still camera lens, but otherwise reasonably sharp and good with not much distortion and decent bokeh."

Thanks again, Evin!

[Júlio Taubkin]

Just try to post a gif of the zoom movement... heheh!

I´m all for concise!

[Phil Becque]

Hi Evin,

As a complete novice with all this lens stuff, I have to say that I find the information you are providing absolutely invaluable. I think I'm able to follow most of what you are saying which is real testament to your clarity!

I think #1 suits my purposes well.

Keep up the great work! Very many thanks!! Phil

p.s. If anyone has minute to explain what the differences are between a pucker Cine lense e.g. Cooke and a regular SLR lens e.g. Nikon, in terms of focus and iris control (and anything else that's important) that would really help me. Thanks.

[shaftbond]

#1 baby. If any questions arise, they can be addressed by others in the same thread. Making multiple threads will make it harder to find the necessary info.

Can't wait for the 17-35 review!

ditto.