NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Andy on February 29, 2016, 20:45:35
-
You might be interested in this:
The problem with modern optics
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
Thoughts on the right kind of cameras and lenses
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/01/31/right-gear
rgds,
Andy
PS: might contribute to the current Otus debate
-
Good article to be out there, thanks for the tip. The sharpness stuff is so unbelievably over-rated.
-
Andy, thank you so much for this wonderful and down to earth article.
I am in search of the 135/2.8 AIS now :)
-
Jakov, the article very much re-affirms my interest in the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 and the Zeiss 35mm f/2!
-
So, I'm not alone in the world. Now, that is enjoyable news ...
-
I like the tone of this author. Very good balance of insight and humor.
-
I can understand where he is coming from and his advocating of a balanced view which evaluates different aspects of lens design rather than just bare resolution is certainly commendable. I don't know many knowledgeable photographers who do only care about resolution, and I think the problem is mostly restricted to certain review sites who reduce a lens to one number, and people listening to them instead of observing for themselves what counts for them.
On the other hand, my eyes fail to see -- despite considerable staring -- some of the differences he calls blatant and obvious, i.e. Flat nose vs 3d nose etc. Some he calls flat are very plastic to me, and the reason could be the perspective rather than the number of elements or coatings etc. In addition, There is so much that changes between shots, different person, different light, that claiming a difference in lens design is what causes the (at best minute) differences is somewhat daring. If anything, I would say that all lenses he portrays are remarkably similar to each other. If that is the message, i.e. don't buy the fanciest lenses because they will cost you more without getting you a tangible difference, then that would be somewhat supported by the sample images. However, I get the impression that he is trying to prove much more.
I also think that unless one is conducting a controlled experiment, one could prove almost any point and its contrary with sample images.
Maybe I'm just being overly picky and critical, please forgive me.
-
Simone - I was also wondering about the flat vs. 3D nose comments. Can anyone explain this point further?
-
Simone - I was also wondering about the flat vs. 3D nose comments. Can anyone explain this point further?
I like the tone of this author. Very good balance of insight and humor.
His message: Don't take the world too serious .... Humor is sometimes more important than tables full of technical data .....
rgds,
Andy
-
One of the many methods of getting the points "across" is using irony ...
-
The flat vs 3d thing means exactly what it says. In the images he pointed out as rendering faces flat, they lack depth in the rendering of fhe faces. Compare faces in the images taken by the Sigma art 35mm and the Nikkor 35mm f/2, which one looks more 3d to you? To my eyes, the face in the Sigma art photo looks extremely sharp, and extremely flat and dull.
-
I like lenses that show some "faulty" character like mechanical vignetting (compensation is always turned off), field curvature, soft corners, etc as I believe it enhances the boke qualities of the out of focus areas and makes the main subject standout in brightness and sharpness from the background putting in on the main stage for the viewer.
Of course there needs to be some level of sharpness and contrast in the centre of the image to make it all work in making the image pop :)
-
The flat vs 3d thing means exactly what it says. In the images he pointed out as rendering faces flat, they lack depth in the rendering of fhe faces. Compare faces in the images taken by the Sigma art 35mm and the Nikkor 35mm f/2, which one looks more 3d to you? To my eyes, the face in the Sigma art photo looks extremely sharp, and extremely flat and dull.
That's exactly the comparison I was referring to that I could not see with my eyes.
Even if I was in the mood to see it as he labels the images, there could be a number of reasons that this is so, none of them to do with the lens. To decide that it must be the lens would require you to explain away in your mind all the other easily perceivable differences that exist between the two shots, i.e. to explain why they would not matter to a significant degree.
Incidentally, I find the Sigma Art image not flat at all. It looks very plastic and I think the main reason is the close-up perspective and low DOF. The Nikon image is also not flat, but not much better either. Both are perfectly okay and I wouldn't make a lens purchase decision based on any of these samples.
-
Interesting point of view, but the comparisons for flat or 3D rendering are not convincing. IMHO the lighting makes the difference.
I have used quite a lot of old and new "standard" lenses these recent times, only to find that the 50/1.4 SC is really interesting, while the modern supercorrected Tamron 45/1.8 is... well... equally interesting with its combined resolution and smoothness.
-
Andy, thanks for the links.
Now that I came back to Nikon FX by replacing my m4/3 system with D750 and 50/1.8G, I think I'm standing on a nice starting point. :o :o :o
Yes, I have kept my Nikkor-Q C Auto 200/4.0. 8)
-
Akira, any tool in your hands will be handled by a master :)
Nevertheless, I would like to hear your experiences and why you got yourself a D750 :)
-
Now that I came back to Nikon FX by replacing my m4/3 system with D750 and 50/1.8G, I think I'm standing on a nice starting point. :o :o :o
Did I mis anything or is this your first public mentioning your return to Nikon?
As you might have guessed, very curious what made you decide to do so :)
-
Well, I agree with the writer, good to see the Voigtlander 58/1.4 there ;)
-
Akira, any tool in your hands will be handled by a master :)
Nevertheless, I would like to hear your experiences and why you got yourself a D750 :)
Did I mis anything or is this your first public mentioning your return to Nikon?
As you might have guessed, very curious what made you decide to do so :)
My comment above was indeed my first announcement of returning to Nikon, and FX.
The biggest reason for my return is almost exactly described in the articles Andy linked. So, this thread is very timely for me.
I've been using m4/3 system on and off for nearly seven years. I still like them for what they offer. But maybe I become tired of the images created by stuffing much resolution into a tiny sensor. I didn't get any 3-D feel I always cherish, even with the images with the shallowest DOF I could achieve.
The resolution of an FX format 24MP sensor corresponds to that of a DX format 10MP sensor which is almost the same as that of D200. I haven't owned or used D200, but after seeing many excellent images taken with the camera and revisiting some of the favorite images of mine taken with the cameras of even lower resolution (D2H and D40), I realized their smooth, round and 3-D renditions. D200, D40 and D2H are cameras of very low resolution by today's standard, but their resolution was actually high enough for most purposes. I still remember Bjørn's review of D1 whose 2.7MP sensor (don't miss the decimal point!) outperformed 135 format Fuji Velvia.
An FX camera with the 16MP sensor would make more sense in this context, but neither Df or D4s was within my budget. I remember I really loved the rendition of the 24MP sensor of D610, but didn't like the fact that the customization of the buttons (especially the OK button) was limited and its AF performance is not satisfactory to me. That's why I setteled on D750. I love this newly designed grip, too!
There are other important reasons, but these are the main ones for my return to FX that relate to the articles.
-
The biggest reason for my return is almost exactly described in the articles Andy linked. So, this thread is very timely for me.
Akira,
wrt to your D750 decision and what you described with your m43 experience,
you might also be interested in his "Best and Worst of 2015" post:
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/12/26/best-and-worst-gear-of-2015
rgds, Andy
-
Akira,
wrt to your D750 decision and what you described with your m43 experience,
you might also be interested in his "Best and Worst of 2015" post:
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/12/26/best-and-worst-gear-of-2015
rgds, Andy
Andy, thanks for the additional link. I wouldn't be as harsh as Yannick in criticizing what I don't prefer personally, but, so far as the positive comments are concerned, I feel as if he is my alter ego. :D
-
The articles adds to the "not so fast there matey" that I've come to appreciate after having tested/tried out various modern lenses. But as always, horses for courses.
