NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: atpaula on February 28, 2016, 01:06:33
-
Day shots with D810 and CPL filter. I really don't like the colors of this camera.
Night shots with D4s.
All pics with my traditional pp (levels/sharpen).
The lens is ridiculously big and heavy, but I like to handle it and the results.
Thank you for looking.
1
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD81_1983_zpskclgea2q.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD81_1983_zpskclgea2q.jpg.html)
2
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD81_1957_zpstzizdsik.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD81_1957_zpstzizdsik.jpg.html)
3
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD81_1872_zpskpzryxbk.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD81_1872_zpskpzryxbk.jpg.html)
4
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD4S_3942_zpshu2qema5.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD4S_3942_zpshu2qema5.jpg.html)
5
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD4S_3867_zpszqcrioxm.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD4S_3867_zpszqcrioxm.jpg.html)
6
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD4S_3953_zpsrplyxayt.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD4S_3953_zpsrplyxayt.jpg.html)
7
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD81_2049_zps8geomg8t.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD81_2049_zps8geomg8t.jpg.html)
8
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD4S_3931_zps9puzww3w.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD4S_3931_zps9puzww3w.jpg.html)
9
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD81_2012_zps5pgdxdfl.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD81_2012_zps5pgdxdfl.jpg.html)
10
(http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af237/atpaula/atpaula003/aD4S_3915_zpsrqvje6zi.jpg) (http://s1011.photobucket.com/user/atpaula/media/atpaula003/aD4S_3915_zpsrqvje6zi.jpg.html)
-
Aguinaldo
These are stunning - but I think that is to do with your eye and composition rather than just a superb lens.
I like the colours and they are gorgeous - my ZF2 APO 135mm has a similar cool-ish rendition that is less apparent on the Df than on the D800E and seems -1/3rd stop underexposed
JJ
-
Good shots, and I'm glad I waited to view them on a larger,color correct monitor. Right now, the Photobucket click-through (to see them larger) is working too slowly to be useable.
I'm a 28mm fan, so this'd be the Otus for me....budget allowing.
-
Technically and compositional excellent, yet with that lifeless, dull projection we have seen so frequently from Otus lenses.
-
Aguinaldo
These are stunning - but I think that is to do with your eye and composition rather than just a superb lens.
I like the colours and they are gorgeous - my ZF2 APO 135mm has a similar cool-ish rendition that is less apparent on the Df than on the D800E and seems -1/3rd stop underexposed
JJ
Thank you JJChan.
I just hate the sky rendering of the D810 and I'll sell it soon.
-
Good shots, and I'm glad I waited to view them on a larger,color correct monitor. Right now, the Photobucket click-through (to see them larger) is working too slowly to be useable.
I'm a 28mm fan, so this'd be the Otus for me....budget allowing.
I'm still waiting for that occasion when this glass will show its real performance (strong backlight for instance).
-
Technically and compositional excellent, yet with that lifeless, dull projection we have seen so frequently from Otus lenses.
Thank you, but I don't find anything dull about these Otus lenses. They are quite exciting IMHO.
-
Our eyes and expectations are just different.
-
This could be an interesting conversation. It is a bit like being caught between the devil and the deep-blue sea. On the one hand we have lenses (like the Otus and the Coastal Optics) that are highly corrected, although the way Bjørn speaks of the Otus series, I used to speak of the Coastal Optics 60mm APO, so I can understand. I always felt that the CO 60mm was just what it was designed to be, a forensic lens.
Highly corrected lenses do go to great efforts to remove anything that would add this or that distortion, by definition. My question is: by correcting a lens, are we removing character? If we define lenses with character as those that have “interesting” distortion (whatever you want to call what we correct lenses for), then there can be no argument.
I have gone to great length to find lenses with “character,” as I define the term. Glass like the Noct Nikkor, the El Nikkor 105mm APO, the CRT-Nikkor, the CV-125mm and many others have loads of character and I love them for it. At the same time, I have sold off many lenses that also have uncorrected “character,” but just not the character that distinguishes a lens in my eyes.
There is no doubt that the “eyes” have it, and the last I looked, we each see differently. That being said, personally, I tend to view a highly corrected lens such as the Otus series as offering me a clean canvas for painting on rather than some kind of dull vanilla pudding.
