About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....

[Northstar]

I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision. So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc. I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.

They say they're reviewing the 135L in October...I'm correct in assuming the 135 will score higher, right? OR, did they just get a fantastically sharp copy of the 85 1.8 when they did their review?

I'm going to buy the 135L, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this, and what the explanation is for their resolution score for the 85 1.8?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores

EDIT...a couple of posts have come in illustrating some of the inaccurate DXO "scores" for lenses:

1. 70-200 2.8 ii is somehow scored much lower than the orginal version, and much lower than the nikon, sigma, and sony 70-200's.

2. The canon 300 2.8 ii, probably the best lens Canon makes, scores a 15 from DXO. For all the lens scores that were scored using the 5d2 as the body, (66 of them listed) they rank the 300 2.8ii in 57th place out of 66 lens scores. For context, that's about a tie with the 16 score they gave the Tamron 28-300, and the 14 for the Canon 55-200.

 

[crasher8]

Did you also read up on fringing/CA on the 85 1.8? Yes it's incredibly sharp and has great DoF bokeh but the purple monster made me sell my copy. I'd rather have the 100 f/2 and the 135 L. of course.

 

[goose]

you're probably better off deciding whether or not you need an 85mm or 135mm lens, rather than comparing the two

 

[sweetcancer]

I would buy the 135L over the 85 1.8 any day of the week, sharpness has very little to do with this. Fantastic bokeh (to me) much more so. I would guess the 135L does other things far better also, like control of flare, chromatic aberrations etc.

 

[straub]

Their lens reviews are rubbish--the 28-135 or 70-300 non-L have more resolution than 300/2.8L II according to them. You'll get more accurate resolution figures by picking out random numbers from a phonebook.

 

[unadog]

I prefer Photozone.

Here is the 135. It looks very, very good.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d?start=1

And the 85. The MTF also look good:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d?start=1


I don't recall which lens, but one of the Canon telephotos in the 100+ range used to be the sharpest lens that they had ever tested.

 

[Loswr]

So when looking at their lens reviews...

Did you also see the part where they scored the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkI higher than the MkII? They are probably the only review/test outfit who rated the MkI higher. Just sayin' - grain of salt, and all that...

Personally, I had and liked the 85/1.8. But crasher8 is right, the LoCA on that lens is pretty bad - watch out for high-contrast transitions (reflections, chrome, etc.), unless you really happen to love the colors magenta and green.

I sold my 85/1.8 after getting the 85L II, and I also have the 135L - I'd definitely take either L lens over the 85/1.8. Having said that, depending on budget, I do think the 85/1.8 is the best lens in Canon's lineup in terms of IQ:cost ratio.

 

[Northstar]

Their lens reviews are rubbish--the 28-135 or 70-300 non-L have more resolution than 300/2.8L II according to them.

This is what I was thinking....I didn't know they scored the 300 2.8ii so poorly, I knew they had "scored/screwed up" their review of the 70-200 2.8ii, but to screw up both of these scores/reviews...two of THE highest rated most respected lenses Canon makes?? It's just incredible that they have the ego to give such poor scores to lenses that are well known and documented to be incredible lenses by other reviewers and photographers.

It seems this outfit deserves little credibility from what I've seen....I've definitely lost confidence in their reviews.

I almost can't wait to see how they review the 135L....could they be stupid enough to give it a poor review, even further taking them down the "no credibility" hole.

 

[Loswr]

It's just incredible that they have the ego to give such poor scores to lenses that are well known and documented to be incredible lenses by other reviewers and photographers.

It seems this outfit deserves little credibility from what I've seen....I've definitely lost confidence in their reviews.

Let's be clear, though. While I agree that their "Scores" are rubbish, their Measurements (the raw data that underlie the Scores) are fine. The problem is the way they 'analyze' (you can substitute words like 'massage' or 'manipulate' there) those data.

I've looked at their lens corrections and noise reduction in comparison to DPP and ACR, and I find that DxO Optics Pro does better than both (probably because the corrections are based on their thorough measurements).

But their reviews and scores...I think only KR's are more meaningless.

 

[Northstar]

So when looking at their lens reviews...

Did you also see the part where they scored the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkI higher than the MkII? They are probably the only review/test outfit who rated the MkI higher. Just sayin' - grain of salt, and all that...

Personally, I had and liked the 85/1.8. But crasher8 is right, the LoCA on that lens is pretty bad - watch out for high-contrast transitions (reflections, chrome, etc.), unless you really happen to love the colors magenta and green.

I sold my 85/1.8 after getting the 85L II, and I also have the 135L - I'd definitely take either L lens over the 85/1.8. Having said that, depending on budget, I do think the 85/1.8 is the best lens in Canon's lineup in terms of IQ:cost ratio.

Neuro...re the 70-200 2.8ii yes, I've ranted about that before and probably will again since it's my favorite lens.

With your obvious camera tech expertise, explain to me how dxomark has achieved such a respected and credible status when it comes to sensor reviews when it seems they "get it wrong" so consistently with lenses.

 

[RLPhoto]

I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision. So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc. I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.

They say they're reviewing the 135L in October...I'm correct in assuming the 135 will score higher, right? OR, did they just get a fantastically sharp copy of the 85 1.8 when they did their review?

I'm going to buy the 135L, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this, and what the explanation is for their resolution score for the 85 1.8?

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores

They're on crack to believe that the 85 1.8 is better than the 135L. Not even in the same league.