Akira; the only thing I don't like about my D750 is the sound of the mirror/shutter. The Df is in another league there.
-
Akira; the only thing I don't like about my D750 is the sound of the mirror/shutter. The Df is in another league there.
Sten, maybe I would have to agree, but it is tolerable enough. Also I feel that the shutter noise of D750 contains less amount of high frequency portions comparing to that of D7x00 cameras, which I like.
-
Akira; the only thing I don't like about my D750 is the sound of the mirror/shutter.
Sten, it looks like you have not used an AFS 300mm/4D lens with the D750.
-
Simone and Airy, I agree that the lighting is a massive contributer and that those examples are hardly fair. I have, however, seen plenty of Sigma "art" images and they all tend to look flat to me. It's not a dof/bokeh issue, it's that the areas in focus just don't pop. It looks like everything in the plane of focus got squashed into a really sharp flat picture. I don't feel like I can reach in and touch it.
-
Understood. These are subtle effects, maybe explaining why I much prefer the Zeiss 35/2 over the Sigma 35/1.4. Beware of other possible factors though (e.g. the high vignetting common to Zeiss 35/2, 50/2...) that also may contribute to such impressions.
-
Sten, it looks like you have not used an AFS 300mm/4D lens with the D750.
That's correct, I haven't. Reading between the lines here I assume there is an issue..?
-
i missed this thread, very interesting, all these modern lenses too many elements it seems to come down to.
-
Airy, I do not feel they are subtle differences. Check out this comparison; http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/12/extra-credits-applying-the-micro-contrast-test-onto-an-otus-lens
The differences in pop are quite clear, but really pronounced on the woman's scarf. That is the same issue I see with the "art" lenses. Things just get flattened.
-
It may be interesting to draw the similarities to modern TV's. I have several TV's at home and most of them have display modes for dynamic, standard, movie and pictures (and some others I can't remember). Movie and pictures have a rendering which is softer, more pleasing to the eye whereas dynamic and standard for instance is sharper, contrastier and more vivid. Pretty much artistic vs. clinical.
-
Andy, thank you so much for this wonderful and down to earth article.
I am in search of the 135/2.8 AIS now :)
I have had that lens for many years in the film days. Great for shooting portrait outdoors.
-
The problem with modern optics
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
Thank you Andy. I bookmarked the site.
I do not yet understand how the diagram is created, but the message comes across.
Interesting that two of my favorite optics are the best in his opinion in the G-Range: 50/1.8G and 24/1.4G
-
That's correct, I haven't. Reading between the lines here I assume there is an issue..?
Yes, there is.
If somebody is surprised by no AF function in this combo.
Quite a few AFS 300mm/4D don't focus with the D750, while working perfectly with other bodies. The root cause seems to be with the DC2DC converter in the lens, while the symptom only surfaces with the D750.
My lens is currently with Nikon for a replacement of the converter.
rgds,
Andy
-
Thank you Andy. I bookmarked the site.
I do not yet understand how the diagram is created, but the message comes across.
This might help: The lens intention diagram
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/19/the-lens-intention-diagram
It is recommened - and I think as intended by Yannick - not to take every word of his blog entries as absolute and reproducible fact. He seems not to have this aspiration to be seen as "authorative source" but rather enjoys the easier side of life - i.e. by mixing in just personal opinion. Which from my perspective is a nice addition.
rgds, Andy
-
Very nice samples he comes up with,,, Thanks for the link!
-
Still very puzzling. The 50/1.4 AIS is said to bring the most 3D effect (out of the Nikon MF range; analysis found on a newsgroup, around 2008 maybe). To me, it is rather the 50/1.2, and I have a couple of shots that immediately spring to my mind.
Then, this effect is often brought into relationship with microcontrast and hence coatings. Zeiss lenses and T coating are consequently mentioned very often in that context. I do not clearly see the relationship between the 50/1.2 AI and recent Zeiss lenses with lots of elements inside (35/2 for instance)... not to mention the Voigtländers (58/1.4, 40/2) Yannick seems to like so much - me too by the way. Latter are relatively simple designs.
-
Interesting discussion, would be good to do a blind test amongst the strong believers.
In the first link I think the 3D effect is more caused by the quality of light rather than the lens used.
In the comparison of the Nikkor vs Zeiss 28mm on microcontrast, I think the Zeiss is focused behind the eyes (look at the top hair popping out).
I really like and use my old Nikkors but do not fully believe the claims on 3D (yet).
-
Yes for that shot the Zeiss must be out of focus, also my first thought
-
So the only way to confirm the 3D vs flat issue would be if someone has the mentioned lenses, tries them out, and shares with us the results.
-
Yep. Remindful of the "field curvature" discussion. Everybody has some idea of what it is, everybody has some ready-made explanations (incl. myself). A sure recipe for confusion.
1) can we characterize the phenomenon that is called "3D rendition"?
2) can we trace it down to some objective characteristics of the picture - not of the lens build? (example: sentences like "the nose looks flat" hints at lens behavior in front of the focus plane).
3) can we observe it - at screen resolution, really? At what apertures does it become most apparent? (to avoid wasting time)
4) can we test it in a repeatable way:
I happen to have some of the concerned lenses. I remember side by side tests of 35mm (PC Nikkor, Zeiss, Sigma) however not revealing anything extraordinary, except that at f/8 the PC lens was less sharp and yielded less saturated pics than the others, and the latter were really hard to tell apart except, precisely, front blur. But f/8 may not be the critical aperture.
My only trouble : very scarce time availability. If sb at least could help me by proposing a setup most likely to reveal evidence...
-
Very interesting article, but too much bias to be held as comparative or showing much more than what we would like to see.
Comparing the images that the author serves us is impossible. And I'm not talking about different perspectives; never Cleopatra's nose will turn flat whatever "art" lens you'll use, if you know what I mean...
I do like character in a lens. But that’s not to say that old ones, because they have less elements are better on this respect than the newer ones with more elements.
Question is; do you want to paint what you see? Or, you want to reproduce what you see?
These two questions are as apart as film is from digital.
If we have to have a human example, look at the vision system: the eye is like a very old lens, only one element, with no correction whatsoever… and the brain, is like the digital camera that we’ll never get, because the post-processing that happens there is impossible to reproduce. The image that the eye projects is incredible poor… inverted, distorted in both axis, full of color aberrations... but what we perceive as what it’s out there is not inverted, crisp, clear, white corrected, line corrected, and the list goes on
So as we can’t have such a camera body, we need some more sophisticated lenses to try to mimic reality.
Try to reproduce a face for medical biometrics (size, color, perspective…) and you know what I’m saying.
