ITT a load of people who don't understand how DxO works, what DxO intends, or have even bothered to attempt to read DxO's explanations of their measurements.
DxO's measurements for the 16-35 mk III line up with my experience using seven different copies of that lens, on three different bodies. Seven across three is a pretty decent sample size in my book—far more than the average consumer will get through—and when that experience matches up with DxO's numbers (which, contrary to what some eejits in this thread have insinuated, DxO do explain), I see little reason to doubt them or give it a second thought.
As for why the 16-35 and 24-70 test so differently, you'll find that is the nature of all wider angles when pitched against longer focal lengths. Longer lenses inherently have finer resolving power as details are larger and not all smashed into a smaller pixel count. Hence all the lenses rated toward the top end of sharpness are >50mm and very few wide-angle lenses manage to resolve detail matching more than about two thirds of any given sensor's pixel count. (With a few scattered exceptions.)
When you zoom in, details get bigger and more easily-defined. Who ever would have thought?
DxO's measurements for the 16-35 mk III line up with my experience using seven different copies of that lens, on three different bodies. Seven across three is a pretty decent sample size in my book—far more than the average consumer will get through—and when that experience matches up with DxO's numbers (which, contrary to what some eejits in this thread have insinuated, DxO do explain), I see little reason to doubt them or give it a second thought.
As for why the 16-35 and 24-70 test so differently, you'll find that is the nature of all wider angles when pitched against longer focal lengths. Longer lenses inherently have finer resolving power as details are larger and not all smashed into a smaller pixel count. Hence all the lenses rated toward the top end of sharpness are >50mm and very few wide-angle lenses manage to resolve detail matching more than about two thirds of any given sensor's pixel count. (With a few scattered exceptions.)
When you zoom in, details get bigger and more easily-defined. Who ever would have thought?
Upvote
0