 

[Axilrod]

I've had both, and still have the 135L. Although the 85mm f/1.8 is an amazing lens for the money, head to head the 135L is superior, plain and simple. If you're on a budget, the 85mm would be a good choice, if not I'd get the 135L. Honestly the 85 is cheap enough that it may be worth getting both.

 

[Loswr]

...how dxomark has achieved such a respected and credible status when it comes to sensor reviews when it seems they "get it wrong" so consistently with lenses.

I'm not sure 'wrong' is right. Rather, I'd say their scores only apply in a very specific circumstance, which most likely is not often relevant to actually using the lens. My real beef with their scores, both for lenses and for sensors, is that the 'overall' scores are derived from the individual sub-measurements in an undisclosed manner, and also for the sensors that their normalization step is flawed (it generates 'impossible' data points, like >14-bit DR for a sensor with a 14-bit ADC). Frankly, I give them no credibility for their Score metrics, but lots for their raw measurements.

In the case of lenses, they are reporting resolution as a peak measurement - the highest resolution measured at any location in the lens' FoV, at any aperture setting, and for zooms at any point in the focal range. Maybe the lens is crap wide open and crap through most of the zoom range - DxOMark's resolution score doesn't care. So...as long as you are using it at that aperture, and your subject is in the right place in the frame, great. See what I mean about specific sircumstances? DxoMark measures lateral CA, but not longitudinal CA - and LoCA is a weakness of some lenses, particularly the 85/1.8.

They're on crack to believe that the 85 1.8 is better than the 135L. Not even in the same league.

And right there, my friend, you've fallen straight down into the pit trap that leads to heated arguments and internet flame wars. :

They are not saying the 85/1.8 is the best lens. They are saying that it achieves a higher lp/mm resolution, with their copy of the lens on their 1DsIII, at a specific aperture and a specific location in the image field. Nothing more. The rank-ordered list you linked does not even take into account the other factors they do measure (distortion, vignetting, LCA) much less the things they don't measure (color transmission, LoCA, bokeh, AF speed, etc.), and all of those are important to overall lens performance.

Honestly, you've illustrated the real problem with the DxOMark scoring - it's not the flawed normalization, not the 'black box' determination of overall score. It's the fact that by taking a complex optical system - lens or camera - and reducing it's multifaceted aspects of performance to a single number, they make it far too easy for human nature to pounce on that number and say, "This one is the best."

To sum up, IMO, DxO's Measurements are valid and useful, their Scores are meaningless, and the inappropriate interpretation that many forum posters apply to their conflated scores is reprehensible.

Just my 2¢.

 

[jordanbstead]

Both are outstanding, but very different. The perspective of the 135 is considerably tighter.

The 85 is the best bang-for-your-buck lens that Canon mades, IMHO.

 

[straub]

In the case of lenses, they are reporting resolution as a peak measurement - the highest resolution measured at any location in the lens' FoV, at any aperture setting, and for zooms at any point in the focal range.

I think this is only a part of the problem. If you check the measurement data sheet, the 300L maxes out at ~50lp/mm, whereas e.g. the 28-135 reaches or exceeds 70lp/mm across the focal length range. The 70-300 non-L also shows higher lp/mm at 300mm. Utter rubbish, even more so than their sensor shenanigans.

 

[rt]

I'm going to buy the 135L, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this, and what the explanation is for their resolution score for the 85 1.8?

DxO -- others have already said what they think of their scores.

The lenses -- I've had the 85mm f/1.8 for a few years, it is a good lens (with some known drawbacks). However, I don't like it since it delayed my decision to buy the 135L (having a fast 85mm prime and a 70-200, buying a 135mm did not seem that important). The 135L -- well, I *love* it. Scores cannot describe it, people will say it's the bokeh, sharpness, colors, etc. It's a bit of pain to use sometimes (I am on crop) but the photos are just wonderful. It's as much of a jump in quality for me as my first prime (50mm f/1.8 ) was (after cheap zooms).

135L is magic.

 

[Zlatko]

I think this is only a part of the problem. If you check the measurement data sheet, the 300L maxes out at ~50lp/mm, whereas e.g. the 28-135 reaches or exceeds 70lp/mm across the focal length range. The 70-300 non-L also shows higher lp/mm at 300mm. Utter rubbish, even more so than their sensor shenanigans.

Their results are absolutely screwed up. They run counter to the experience of many photographers. A few have testified to that very clearly in this thread.

Is there even a single Canon photographer who would rank the 85/1.8 at the top of all Canon lenses? I doubt that there is even one. If the DxO lens ratings were at all meaningful, then we could all SEE that the 85/1.8 offered the best resolution.

The 85/1.8 is an excellent lens and a great bargain, but there is simply no way that it is the king of the Canon lenses. No way. This result, like so many measurements at DxO, simply doesn't accord with everyday experience.

I find the 85 focal length much more useful than 135, but the 135L is without doubt the better resolving lens. Here is evidence:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[AdamJ]

 

[Loswr]

135L is magic.

I wonder how DxO would quantify that?

 

[crasher8]

FL wise the 85 to the 135 is apples to oranges so why not at least compare apples to pears? I'd like to hear well respected takes (Neuro et al) on the EF 100 f/2. In my experience borrowing one a few years back it had all the sweetness of the 85 without the LoCA issues. I used one at a Harley dealership and had no fringing or other aberrations to correct in post. Why is this lens so overlooked? It is because of the dual role the 100 Macro pair play as both a Macro and a sharp portrait length for torso and tighter?