-
For me, it was never bare resolution or ”sharpness.” In fact, somewhere there must be all the articles I wrote way back then pointing out that IMO what is called sharpness very much depends not on sheer acutance alone or resolution, but on how the edges are corrected. It was the degradation of color from lack of APO correction that I was disturbed by. I felt that sharpness could not be considered without taking correction into account, etc.
Otherwise I would not have sold off my Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm and 100mm, which were sharp enough, but for which the color was not corrected well enough and to my eyes they were too “contrasty.” I found lenses like the Voigtlander 125mm APO-Lanthar f.2.5 and the Leica 100mm APO Macro Emarit-R more to my taste. And I found the very sharp and very well-corrected Coastal Optics APO 60mm f/4 lens perfect as a copy lens, but lacking character IMO if used for other work. Perhaps a lens has to have enough flaws to have character, but that does not amount IMO to opening the door to uncorrected lenses and expecting to see something desirable just because they lack correction. LOL.
What I totally agree with is the suggestion to choose a lens for the kind of work you are doing. I have very well corrected lenses, some that are fast wide-open, but I also have a whole collection lenses that are full of distortion, but of a kind I find useful.
Examples would be the Trioplan 100mm, the Zeiss Biotar-style lenses, Meyer optics, lenses with swirly bokeh, and right on down the line. I think that Klaus Scmitt and I call this “lens painting.” I also have lenses like the CRT-Nikkor that are specially distorted in a way I find beautiful.
Then, I have many older lenses with a special draw or character, like the Noct Nikkor, 50 mm 1.2 Nikkor, El Nikkor 105mm APO, a ton of old 55mm Micro-Nikkors and on and on.
And I still have the old standby nikkors, 14-24mm, 24-70mm, and 70-mm.
So, there are many lenses, many styles of lenses, and many ways to use lenses.
I find it hard to fit into many of these kind of discussions, because I stack focus. And to do that, I have an actual need for fast, highly-corrected-wide-open lenses, again: for a specific purpose, to have great bokeh, but to also have razor-thin ultra-sharp focus, so that I can paint layers of focus against that bokeh background.
So, I found those articles interesting, at best, but not very much related to my work, except as I mentioned, choosing a lens for specific work.
-
can we characterize the phenomenon that is called "3D rendition"?
Yes. Schneider APO Digitar:
http://fotokontext.de/DSC_7706_v1.jpg
And. Nikkor APO Macro:
http://fotokontext.de/POR_5138_vitamin_e.jpg
http://fotokontext.de/Rindsrouladen_ABC_7026_merged_8bit.jpg
-
I am not impressed by the methodology used to "prove" the points being made. Therefore I discount the opinions of the blogger and await the opinions of a more careful researcher.
-
Andy, if you know the blogger, why not invite him to this thread so that we could all get answers first hand?
-
this is showing up in several forae now - it is pure fun in his blog....long noses will survive - i hope at least for my kids
a thesis with generally perceived truth content thrown in a group and in a sudden everybody knows something about it
with these accurate diagrams you might even proof that new digital Lomo is the worst macro camera exisiting - o.k. this might be true
-
So the only way to confirm the 3D vs flat issue would be if someone has the mentioned lenses, tries them out, and shares with us the results.
If the argument is that older lenses with fewer elements create a more 3 dimensional image than newer lenses with more elements, couldn't this be compared with any old manual nikkor prime lens vs say a 24-70mm or 70-200mm?
-
.
-
The rendering of a scene doesn't necessary come down to just one factor. The optics surely play a role, but so does the quality of the light, the angel of the light and the contrast in a scene. I really dont understand why you are discussing just one factor of the equation without even considering the others? Seem quite odd to me ::)
-
The rendering of a scene doesn't necessary come down to just one factor. The optics surely play a role, but so does the quality of the light, the angel of the light and the contrast in a scene. I really dont understand why you are discussing just one factor of the equation without even considering the others? Seem quite odd to me ::)
Take the meat picture as an example. I took a whole series (other meat products) with a current (2009) Micro-Nikkor 60mm (D or G, do not remember). Compared to the APO ED Nikkor the pictures look "flat".
I feel that also has to do with the movements I applied, not only with the lens itself. In that sense the portrait shot is more of a reference because it is not taken at F=16 but wide open at f=5.6 and both standarts in parallel.
-
Compare to the APO ED Nikkor the pictures look "flat".
What exactly is the "APO ED Nikkor" referred to here?
-
Take the meat picture as an example. I took a whole series (other meat products) with a current (2009) Micro-Nikkor 60mm (D or G, do not remember). Compare to the APO ED Nikkor the pictures look "flat".
"The meat" picture has incredibly flat lighting on a featureless white background, the flatness of that image has far more to do with those choices than it does lens choice.
If anyone was to make a comparison of image depth based on lens choice alone why not use the same camera position, subject, and lighting across all images?
It seems anyone could pick a lens and curate flat or 3D images from lighting conditions alone to support their argumenst.
-
What exactly is the "APO ED Nikkor" referred to here?
Frank might refer to the AM-ED Nikkor 120 mm f/5.6 for large-format cameras. It's a stellar performer.
-
My comment above was indeed my first announcement of returning to Nikon, and FX.
An FX camera with the 16MP sensor would make more sense in this context, but neither Df or D4s was within my budget.
Welcome back to Nikon Akira and thank you for sharing the reasons behind the switch, its always interesting what drives others in their choice of gear.
Myself I'm also on the fence to add the Nikon D500 to my arsenal, there's only one thing standing in the way besides availability and thats my desire to own the Canon 100-400 and those two don't mix :-\ One of my reasons to switch to Sony is the ability to cherry pick lenses from multiple brands but a camera like the D500 is the reason why I fell in love with Nikon as a brand (top performance in a tough and dependable package).
-
Yes. Schneider APO Digitar:
http://fotokontext.de/DSC_7706_v1.jpg
And. Nikkor APO Macro:
http://fotokontext.de/POR_5138_vitamin_e.jpg
http://fotokontext.de/Rindsrouladen_ABC_7026_merged_8bit.jpg
OK. Got the point. Still difficult to explain or prove or measure. But, again, I think that your lighting was essential, the lens possibly playing a secondary role (as long as it is no bad glass).
-
Frank might refer to the AM-ED Nikkor 120 mm f/5.6 for large-format cameras. It's a stellar performer.
Yes. At the moment I took these pictures they were absolutely revealing to me and I still feel the structure of the meat pops out of the frame, although the standards of the current generation 810, 750 set the bar higher that the humle D3 could deliver.
-
Yes. At the moment I took these pictures they were absolutely revealing to me and I still feel the structure of the meat pops out of the frame, although the standards of the current generation 810, 750 set the bar higher that the humle D3 could deliver.
Would the Nikon Nikkor AM-ED 120mm f/5.6 lens fit on the Balpro bellows? Could one use the Copal #0 mount? Would this then work with the D810?
-
Would the Nikon Nikkor AM-ED 120mm f/5.6 lens fit on the Balpro bellows? Could one use the Copal #0 mount? Would this then work with the D810?