In my work, which is all I have, I go back and forth between “character” lenses like the various exotics and the corrected lens series like the Otus, which are my canvas or work lenses. I use both types all the time. My old work lenses used to be the Nikon trifecta, the 14-24mm, the 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm, but their “character” and degree of correction gave way to the Otus series in my work.
However, I don’t find the Otus lenses dull or unexciting, but just the opposite. Maybe I need new glasses. :)
-
#10 is tagged Adobe RGB (didn't check the others) so some browsers wouldn't display it properly.
-
Aguinaldo, maybe the sky rendering with the D810 could be improved by using different color profiles?
Interesting shots of an exotic (to me) place. The colors of the sea are most impressive to me.
The conversation about dullness also interests me. Right now I don't have the extensive experience that is perhaps needed to perceive these nuances. However, I'd like to learn more about it.
There are many highly corrected lenses. If the Otus and the APO Lanthar 125 are both highly corrected, what makes one dull and the other one have character?
Is a lens such as the newest Nikkor 200/2 from the former or the latter category? Is it highly corrected, but not as highly as it could be, thereby preserving character?
Are Zeiss lenses perhaps generally of a different character than Nikon lenses, irrespective of the degree of actual or marketed correction? For example, are the 'regular' Zeiss lenses that are not terribly well corrected also of more character than the newer Otus lenses?
-
To me the images are a tad underexposed but by no means dull.
An image can be dull but I don't agree with the notion that a lens can be dull.
It's up to us to use our gear in such a way to produce interesting images.
Images can be dull even when a lens with character is used.
-
I find the older Zeiss like the two Makro-Planars, which I am selling off, different than the new Otus Zeiss. The CV-125 APO Lanthar is not as well corrected as the Otus, but its character is very interesting.
The earlier Zeiss are too "contrasty," whatever we could agree that is.
I really like the Otus lenses and manage to add my own character to my work. After all, we each are characters enough, right? Does that count? The Otus are not "dull" in my experience. It would be helpful to point out (someone please), considering how many useful corrections the Otus series has, which of those corrections contribute to the so-called dullness?
Of those that actually own the Otus and use them all the time, like Ming Thein, Chambers, etc., they don't find them dull.
I know this is very subjective, but then again it is also objective. Otherwise we could not discuss it at all. If a lens is too corrected, does that make it lack character? In my experience with the Oti lenses, that has not been the case.
-
My intuition has been that if a lens has too much character, it might (or might not) interfere with my intentions and limit the possibilities in ways I might not want. I like lenses with lots of character such as the Nikkor 50/1.2 wide open, but then again, there are times when it annoys me or does not go well with a certain subject and I have to stop it down or use a different lens. A lens which lacks this sort of characteristic mix of aberrations is more accurate in a certain sense and does not incur the risk of having something in the image that is hard or impossible to remove and not conducive to the presentation of the subject. At the same time it forces me to concentrate on subject matter and composition to achieve an interesting shot, whereas the lens with heaps of character might even render an otherwise mundane shot interesting by evoking a certain mood.
-
Anyone familiar with a variety of lenses do know the lenses don't behave identical. How they differ is less easy to quantify.
A commonly applied term like "sharpness" actually is troublesome to grasp, and even more so to compare, because it is not an inherent property of any lens, but deals with the transformation of the subject and its contrast under a specified light regime into an image that itself further needs processing.
Field curvature is easier to understand yet its significance is not equally evident. Most photographic motifs are not perfectly flat unless the primary interest is shooting brick walls. It is entirely possible and in fact the usual rule too, that lenses having pronounced field curvature can yield excellent photographs in most fields of photography. Perhaps this is not applicable to close-up and photomacrography, however, as these fields have their own requirements.
Colour correction is another quagmire field of contention. Basically we would wish our lenses to render all colours perfectly, or is this that important? The glass material in the lenses and the coatings all contribute, often minutely but sometimes massively, to the way colour information is transformed through the optical system finally to be handled by the camera. Just compare non-ED and ED variants of the same lens design to learn the huge differences that can occur. There are so many conflicts at play here and 100% perfection is simply not obtainable. Very efficient coatings certainly alter colour fidelity and possibly to an extent not possible to correct by alternative glass material in the optics. The optical designer has to balance these conflicting contingencies to end up with a manageable final product.
