Yannick Khong: "The Problem with modern Optics"

[Mike G]

Lovely girls Lew, you are doubly blessed, I have only one granddaughter but she is extra special to me as you would expect!

[pluton]

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".

[Erik Lund]

The sensor or film also play a small role in this

[bjornthun]

Lovely image of your granddaughters, Lew!

Long time no see, I remember you from the old NG site. Nice too see you again!

[simsurace]

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

[bjornthun]

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.

[simsurace]

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.

[Jan Anne]

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.

[Erik Lund]

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!

[bjornthun]

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.

[bjornthun]

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.

[Tristin]

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

[Gary]

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.

[Chip Chipowski]

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

[Tristin]

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.