A few more with the 80, along with crops. Not tests per se, just images FWIW...
First was this private driveway (yeah, life sucks for some eh?). FWIW, there is so much fine detail in this file that downrezzing it is almost impossible to do without leaving it looking like crap as it does here. I didn't spend a huge amount of time trying though, because the main point is the crop:
Focus point is about 1/3 way in or about at the red grape leaves on the right edge of this crop. This is the 80 at f16, note the telephone lines in the background. Here we are seeing the beginning effect of diffraction, but IMO not horrible for the DoF gained over f11, so I use f16 - f22 when added DoF is needed:
~~~
Next is a funky building we came across. Looks like a mini grain-elevator/livestock-barn so maybe it was a small dairy? Anyway, this one is the 80 at f11:
The jaggies on the insulators are in the original tiff too, but worse here in the jpeg, accentuated and more of them:
~~~
Bottom line is a few observations:
1) I don't think the 80 should suck -- if it does, return it for a replacement.
2) Processing these high-rez MF files for web is difficult! First off, 8-bit sRGB color is doing them no favors -- a *bunch* of the best color gets lost (especially high yellows and reds) with the web conversion. Next is the amount of jpeg compression needed to keep them under 400K (so they load fast) is significantly more than what I ever had to do with the typical DSLR file -- Normally, 80% jpeg was fine for up to a 900x1200, but some of these are down to jpeg 50% to get them under 400K for a 750x900... Lastly, I definitely need a new/better downrezzing routine to try and keep the file looking "right" --- off to work on that now
.