Chromatic errors are widespread and might be detected even in carefully corrected optics. Even many lenses labelled 'APO' are not truly apochromatic and will show traces of colour fringing. Emphasis on correcting lateral colour aberration might have declined somewhat in the digital era as this is quite easy to control and remove post facto. Axial colour or longitudinal colour aberration still is widespread and can be seen with otherwise highly corrected lenses often in a surprising degree. Earlier IF lenses suffered often badly, and the move from film-based to digital photography made these issues even more visible. As axial colour is not easily corrected in the processing work flow, I certainly would wish the engineers to address and solve this aberration in their optical designs.
Now, were we to compare two lenses with true APO character, will these project the same rendition of a given subject? Absolutely not. There are more to lens character than colour fidelity alone. Try a Coastal Optics 60 mm f/4 APO vs the Voigtländer 125 m mf/2.5 APO-Lanthar to appreciate the massive difference there can be between two highly specified and corrected optics. One is clinical and the other - dare I say - ingratiating? Both are excellent performers, no doubt about that.
Sometimes I feel the discussion on lenses is similar to comparing amplifiers and speakers. There are intangible differences not explainable by numbers and graphs alone in both cases. The important aspect is understanding the tools or gear used.
-
A sincere message to all those who hate the Coastal Optics 60/4 and claim it is dull.
I will gladly volunteer and become the proud owner of such a dull lens :)
Bjørn was generous enough to allow me to use it when we were in Montenegro and I haven't experienced the dullness at all.
-
I didn't state the CO 60 is dull, just that it is clinical in the way it dissects a motif.
-
I didn't state the CO 60 is dull, just that it is clinical in the way it dissects a motif.
I did not find the CO 60 dull. Because I am a close-up photographer and because it had a large hot spot about 1:3 (if I remember), this was a serious problem for me. Also, IMO, it handled mottled light less well than other lenses, like the kind of light you would get in a forest, where sunlight was coming through in rays. For some reason, it seemed they blew out easier than other lenses, but that could just be me. Having done over 33,000 flat posters on a vacuum table (rock concert posters), the CO 60 would be a perfect lens for that kind of copy work. Worse, it had such a short focus throw that really fine work with it had to be done on a focus rail. Aside from its brilliant lens work, the rest of the design of that lens is poor, to bad. Not thought out carefully, in terms of focus thrown, hot spots, etc. -- especially if it was designed for forensic work.
-
I agree that the bodywork of the CO 60/4 could be improved. The dreaded hot-spot issue is easily solved by a properly designed lens hood, though.
-
I agree that the bodywork of the CO 60/4 could be improved. The dreaded hot-spot issue is easily solved by a properly designed lens hood, though.
What most bugged me was the short focus throw (210 degrees), which is (IMO) too short for stacking a large stack. Also, the lens did not come with a hood, which is a help to have, and yada, yada, yada.
-
I agree that the bodywork of the CO 60/4 could be improved. The dreaded hot-spot issue is easily solved by a properly designed lens hood, though.
I am interested in how that is done, if you don't mind explaining it.
-
I fully understand why this lens displeased you. For the information about the hot spot issue and solution, see
www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/502-how-to-avoid-a-hot-spot-for-the-coastal-60-apo-lens
-
I fully understand why this lens displeased you. For the information about the hot spot issue and solution, see
www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php/topic/502-how-to-avoid-a-hot-spot-for-the-coastal-60-apo-lens
Thanks. Interesting indeed.
-
Outside of forensic, machine vision, and instrumentation photography, there is a place for both the clean and clinical rendering AND the more lensy, aberrations-present style. Both can be employed to create a graphic image worth looking at.
An audio expert was once asked the question: "Why are recordists still using Neumann microphones made in the late 1940's? Aren't the newer products better, with less distortion?
The answer was: "All of them distort; it is a question of which distortion sounds more pleasant to the human ear and brain."
-
The only real issue I see with these images are that they indeed look very dull and do not make me feel like I am in a sunny tropical location. I think it has most to do with the chosen exposure/PP, perhaps too much emphasis was placed on retaining highights, technicality killing the feel. The images make it feel like you went there on days with simply depressing weather.
I'd have to see that changed before I could judge the lens.
-
The only real issue I see with these images are that they indeed look very dull and do not make me feel like I am in a sunny tropical location. I think it has most to do with the chosen exposure/PP, perhaps too much emphasis was placed on retaining highights, technicality killing the feel. The images make it feel like you went there on days with simply depressing weather.
I'd have to see that changed before I could judge the lens.
Thanks for the comment.
