Which lens produced the better result?

Pupator

I'm comparing a handful of my lenses in various scenarios to make sure I've got lenses that can produce quality at most every focal length. I have a few lenses that overlap a bit too much and I'm trying to determine if they're necessary. I've also got a lens that I'm trying to determine if it's worth the money for me or if I should sell.

Today's test was at 100mm 1/1000sec f/4.5 and ISO 200. No post-processing on either image. Originals are available in this gallery. I'd be interested to see some feedback from others about these two lenses.

Lens a:


Lens b:

darkdragon

Viewing on an uncalibrated monitor and non-scientifically speeking, "lens a" looks like it gave you more saturated color and/or more contrast.

cabinetbuff

Lens A

jonh68

Lens a looks better, but I don't think its anything dramatic. PP could bring lens b close to a, if not the same.

If b is the cheaper lens, I would keep it and use the money for another lens if you have a gap.

Qarik

another vote for lens A it appears more contrasty and maybe slightly sharper

ziggy53

The first image has more visible detail to be sure.

Richard

ziggy53 wrote:

The first image has more visible detail to be sure.

aj986s

Lens A has better colors and seems sharper.

rainbow

don't ignore post processing...
I agree with previous posts that "a" has better contrast and saturation, resulting in a better photo. "b" loses some details in the foreground pavement and corner weed areas.

So "a" is better IF this is the final product. But bumping saturation, contrast AND sharpness of both should really be what you want to compare when making a decision on the lenses. If the difference is no longer apparent (or if it is), that should help in your decision.

Pupator

Thanks for the input all - that's consistent with my observation. I think I have unreasonable expectations. I thought that, with the more expensive lens, viewing the image at 100% the words "Herald and Journal" on the green mailbox would be crisp, or at least clear. They're neither. I can hardly tell a difference between the two w/r/t that mailbox. But, you all are right - lens A does have more pop and more detail than lens B, to my eyes.

Lens A is the Sony 70-300 G SSM. ($799)
Lens B is the Minolta 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 ($89)

I realize that these are totally different types of lenses. And I wasn't so much comparing them as wanting to see how far the 'G' outperformed the Minolta. I was happy with the beercan from 70-210 before but was really hoping the 'G' would blow me away...

ziggy53

rainbow wrote:

I agree with previous posts that "a" has better contrast and saturation, resulting in a better photo. "b" loses some details in the foreground pavement and corner weed areas.

So "a" is better IF this is the final product. But bumping saturation, contrast AND sharpness of both should really be what you want to compare when making a decision on the lenses. If the difference is no longer apparent (or if it is), that should help in your decision.

Rainbow, welcome to the Digital Grin.

Thanks for your comments.

Tee Why

Most lenses if stopped down will have pretty good to great center sharpness. But if you look at the corner of the image, the first image has lots more detail in the fine tree branches and there is less CA on the green hitch or whatever that thing is on the upper left.

More expensive lenses tend to optically have better contrast, handle CA better, and have better corner sharpness, nicer bokeh etc, along with a much more robust build.