The 120 ED will fit on most bellows. I used it with a Novoflex unit and the PB-4, plus of course on my Arca-Swiss F-Line technical camera for shooting on 120 film and 4x5" sheet film.
Any mounting arrangement is facilitated by the capability for the lens to be split in two halves so you can push one part through the appropriate hole, then reattach the other half. You could use either the Copal shutter as is or set it to "T" and use the camera to control the exposure. Be prepared to use washers to ensure the lens is safely and snugly attached to its mounting board.
I used the lens with a D800 so D810 should pose no problem ...
-
The 120 ED will fit on most bellows. I used it with a Novoflex unit and the PB-4, plus of course on my Arca-Swiss F-Line technical camera for shooting on 120 film and 4x5" sheet film.
Any mounting arrangement is facilitated by the capability for the lens to be split in two halves so you can push one part through the appropriate hole, then reattach the other half. You could use either the Copal shutter as is or set it to "T" and use the camera to control the exposure. Be prepared to use washers to ensure the lens is safely and snugly attached to its mounting board.
I used the lens with a D800 so D810 should pose no problem ...
Thanks much. What would I need to put it on the PB-4?
Also, is the lens up to the D810? Could it work well on a 50 MPx camera? Is it a real APO? Macro?
-
Thanks much. What would I need to put it on the PB-4?
Also, is the lens up to the D810? Could it work well on a 50 MPx camera? Is it a real APO? Macro?
Not much. For the makeshift arrangement in front of me: Nikon BR-2 (to provide the F bayonet), a T2-M39 step ring, 37-52 step-up ring. The latter 2 items just act as spacers and centering alignment.
It is a perfectly symmetric design optimised for the 1:5 to 5:1 range.
Perhaps it's better to start a separate thread on the 120 APO or similar optics?
-
Perhaps it's better to start a separate thread on the 120 APO or similar optics?
Please do. I have a few more questions that I asked and still would love an answer. Is is really APO? Does it outperform the D810 sensor? Beyond?
-
Yes. Schneider APO Digitar:
http://fotokontext.de/DSC_7706_v1.jpg
And. Nikkor APO Macro:
http://fotokontext.de/POR_5138_vitamin_e.jpg
http://fotokontext.de/Rindsrouladen_ABC_7026_merged_8bit.jpg
How can we compare them?
How can we say that one is more "3D" than the other if they all are different elements, perspective and light?
-
Andy, if you know the blogger, why not invite him to this thread so that we could all get answers first hand?
Jakov,
sorry, I don't know Yannick personally. Just came across his blog and shared the link.
May I share my thoughts?
At the end of the day, every photographer should select his equipment according to his/her own needs. Additional information from the Internet is nice, but doesn't replace this original requirement.
While I do see the benefit of reproducible test setups like DXOmark and others for some gear attributes, as well as the "professional reviewer scene" in the web, I also enjoy the more entertaining kind of coverage some people spent time on producing. (Like this Australian blogger with the Zeiss 2/100mm Macro Planar (http://lenses-review.blogspot.co.at/2009/11/carl-zeiss-100mm-f2-review-aka_16.html)). Enjoyable.
But I also like the other extreme, like Falk Lumo's papers on image sharpness (http://falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/sharpness/index.html). Insightful.
The way how I see this:
Like everybody here in this forum, Yannick put some of the lenses he had experiences with in his diagram. Scientific approach? Nil. Why should he. He just used his personal judgement according to his needs and experiences to place the individual lenses in his diagrams. I would not see any value in arguing with him, which of his lenses should be where - as this is his personal assertation. Mine would be very likely different.
I rather apply the structure of his approach to my personal experiences and try to extract value by the style of his thinking, not by the statements about individual lenses.
rgds,
Andy
-
Andy, of course you may share your thoughts and I am glad you did because I like them very much!
-
I completely agree with your post Andy!
-
An interesting reading, especially because he's the first I see going into raptures about the Voigtländer 58/1.4, while the Nikkor 58/1.4, although designed with 3D in mind, gets a bashing. i'd like to read Fons' opinion here.
-
Not much. For the makeshift arrangement in front of me: Nikon BR-2 (to provide the F bayonet), a T2-M39 step ring, 37-52 step-up ring. The latter 2 items just act as spacers and centering alignment.
The T2-39 step ring : is this T2 to step-up to 39mm ....or T2 to step-down to 39mm
-
The latter. T2 is the largest.
These are just suggestions for spacers. I'm sure lots of alternatives exist.
-
AM ED Nikkor 120/5.6 is optimized for 1:1, so the optics should be perfectly symmetrical. If so, you can simply screw BR-2(A) into the 52mm (front) filter thread of the lens and mount on anything you want, PB-4 bellows, K ring or PK/PN extension tubes.
-
Welcome back to Nikon Akira and thank you for sharing the reasons behind the switch, its always interesting what drives others in their choice of gear.
Myself I'm also on the fence to add the Nikon D500 to my arsenal, there's only one thing standing in the way besides availability and thats my desire to own the Canon 100-400 and those two don't mix :-\ One of my reasons to switch to Sony is the ability to cherry pick lenses from multiple brands but a camera like the D500 is the reason why I fell in love with Nikon as a brand (top performance in a tough and dependable package).
Thanks, Jan. There are other reasons for my return, but I'd better refrain from being off-topic here.
-
Yannick's triangle and the line of realism, a line of "trade offs and compromise", is a decision making tool that I have come across before in the contexts of management decision making and in the context of home house buying. At worst it is a frame work for managing the subjecticve elements of decision making. Yannick's triangle may not suit everone, but those with a will to do so can develop similar such tools to assist them in their own purchasing trade offs.
In the instance of house buying, the three corners of the triangle are usually Size, Quality, and Price. Any two of of these three elements have a relationship to the third element, as well as other factors, e.g. an inexpensive house of high quality is likely to be very small and so on. House location is another factor that is probably a part of the Quality factor and so forth.
Apart from his obvious sense of humour, Yannick's contribution is to show us that there are ways that we can individually put some structure into how we make our purchasing decisions. Our end choices do not have to be the same as his or to each other however.
Jakov,
sorry, I don't know Yannick personally. Just came across his blog and shared the link.
May I share my thoughts?
At the end of the day, every photographer should select his equipment according to his/her own needs. Additional information from the Internet is nice, but doesn't replace this original requirement.
While I do see the benefit of reproducible test setups like DXOmark and others for some gear attributes, as well as the "professional reviewer scene" in the web, I also enjoy the more entertaining kind of coverage some people spent time on producing. (Like this Australian blogger with the Zeiss 2/100mm Macro Planar (http://lenses-review.blogspot.co.at/2009/11/carl-zeiss-100mm-f2-review-aka_16.html)). Enjoyable.
But I also like the other extreme, like Falk Lumo's papers on image sharpness (http://falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/sharpness/index.html). Insightful.
The way how I see this:
Like everybody here in this forum, Yannick put some of the lenses he had experiences with in his diagram. Scientific approach? Nil. Why should he. He just used his personal judgement according to his needs and experiences to place the individual lenses in his diagrams. I would not see any value in arguing with him, which of his lenses should be where - as this is his personal assertation. Mine would be very likely different.
