Yannick Khong: "The Problem with modern Optics"

[Michael Erlewine]

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?

[PedroS]

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]

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). Enjoyable.
But I also like the other extreme, like Falk Lumo's papers on image sharpness. 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

[Jakov Minić]

Andy, of course you may share your thoughts and I am glad you did because I like them very much!

[Erik Lund]

I completely agree with your post Andy!

[Airy]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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

[Birna Rørslett]

The latter. T2 is the largest.

These are just suggestions for spacers. I'm sure lots of alternatives exist.

[Akira]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Hugh_3170]

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). Enjoyable.
But I also like the other extreme, like Falk Lumo's papers on image sharpness. 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

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

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 )

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Akira]

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.