Apart from the pp/exposure comment, which I totally agree, I find the parts regarding a sunny tropical location and depressing weather very surprising.
-
The weather doesn't look depressing at all, but the pictures make the weather feel that way.
-
Thom Hogan has an interesting article today on micro-comtrast, and he mentions the Otus lenses. Here is a brief quote, in which he ends the article:
"You’ll note that in my lens reviews I rarely mention micro contrast. I think you know why now. Trying to distinguish between what was the lens’ contribution and what was the demosaic’s contribution (or deduction) is a fool’s errand. I do sometimes mention micro contrast with a lens when it is so exceptional that it can’t be ignored and must be an attribute of the lens, though. The Zeiss Otus lenses are one good example of that.
"
-
Michael, I don't think anyone is attacking the Otus lenses or how well they do in certain areas. Some just have a strong preference for character, which is the opposite of correction. We all fall somewhere on the character<---->correction spectrum, and the Otus lenses being an extreme of one end is bound to bring polarized opinions just as extreme on it.
-
Speaking of "polarized", the choice of using a pola at maximum polarization may have contributed to the weirdly dark skies and flat, shine-free surfaces. If given these shots to process(edit), I'd have at least experimented with lightening the sky.
-
I do not think the CPL caused the dark and dull look. The boy looking to the ocean, for instance, is just too dark all over. I do like the image under the PP though. I have created images with a very blazing bright look with a "maxed" CPL, so I know it's not that.
As for the Otus lenses looking dulls as some are saying;
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/12/extra-credits-applying-the-micro-contrast-test-onto-an-otus-lens
The differences between the highly corrected Otus 28mm f/1.4 and the not so highly corrected Nikkor AF 28mm f/2.8D are very visible, with the Otus indeed looking dull in comparison
-
Funny this quest to prove that the Otus is not worth it.
I think that this review http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/10/16/review-zeiss-28-14-otus/ is more serious than Yannick Khong's.
-
If one is pleased by the character of the lens there is hardly anything wrong with it - except for weight and price ....
However, that is not the point up for discussion.
-
I would really love to own this fine piece of glass!
I'm pretty sure the image in the other thread is out of focus.
Anyway - Why are the 'daylight images so dark? I would say about 1,5 stops underexposed skies and ocean in the first shot?
The whole scene would not look like that, I downloaded the small JPG and to my eyes the image shines if you bump it 1.5 and pull down the highlights.
-
I would really love to own this fine piece of glass!
I'm pretty sure the image in the other thread is out of focus.
Anyway - Why are the 'daylight images so dark? I would say about 1,5 stops underexposed skies and ocean in the first shot?
The whole scene would not look like that, I downloaded the small JPG and to my eyes the image shines if you bump it 1.5 and pull down the highlights.
When I was pping the pics, they pleased my eyes this way on my bright Retina screen.
The daylight images were taken with a D810 and the only thing that bothered me was the sky color, which is not a pleasant blue. It is too greyish.
I've noted it since I bought this camera, so I plan to sell it soon.
The sky color is very important to me and my Df and D4s deliver what I like.
-
The grey overlay might be what makes the images appear so devoid of devoid sparkle? I have seen similar with other highly corrected lenses.
-
The grey overlay might be what makes the images appear so devoid of devoid sparkle? I have seen similar with other highly corrected lenses.
I was using a cpl filter, but on the Df and D4s does not happen the same. Even with cpl there is no grey overlay in the skies.
On the other hand, the cactus pic was not taken with the cpl.
-
Again, perfection is not easy to quantify. Or might be measured by misleading parameters. The first time I listened to a CD the sales rep told me "it was perfect" and one had to be tone-deaf to agree. What was wrong took the industry a long time to sort out and many believe they haven't succeeded yet.
History might repeat itself with the arrival of the current ultra highly corrected lenses. I'm not alone in being puzzled by the discrepancy of their superb measurements and the resulting images.
-
Again, perfection is not easy to quantify. Or might be measured by misleading parameters. The first time I listened to a CD the sales rep told me "it was perfect" and one had to be tone-deaf to agree. What was wrong took the industry a long time to sort out and many believe they haven't succeeded yet.
History might repeat itself with the arrival of the current ultra highly corrected lenses. I'm not alone in being puzzled by the discrepancy of their superb measurements and the resulting images.
Sorry, I was talking about the cameras, not the lens, in the previous post.