I rather apply the structure of his approach to my personal experiences and try to extract value by the style of his thinking, not by the statements about individual lenses.
rgds,
Andy
-
AM ED Nikkor 120/5.6 is optimized for 1:1, so the optics should be perfectly symmetrical. If so, you can simply screw BR-2(A) into the 52mm (front) filter thread of the lens and mount on anything you want, PB-4 bellows, K ring or PK/PN extension tubes.
That is true. I use the APO Digitar for Table top, Portraits and infinity, the APO Nikkor for Table top, close up and smaller object size. I think this is a good solution for adaptation: http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/products/cameras/p-slr/ esp. if you are already invested into the Sinar System (you can use everything with everything).
I will post some more examples.
PerdoS: I did not shoot anything for this thread. I just grabbed some customers files from the past (more to follow) to give a rough idea what the concept of "3d-rendering" lenses could mean.
Cheers
Frank
-
Here are some examples of the APO Digitar performance in Table tops:
(for my eyes esp. the Bulgur shot is eye popping, even in the resized version)
(these are cusomer rejects "too oriental style". The customer bought shots with the 1.8/85mm in the end, backlit modern look: http://www.elf42.de/projekte/diyar-gmbh/index.html )
-
AM ED Nikkor 120/5.6 is optimized for 1:1, so the optics should be perfectly symmetrical. If so, you can simply screw BR-2(A) into the 52mm (front) filter thread of the lens and mount on anything you want, PB-4 bellows, K ring or PK/PN extension tubes.
The optical design is indeed perfectly symmetric. However, it still is beneficial to mount the lens in the intended manner, with the mounting plate at the middle section, due to the better weight distribution and dampening of vibrations from the shutter unit. The filter threads are 52 mm, but not designed for carrying much weight.
-
I see. So far as the weight distribution is concerned, supporting the lens with the lens board would be ideal. The weight of the lens itself should not be that significant compared to 105mm micros, but the necessary extension could be too long to support the lens the way I described.
-
Detail rendering is also very nice. This product shot is 51 Megapixels in the original:
-
1) can we characterize the phenomenon that is called "3D rendition"?
One thing for sure is our DSLR(s) and their lenses do not produce three dimensional images. They are strictly two dimensional images with linear perspective that was promoted in western art by Filippo Brunelleschi. His demonstration at the Florentine Baptistery comes to mind where people looked through a hole in a painting at the Baptistery then he pass a mirror in front so they could see the perspective in the painting was the same as look directly at the actual Baptistery.
For a 2-D image to evoke a 3-D perception two things come to mind: light that shows the form of the subject and perspective. In the photos of the woman at the camera show notice that the photo made with the AF 28/2.0D Nikkor has the subject face turned slightly to the left such that the light gives a better impression of the form of the face and the highlights on the skin gives more life to the image as well, moreover the head is tilled towards the forward shoulder in a feminine manner and the woman is smiling. Come on! This stacks the odd in favor of that photo and has nothing to do with the lens. By comparison the photo with the Zeiss Otus shows the woman with her face almost square to the camera which does less to invoke a feeling of depth while the expression is graceless by comparison.
If a photo looks lifeless it may lack mid range contrast. A log dynamic range recorded in RAW data is great but rendering it linear with the flat picture control with Nikon NEF(s) will usually result in a very flat, dull, lifeless image. I use it from time to time as a starting point for post processing. Highlights also give sparkle to an image.
Saying an image is "3-D" must surely means something other than it's a 3-D image. What it means to each person may vary but it can only mean the image invokes a 3-D impression. I'm generally unimpressed by the articles as the photos don't support the conclusions to my satisfaction. I'm not saying there isn't a difference in the image created by a simple design v. one with may groups and elements, special glass and hybrid aspheric elements. I don't own any recent Nikkor lenses but I do wonder about the very high element and group counts. I own two lenses with a single hybrid aspheric element. I wonder about these also.
That's my 2 cents.
Dave
-
"Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.8G (8 elements including 1 plastic hybrid asph), Notice the flat nose and head." --The Problem with Modern Optics by YANNICK KHONG
I notice flat light and no catch light in the eyes. I'd have doctored the image a bit to give some "snap" to the image.
"Nikkor AF 35mm f2D (6 elements of multicoated pure glass), Notice the 3d nose and head." --The Problem with Modern Optics by YANNICK KHONG
I notice daylight, increased contrast, soft highlights on the skin and catch lights in the eyes. A slightly greater viewing distance would have produced a bit more flattering perspective.
As to noses the first lady has a flatter nose while the second has a more prominent nose accentuated by a close viewing distance.
"Nikkor AF 105 f2DC (6 elements of multicoated pure glass) Notice the 3d nose, head and trees" --The Problem with Modern Optics by YANNICK KHONG
The hypothesis of the article impedes my enjoyment of the photographs.
Dave who is still unimpressed.
I'll try reading some more.
-
"They are not about:
Being portable: They are made with big comfortable full hand grips to be held for long shooting hours using any lenses (heavy or not).
Being light: The working camera needs to house great energy feeding batteries, powerful processors to execute the various camera hardware and software task. It needs to balance with the heavy lenses you might be using.
Being hard to operate: Some cameras offer constraints to slow down your pace and thought. Some cameras can’t offer a fluid enough operational experience to make you forget about the camera. The work camera can’t be blamed for state of mind because it’s harder to operate.
Being the answer to everything: no unfortunately work-focused cameras are made to serve a specialty. " --Thoughts on the Right Camera and Lenses by YANNICK KHONG
He has lost me.
Dave
-
I think it is much more the problem that sharpness is an attainable goal and one that people can actually reach routinely.
Thus sharpness becomes THE important goal - and the first criticism about a failed image is about the technical issues often a lack of sharpness or color 'correctness.'
Those kinds of technical issues are easy to pick on when the real failure of an image is in the mind and eye of the maker.
I had posted this elsewhere as one of of my favorite pictures - and the technical issues are irrelevant to me.
(Perhaps/almost certainly I am biased because I took the picture and it is of my granddaughters)
Lots of technical 'faults' but.....
-
Dave, thanks for sharing your thoughts about the possible interpretation of "3D". The chief merit of the article is, it is thought-provoking. That being said, I just spent a weekend with the 5-element Nikkor 105/2.5, never getting tired of it...
Lew, ... but there's life pouring out of the screen.
-
...I just spent a weekend with the 5-element Nikkor 105/2.5, never getting tired of it...
My first lens when I bought a Nikkormat FTn back in 1970 was a 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor-P. The second was a 105/2.5 Nikkor-P. I bailed out of Nikon in 1976 before Nikon started advertising multi-coated lenses. I started a new Nikon system in 1978 as planed with a 55/3.5 AI Micro-Nikkor followed shortly with a 105/2.5 AI Nikkor. In 1990 I bought my first AF Nikon a Nikon F4s. My first AF lens was an AF 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. Nikon has never made an AF 105/2.5 or that would have been my second AF lens. Nikon has failed me.
