Yannick Khong: "The Problem with modern Optics"

[Frank Fremerey]

Detail rendering is also very nice. This product shot is 51 Megapixels in the original:

[David H. Hartman]

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

[David H. Hartman]

"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.

[David H. Hartman]

"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

[The_Traveler]

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.....

[Airy]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

...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

[David H. Hartman]

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

[Airy]

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)

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[Andy]

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).



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.



rgds,
Andy

[Jakov Minić]

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

[JohnBrew]

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.

[Jakov Minić]

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