I have more pleasant skies with the Df and D4s than with the D810, using the same lens.
-
Also on a bright color calibrated screen here ;)
I just looked at the overall image and the histogram.
I have seen very dark blue skies with the D810 at ISO 64 in bright daylight, and actually also from Leica M9 at low ISO, both without CPL right out of the camera raw files,,, I have not noticed any gray tones over that,,,
I have stopped using CPL due to problems with focus and loss of sharpness issues back in time when using the D3X with very sharp lenses, even stopped down.
I would recommend to try and shoot some more without the filter on the D810 and see if you don't like the colors better,,,
What raw converter?
-
BTW is it the same problem when printing and what size? or are you viewing them on a monitor, and at same % or?
I have been a little worried how bad some applications resize the very high resolution images, sometimes a D810 file looks terrible on the screen if not seen at 100%
-
Also on a bright color calibrated screen here ;)
I just looked at the overall image and the histogram.
I have seen very dark blue skies with the D810 at ISO 64 in bright daylight, and actually also from Leica M9 at low ISO, both without CPL right out of the camera raw files,,, I have not noticed any gray tones over that,,,
I have stopped using CPL due to problems with focus and loss of sharpness issues back in time when using the D3X with very sharp lenses, even stopped down.
I would recommend to try and shoot some more without the filter on the D810 and see if you don't like the colors better,,,
What raw converter?
Camera RAW 9.1.1.
Don't have this issue with D4s and Df.
My (simple) workflow is always the same, and I don't see any color differences if it is at 100% or not in the screen.
-
Well they stopped updating ACR for CS6 - Now only CC6 get the latest camera profiles,,, Not pleased with that!
I found out that if I have a version on CC6 on my PC then CS6 will use the lens profiles from the latest ACR...
I found out that on one PC it picked up the profile of the new 24-70 2.8 AFS E VR and not on the other PC.
I have not gone into checking if it also picks up the latest camera profiles from CC6,,, Could be the answer to your issues
-
Well they stopped updating ACR for CS6 - Now only CC6 get the latest camera profiles,,, Not pleased with that!
I found out that if I have a version on CC6 on my PC then CS6 will use the lens profiles from the latest ACR...
I found out that on one PC it picked up the profile of the new 24-70 2.8 AFS E VR and not on the other PC.
I have not gone into checking if it also picks up the latest camera profiles from CC6,,, Could be the answer to your issues
Thank you Erik.
I use the latest CC (I was caught by Adobe's strategy of yearly payments >:().
-
Ahhh, but then I would go for ACR 9.2 and see how it pans out before leaving the D810 in the dustbin ;)
-
Ahhh, but then I would go for ACR 9.2 and see how it pans out before leaving the D810 in the dustbin ;)
There is no 9.2 yet.
I believe the problem is that my D810 is not compatible with cpl ( ;D ).
Since I bought it a year ago, I've been trying it but now it is conclusive: I don't like this camera.
-
I see the 9.2 here:
http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2015/10/camera-raw-9-2-is-now-available.html
-
om my photoshop cc camera raw is at version 9.3.1.520
-
om my photoshop cc camera raw is at version 9.3.1.520
9.4 on mine.
Link: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2016/01/camera-raw-9-4-now-available.html
-
om my photoshop cc camera raw is at version 9.3.1.520
OMG, and I thought I was keeping my computer updated... :-[
Now I have the 9.4.
Thank you guys for the tip.
-
so did I
-
Technically and compositional excellent, yet with that lifeless, dull projection we have seen so frequently from Otus lenses.
Bjørn,
Can you explain what makes photo No. 9 dull or lifeless?
Thanks!
---
I tried a quick experiment in CS2 with No. 9 as follows...
* Removed harsh lens vignette (too deep in corners) with CS2's Filter> Distort> Lens Correction...>. I didn't note the values.
* Added a soft false lens vignette that starts closer to the center with Filter> Distort> Lens Correction...> with values of (Amount -5), (Mid Point +10) to direct eye without being too obvious.
* Added Curves (Luminosity Blending) with points at (29,23), (63,57), (192,196) to give a bit more mid tone contrast.
* Added Levels input(0,1.00,253) output(0,255) to add sparkle to highlights.
These changes exaggerate banding seen in the sky. It's hard to tell what these changes might look like on another monitor. Mine is a garden variety Samsung S27D360.
Dave