I own almost all of the Nikkor lenses I bought from 1978 to date. I wish I still owned my 105/2.5 AI but I still own a 105/2.5 AIS I bought a few years later. I gave the AI to pay a debt. Unfortunately I find focusing the 105/2.5 on my D800 quite difficult so I don't use it much.
Dave
-
I am in search of the 135/2.8 AIS now :)
Jakov,
I believe the lens in the article is a 135/2.8 Series E which as I recall is single coated. I recommend the 135/2.8 AI or AIS instead. The 135/2.8 AI and AIS do not have the reputation of the 105/2.5 AI and AIS but I place it in the same league. It's a wonderful lens.
If you get a 135/2.8 AIS note that it has a wobbly built in hood. I ignore the built in hood and use a Nikon HS-14 or HS-8 lens hood. I don't bother to reverse the hood though I'm quite sure the HS-14 can be reversed on the AIS. I use a No. G Tupperware tumbler cap as a lens cap. Those deep lens hoods give considerable freedom from flare and ghost. I use the same lens hoods on the 105/2.5 AIS for the same reasons.
Best,
Dave
-
On Df the 105 is easy to focus. I used it a bit on D800 and do not remember major difficulties; at least, none compared to the 20/2.8 AIS (with which I often had to revert to LV)
-
Lew. The shot of the two girls is adorable.
My theory is that perfection in a technical sense can always be attained by professionals in a fully controlled
studio environment.
Big Science is to achieve same in natural light with real people like you did.
-
One of the important functions of photography is to convey some abstract things called feelings, atmosphere, mood, etc. in which the technical perfection is not the priority. Lew's image is an excellent example of that.
-
Saying an image is "3-D" must surely means something other than it's a 3-D image. What it means to each person may vary but it can only mean the image invokes a 3-D impression.
Dave,
I think the "challenge" for us is to find the proper definition what we mean by this term. Adding to this exercise the soft terms "impression" and "perception" doesn't make it easier either.
For instance:
This image, shot with the AiS 300mm/2 wide open, creates for me a more intense impression of depth and plasiticity in this image than other lenses. (Image just croped and resized). Would I go as far by claiming that the lens draws "3D" ? Probably not. But it still leaves me with a particular impression of plasticity I like with this image - taken with this particular lens. Would I know, how to measure this impression? No. Is it there? Yes (for me).
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/128558320/original.jpg)
Here is another example with the same lens. While it shows the nice shallow DOF this lens is famous for, the "3D" effect is not visible in this image. Which means for me, it is not only dependent on the lens characteristics alone, or on the scenery alone as well, but it seems to require a combination of both to produce this (for me) unique impression.
(http://www.pbase.com/andrease/image/128558325/original.jpg)
rgds,
Andy
-
Jakov,
I believe the lens in the article is a 135/2.8 Series E which as I recall is single coated. I recommend the 135/2.8 AI or AIS instead. The 135/2.8 AI and AIS do not have the reputation of the 105/2.5 AI and AIS but I place it in the same league. It's a wonderful lens.
If you get a 135/2.8 AIS note that it has a wobbly built in hood. I ignore the built in hood and use a Nikon HS-14 or HS-8 lens hood. I don't bother to reverse the hood though I'm quite sure the HS-14 can be reversed on the AIS. I use a No. G Tupperware tumbler cap as a lens cap. Those deep lens hoods give considerable freedom from flare and ghost. I use the same lens hoods on the 105/2.5 AIS for the same reasons.
Best,
Dave
Dear Dave,
Thank you so much for your detailed response.
Yes, as I said I was looking into a 135/2.8 AIS.
I agree on the choice of lens hood as I have disabled practically the one on the 105/2.8 AIS that I have with an HS-8 clip-on hood that is always situated in its position. Having said that the clip-on does clip-off easily when I accidentally bang the lens hood.
I always wanted to own both DC lenses 105/2 and 135/2 but could never justify the expenses they entail.
One of the main reasons why I bought 70-200/2.8 was not to be bother with all the in between focal lengths. Then I was young and unwise :)
I have a few 85 and 105 mm lenses and I recently acquired the 180/2.8 AIS and I am enjoying them more than I ever enjoyed 70-200/2.8 (I don't mean professional or event photography when I say this - then I want only the zoom).
What's missing in my bag is a 135 mm and I'll probably go for the 135/2 DC even though it's rather pricey.
I could buy three 135/2.8 AIS for the same investment, hence my dilemma ::)
Thanks, Jakov
-
Both articles are interesting, providing some food for thought. Long before this man wrote this material, there was a Scandinavian guy Rorslett, who wrote a wonderful Nikon lens compendium and used a very good rating system. This was also helpful in that there were some early lenses which simply did not do well with digital.
I only have two "acceptable" lenses as per Mr. Khong - the Zeiss 50 Makro and the 105 2.5 Ai. That I still have them is a tribute to their inherent goodness. But if I took everything this man wrote as gospel I would be selling my Otus and other modern lenses post haste. And that is not going to happen.
One more observation before I go: Mr. Khong's images, while convincing to him, would be more acceptable had he shot the same scene with both modern and old lens designs. Then, if the comparable images showed what he wished to demonstrate, the message might carry more weight.
-
John, I completely agree with you and many others have stated the same. Without a direct comparison between old and new lenses I guess we will never know.
That's why it would be nice, if someone has for instance the 35/1.8G and the 35/2D to make a small 3D test :)
-
Lovely girls Lew, you are doubly blessed, I have only one granddaughter but she is extra special to me as you would expect!
-
Mr. Khong loves to write, but I get the impression that he is an internet crackpot.
In every photograph I've seen that is shown as an example the so-called "3D effect"...not Mr. Khong's shots, but the nice ones you see at FM Forums... the effect comes from, in declining order of importance:
1. Lighting..direction and quality
2. Staging...the arrangement of subject and background and the choice of focal length.
3. Choice of subject contrast in relation to background....the red clothing against the blue sky, light object in a dark field,etc.
4. Graphic contrast...the processing of the photo.
5. Last, and least: The imaging performance of the lens.
"3D effect" is, presently, a ill defined social media term, right alongside "microcontrast".
-
The sensor or film also play a small role in this ;)
-
Lovely image of your granddaughters, Lew!
Long time no see, I remember you from the old NG site. Nice too see you again!
-
I don't own any recent Nikkor lenses but I do wonder about the very high element and group counts. I own two lenses with a single hybrid aspheric element. I wonder about these also.
I think there are several reasons why today's lenses have more elements on average than older ones.
- with digital, demands have gone way up because we can see more defects
- importance of the rays coming onto the sensor at a right angle
- coating technology has improved, making more elements possible without massive light losses
- faster computers to optimize and take advantage of more complex designs
- general demands for faster lenses and lenses where the whole aperture range offers a great performance vs. lenses which have to be stopped down to achieve that
-
Why do we need very fast lenses now that sensor can easily do 6400 ISO and more? I remember when 400 ISO was considered fast and 1600 ISO was very fast film.
-
We don't really need it, but the demand is clearly there. The dynamics of the market lead to such developments; there is initial demand, then more and more makers catch on and there is a lot of innovation which leads to a breakthrough, this is also marketed to the consumer and demand increases even more once people see what they can achieve.
For instance with the Otus lenses, Zeiss also gave incentives for other companies to try and compete to offer almost the same performance in a cheaper and lighter package. Why didn't they do it earlier? Besides technological reasons an important reason is perhaps that once a benchmark is set, this takes away some of the risk for other manufacturers (suddenly a 2000$ lens seems cheap when compared to an Otus, especially if it comes close in performance) and also alters the perception of the customer base.
I'd like to see some moderately fast lenses that are well corrected.
I think if Zeiss made a slower line parallel to the Otus line of lenses, but otherwise with the same ambition, they would be much lighter, a lot cheaper and sell very well. I'm not going to buy the 28/1.4, but I would probably buy a 28/2.
-
Why do we need very fast lenses now that sensor can easily do 6400 ISO and more? I remember when 400 ISO was considered fast and 1600 ISO was very fast film.
Smoother boke, better DOF control at longer distances, easier to manual focus on mirrorless (thinner focus peaking zone) and yes less light is needed to bag a shot.
High ISO capability is nice to have but the IQ and DR penalties are still present, not an issue for all images but some could benefit from better DR.
-
For certain the Otus series of lenses is not designed for stacking flower shots, no intension of putting that down! But these are intended for pro work in the paid end for specific tasks. I could for instance shoot product images with them - But I prefer a less sharp lens that has a gentle roll off and gentle transitions, fits much better for my style for product photography.
Fast lenses are of course still for having slim DOF and low ISO for max IQ.
If you don't need that always go for another slower smaller lens that suits your task - There will never be one single do all lens ;)
This is like the mirrorless vs DSLR subject; Different tools for different jobs!
-
Smoother boke, better DOF control at longer distances, easier to manual focus on mirrorless (thinner focus peaking zone) and yes less light is needed to bag a shot.
High ISO capability is nice to have but the IQ and DR penalties are still present, not an issue for all images but some could benefit from better DR.
I agree to that, but still my A7 II can do things things that I could only dream about with film.
-
My general compromise is modern, well corrected f/1.8-f/2 lenses, like Zeiss Batis 25/2, Zony 55/1.8 and Zony 135/1.8 on a full frame Sony A7 II.
My general feeling has bern that f/1.4 lenses in addition to increased bulk, could be better corrected at f/1.4, than has often been the case historically. This of course puts me in the camp of those wishing for modern well corrected lenses with few(er) aberrations, if f/1.4 is to be worthwhile for me. In the case of actual lenses this would lead me to prefer a Sigma Art 50/1.4 over a classical Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D. However the Sigma Art 50/1.4 is bulky. So, f/1.8 to the rescue.
-
Why do we need very fast lenses now that sensor can easily do 6400 ISO and more? I remember when 400 ISO was considered fast and 1600 ISO was very fast film.
For the music venues i shoot, ISO 9000 at f/2 pretty much the norm. Perhaps you have no need for speed, others do. I certainly would never want to deal with the limitations of film. Film is the reason why all the live music photography done in small dark venues from the 90s and earlier were done with flash. ISO 1600 at f/1.2 wouldn't be fast enough in many of these scenarios. So out came the flashgun to rudely distract everyone there to watch a show and provide ugly pictures to boot. I'm ok with that considering there were no options at the time, but nowdays I consider it a dick move to use a flashgun at such shows. There are places where slow lenses have no place to be.
Then there is the fact that fast speeds have a look slow lenses will never be able to provide. Again, you may not want it, but I wouldn't trade my 50mm f/1.2 for a 50mm f/2.8 under any regards. Too slow for me.d
-
Very interesting. The two above links has reinforced much of what I think and regurgitated in forums. It is comforting to think that I am not alone.
-
The blogger's comments really resonate with me but the devil is in the details. More details here: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/3/7/sigma-art-vs-nikkor-afd-part-1
-
(http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-08-2016/JA0iiZ.gif)
Can you spot which is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D and which is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art? Someone was helpful enough to make this gif.
While it is certainly subtle, the Sigma's dynamic range in light is compressed compared to the Nikkor. My best attempt at using my musician lingo to describe the difference in the two. That is what makes the Art images I've seen feel a bit dull. Over all the seem contrasty, the tonal difference feel squished.
-
(http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-08-2016/JA0iiZ.gif)
Can you spot which is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D and which is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art? Someone was helpful enough to make this gif.
While it is certainly subtle, the Sigma's dynamic range in light is compressed compared to the Nikkor. My best attempt at using my musician lingo to describe the difference in the two. That is what makes the Art images I've seen feel a bit dull. Over all the seem contrasty, the tonal difference feel squished.
The Sigma is the wider one..?
-
Sten, I don't want to give away the answer yet so others can try and see if they can tell. There are some clear indicators in the image that distinguish which is which though ;)
One thing I should point out though is that the Sigma Art lenses proved to be a bit wider than the nikkors with both the 35mm and 50mm. The person who made this gif aligned/cropped the images so the perspective is not exactly the same which effects how wide the background looks.
-
You might be interested in this:
The problem with modern optics
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/2/23/the-problem-with-modern-optics
Thoughts on the right kind of cameras and lenses
http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2016/01/31/right-gear
rgds,
Andy
PS: might contribute to the current Otus debate
I may be in the minority, but I thought the article was terrible. Full of apples vs. oranges examples that serve to "prove" his point(s). Everything is so subjective that is seems to be a great morass of text that really can't support any solid conclusions IMHO.
Give me some true side-by-side apples vs. apples comparisons with same camera, photographer, subject, lighting, distance to subject, etc. etc. and then it would be useful.
-
On a purely scientific basis, I tend to agree. However, that is not the point. We need to learn to understand that lenses are not objective in the way they capture our images.
-
Give me some true side-by-side apples vs. apples comparisons with same camera, photographer, subject, lighting, distance to subject, etc. etc. and then it would be useful.
Perhaps you missed the link at the bottom of the previous page in this thread, he has provided just what you ask for.
-
Sten, I don't want to give away the answer yet so others can try and see if they can tell. There are some clear indicators in the image that distinguish which is which though ;)
One thing I should point out though is that the Sigma Art lenses proved to be a bit wider than the nikkors with both the 35mm and 50mm. The person who made this gif aligned/cropped the images so the perspective is not exactly the same which effects how wide the background looks.
Well, you GAVE the answer! :D The IF and RF design shortens its focal length when focused closer, which is common phenomena.
-
The contributed GIF is interesting indeed. If it can demonstrate something, it will probably be that the lens brand, cost, or generation hardly matter.
I do not expect to see a lot from compressed files, but I nevertheless tried very hard to see differences *suggested*. So yes, on the picture with the wider angle, one may see *traces* of something looking like compression (whites becoming gray-ish?), given that the rest of the picture is exposed the same way in both versions. The nuance is such faint that it is not only close to irrelevant, but could be "suggested".
Worse, lenses being passive and linear devices (WRT light intensity), I do not expect them to perform any "compression" owing to glass quality or number of elements. When a compression algorithm has been at work for producing the final image, I won't point my finger at the lens anyway.
This is not to negate that lenses have their own character, as often convincingly demonstrated here, not even needing A/B comparisons. While I definitely had sympathy for the thesis exposed in the first page of the present thread, I get more and more convinced, now that we are on page 8, that it has no merits.
-
Things like the highlights being grey are exactly what I mean by the range of light being compressed. Of course, whether one feels it is a significant difference is another matter.
-
Significance is of course a matter of perception, hence personal. But then, establishing a causality link is more questionable, and not a matter of perception.
-
I'm not seeing much difference between them, contrast-wise. Note: I'm viewing on a 13" laptop, so my observation may be of reduced value.
-
I'm not seeing much difference between them, contrast-wise. Note: I'm viewing on a 13" laptop, so my observation may be of reduced value.
Same here...
-
(http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/3-08-2016/JA0iiZ.gif)
Can you spot which is the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-D and which is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art? Someone was helpful enough to make this gif.
While it is certainly subtle, the Sigma's dynamic range in light is compressed compared to the Nikkor. My best attempt at using my musician lingo to describe the difference in the two. That is what makes the Art images I've seen feel a bit dull. Over all the seem contrasty, the tonal difference feel squished.
As far as I know the Sigma is pretty well corrected (staight lines are straight) while the Nikkor (I had it for many years) bends the lines quite significantly.
The Sigma is also made to produce more contrast, while the Nikkor is on the soft side at least wide open, so judging from the lines on the throat and the geometrical distortion I'd say the softer one with the bended lines is the Nikkor.
It is very interesting that the foreground is matched to well, esp the white balance. The color of these lenses should be different.
I guess though that the white balance is corrected in post. Very possibly on the gray card below the head.
I further guess the f-stop used in this example is 5.6 or 4, an area where the difference between these lenses is very small anyway.
If I want to shoot at 4.0 or 5.6 or 8.0 I get a better corrected lens of the 2.8 or 2.0 opening.
1.4 lenses I buy because I want to shoot them at 1.4!
-
Things like the highlights being grey are exactly what I mean by the range of light being compressed. Of course, whether one feels it is a significant difference is another matter.
Don't you think that the differences are so small that they can easily be corrected for during RAW conversion? It seems that moving the sliders by a few percent would already make for a bigger change than what we see here.
-
I have a tough time narrowing down exactly what qualities I like from a lens. I agree with those who are skeptical about YK's fundamental "thesis." It is hard for me to see or describe any major differences in the examples he posted. Yet I like the look produced many of the lenses he discusses, like the 35mm f/2. Even if that lens actually does not have any special 3D magic, I like it just as much as the large, modern Sigma for my photography. So I would rather use the smaller, cheaper lens, because the "improvements" of the modern lens don't matter much to me.
-
Don't you think that the differences are so small that they can easily be corrected for during RAW conversion? It seems that moving the sliders by a few percent would already make for a bigger change than what we see here.
The same can be said for many properties of a lens. A softer lens can be sharpened more, a lens with CA can have the CA corrected, a lens with distortion can have the distortion corrected. Where you draw the line and what qualities you prioritize are up to you.
I personally would choose a lens with more pleasing rendering of the range of light and tones than one that is sharper. Reason being, outside of really large prints, the fine detail where the sharpness really shows is lost anyhow. The way the light/tone renders is not. Correcting for the squashed light range the Sigma exhibits above is not as simple as bringing your whites and hilights up and all is well. Anytime you push and pull on an image's exposure, you get closer to running into artifacts. I'd rather the lens give me an image that needs less to look good off the bat, so that I have more latitude to shape it. I have no doubts that most find this negligible, but it is something to be aware of.
-
The same can be said for many properties of a lens. A softer lens can be sharpened more, a lens with CA can have the CA corrected, a lens with distortion can have the distortion corrected. Where you draw the line and what qualities you prioritize are up to you.
I personally would choose a lens with more pleasing rendering of the range of light and tones than one that is sharper. Reason being, outside of really large prints, the fine detail where the sharpness really shows is lost anyhow. The way the light/tone renders is not. Correcting for the squashed light range the Sigma exhibits above is not as simple as bringing your whites and hilights up and all is well. Anytime you push and pull on an image's exposure, you get closer to running into artifacts. I'd rather the lens give me an image that needs less to look good off the bat, so that I have more latitude to shape it. I have no doubts that most find this negligible, but it is something to be aware of.
There is always a question of where to draw a line. Basically, when it becomes very hard/tedious to compensate for lens defects in software, we have passed a line in my book.
In the gif switching back and forth between the Sigma and Nikon lenses, I find the differences in tone very small. I would predict that if you tried to extract the tone curve which transforms one image into the other (neglecting the geometric distortion effects and other subtleties, one could find such a curve), you would find one which is not significantly different from a straight line (no change to the tones). I would also think that given a set of a few dozen images with different scenes you could extract the curve, but applying it would easily even out almost completely any tonal differences between the lenses.
The main point I want to make is not that one should produce such a curve (although it would be a fun experiment), but that any adjustments which we usually make to our images will have a far greater effect.
I think the worry about artifacts is perhaps not required in the case above. When working in 16bit, you have to push tones really hard to see any artifacts. Any white balance adjustment is messing far more with pixel values than the small tonal adjustment to make the Sigma lens look like the Nikon (or vice versa) would be.
-
On a purely scientific basis, I tend to agree. However, that is not the point. We need to learn to understand that lenses are not objective in the way they capture our images.
BUT the method to compare them must be objective in order to be able to make subjective conclusions. You have to use the same image subject lighting, etc. which the original article did not do at all.
The above .gif has subtle differences that are problemmatic to subjectively evaluate because the focal lengths are slightly different with different perspective, etc..
-
I'm about 6 years late to the 'party' on this thread, but I felt like posting a response regarding Yannick's website.
There are some interesting perspectives that he has regarding some lenses (in particular those that render so close to what a cellphone camera will produce). However, the Sigma/Nikon comparison was so close to not really even matter to me as a photographer. It's something that could so easily be changed in less than a minute in post processing.
He also contradicts himself in some ways. He doesn't care for 'unidimensional' lenses (a lens that performs exceedingly well in one category, to the detriment of others) such as the 58mm f/1.4G, but then in another area of his website, he think that a photographer should have something more than three zooms and three primes. In other words, a large collection of glass. A large collection of glass will inevitably contain one or more 'unidimensional' lenses.
I admit that in years past, I was a hardcore gearhead. However, what I realize now looking back is that being a gearhead simply gave me insight not only to lens performance and performance criteria, but it also showed me lenses that work for the kind of photography that I want to do. What Yannick looks for for his own photography is different from others. After so many years, I know what kind of photography I want to do, and I'd rather have a small collection of 'unidimensional' glass that will do an excellent job for the kinds of shots that I want to take.