Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: D800 walk around lens?  (Read 25064 times)
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2012, 09:24:01 AM »
ReplyReply

You would be happy with lens quality in all current T/S lenses. I'd be surprised if Nikon updates their current lineup, but you never can be too certain. All three focal lengths are of quality glass. They also fall short in terms of mechanical precision. Like Marc, I have yet to find much use in Tilting with landscape work, but shifting is far easier and more effective then reducing tripod height.

Yes, I understand that the quality is quite good. I just am intrigued by the possibilities involving tilt/swing, and would be interested in experimenting with it.

Brian
Logged
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2012, 09:27:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The new Tamron 24-70 with image stabilisation is by all accounts as good as the Nikon 24-70 (with the added benefit of the IS) and should be way better than the 24-120.

This is good to know, but looking over my favorite landscapes, I find that some of them were taken around 105mm, so I think a 24-70mm (which was what I was originally planning on getting prior to Michael's review, paired with a single longer prime) just doesn't have the reach I want. I might still go back to my original plan (and if so I'll definitely check out the Tamron), but the idea of being able to work effectively without switching lenses at all is very appealing for when I'm not alone.

Brian
Logged
bdosserman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120


« Reply #62 on: May 22, 2012, 09:28:44 AM »
ReplyReply

well I received the 24-120 today kind of rainy in Tokyo so just a few test shots to see how it holds up to a Leica 28-90R
I think it will be just fine as a walk around lens both shot at f5.6, deconvolution sharpening .7, manual focus w/liveview
it seems the D800E out resolves the 24-120 but the fine detail of the Leica 28-90 is preserved, I focused on the seam in the textured wallpaper
Marc

Good to know; thanks for sharing. I'm hoping I may get mine before traveling to China and Japan and Brazil this summer.

Brian
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #63 on: May 22, 2012, 06:18:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I understand that the quality is quite good. I just am intrigued by the possibilities involving tilt/swing, and would be interested in experimenting with it.

Brian
Brian
Never used one but how about a Cambo X2 pro?
http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item752.html
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
jgbowerman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


Where it all started


WWW
« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2012, 07:58:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Brian
Never used one but how about a Cambo X2 pro?
http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item752.html
Marc

I recently acquired a super rotator. I'm still working on how to implement effective tilt movements, it is nebulous. Having the option to shift and tilt independently may very well enable more creative opportunities, but it is far from intuitive. Independent movements have been of little benefit in my hands thus far. I mostly got the lens for the quality of glass. It makes a good walk around lens, too... as long as you have a tripod attached to it!

Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8899


« Reply #65 on: May 22, 2012, 08:21:19 PM »
ReplyReply

well I received the 24-120 today kind of rainy in Tokyo so just a few test shots to see how it holds up to a Leica 28-90R
I think it will be just fine as a walk around lens both shot at f5.6, deconvolution sharpening .7, manual focus w/liveview
it seems the D800E out resolves the 24-120 but the fine detail of the Leica 28-90 is preserved, I focused on the seam in the textured wallpaper
Marc


Have you mislabelled the shots, Marc? I see greater fine detail in the Nikkor 24-120 crop. On the other hand, the full image from the Leica lens shows far less vignetting, suggesting that you haven't mislabelled the shots. What's going on?  Grin
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2012, 08:38:57 PM »
ReplyReply


Have you mislabelled the shots, Marc? I see greater fine detail in the Nikkor 24-120 crop. On the other hand, the full image from the Leica lens shows far less vignetting, suggesting that you haven't mislabelled the shots. What's going on?  Grin

Ray
I focused on the wallpaper seam centered in the frame. I see a longer finer line in the Leica crop. What area were you looking at? The Leica looks much more like the actual wallpaper also. The leica is less contrasty, I noticed this before when I compared my Canon lenses to Zeiss lenses. Perhaps German designs favor fine detail at the expense of contrast?
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
jgbowerman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


Where it all started


WWW
« Reply #67 on: May 22, 2012, 09:07:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray
I focused on the wallpaper seam centered in the frame. I see a longer finer line in the Leica crop. What area were you looking at? The Leica looks much more like the actual wallpaper also. The leica is less contrasty, I noticed this before when I compared my Canon lenses to Zeiss lenses. Perhaps German designs favor fine detail at the expense of contrast?
Marc

For what it is worth, I appreciated the difference in the seam line. Otherwise, it was very difficult to appreciate a difference short of some vignetting.
Logged

marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #68 on: May 22, 2012, 09:13:29 PM »
ReplyReply

For what it is worth, I appreciated the difference in the seam line. Otherwise, it was very difficult to appreciate a difference short of some vignetting.
In the past I've used textured wallpaper as a good test of corner softness/vignetting etc. the 24-120 holds up well @ f5.6 my Pentax 18-135 was terrible on my K5
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8899


« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2012, 09:21:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray
I focused on the wallpaper seam centered in the frame. I see a longer finer line in the Leica crop. What area were you looking at? The Leica looks much more like the actual wallpaper also. The leica is less contrasty, I noticed this before when I compared my Canon lenses to Zeiss lenses. Perhaps German designs favor fine detail at the expense of contrast?
Marc

Marc,
To my eyes the Nikkor 24-120 shot, comparing the same areas in both crops side by side in Photoshop, appears to give an impression of finer texture, little hairs sticking out all over the place. The Leica crop seems over all smoother. On the other hand, at 200% enlargement, the Nikkor shot gives the impression of having had more sharpening. Have you applied different levels of sharpening to these images?
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2012, 09:31:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Marc,
To my eyes the Nikkor 24-120 shot, comparing the same areas in both crops side by side in Photoshop, appears to give an impression of finer texture, little hairs sticking out all over the place. The Leica crop seems over all smoother. On the other hand, at 200% enlargement, the Nikkor shot gives the impression of having had more sharpening. Have you applied different levels of sharpening to these images?

same processing no sharpening in Capture One,  focus fixer .7 f5.6 for both the hairs don't exist on the wall paper let me go look at the original files
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8899


« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2012, 09:40:01 PM »
ReplyReply

same processing no sharpening in Capture One,  focus fixer .7 f5.6 for both the hairs don't exist on the wall paper let me go look at the original files
Marc

Very short hairs. Just an analogy for the finer texture I see in the Nikkor shot.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #72 on: May 22, 2012, 09:47:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Very short hairs. Just an analogy for the finer texture I see in the Nikkor shot.
Well It's a day off and I have the time and it is a good way to get familiar with a new camera so let me re-shoot it and see what happens!
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8899


« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2012, 09:52:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The new Tamron 24-70 with image stabilisation is by all accounts as good as the Nikon 24-70 (with the added benefit of the IS) and should be way better than the 24-120.

If it's true that the Tamron 24-70 with image stabilisation is as good as the slightly heavier and more expensive Nikkor 24-70, then the choice would appear to be a no-brainer.The walk-around purpose of the lens implies that a tripod will not be used most of the time, therefore image stabilisation is of tremendous benefit.

However, I doubt that the Tamron would be as sharp as the Nikkor, but it might be in the centre. I've seen reports that the Tamron has poor edge performance on full-frame.

If a lens is for general walk-about purposes, there has to be some compromise between maximum performance under ideal conditions, and a degree of flexibility that allows one to get an acceptably sharp shot, as opposed to not getting an acceptably sharp shot and perhaps not getting the shot at all.


Certainly in that range of 24m to 70mm, the 24-70/2.8 should produce marginally, but noticeably, sharper resuslts than the 24-120/F4 does within the same range. However, between about 80mm and 120mm the situation is reversed when one compares the uncropped image from the 24-120/F4 with a 70mm shot from the 24-70/2.8 cropped to the same FoV as the 24-120 used in the range of, say, 80 to120mm.

Out of curiosity, I checked the results at Photozone again for these two lenses.

It seems the situation is far more than merely reversed. Referring to the MTF 50 results at Photozone for these two lenses, tested on the D3X, we find that the 24-70 at 70mm is sharpest at F5.6, producing 3706 LW/PH.

At 120mm the 24-120 is also sharpest at F5.6, producing 3465 LW/PH, in the centre. The difference is 241 LW/PH, or a 7% increase in resolution for the 24-70, at 70mm.

However, if we compare that increased resolution with the increased magnification of the 120mm lens compared with a 70mm lens, we find that the 120mm lens represents a 71% increase in magnification both horizontally and vertically. In other words, if both lenses were the same quality, the 120mm lens would deliver 71% more resolution than the 70mm lens, comparing equal FoV shots taken from the same position.

However, the lenses are not the same quality. The 70mm lens delivers 7% more resolution per unit area of sensor (on the D3X). Subtracting that 7% advantage we get a nett resolution advantage of a whopping 64% for the 120mm lens (71%-7%).

It seems clear that in circumstances when you need a 120mm lens for the desired composition, but your maximum focal length is only a 70mm lens because your walk-around lens is the Nikkor (or Tamron) 24-70/F2.8, then the 24-120/F4 would deliver 64% more resolution at 120mm, which is a far greater increase in resolution than the 24-70/2.8 provides within the range common to both lenses.

At 24mm the 24-70 has a resolution of 3988 LW/PH at its sharpest aperture of F4. The 24-120 at 24mm and F4, also its sharpest aperture, has a resolution of only 3784 LW/PH, 204 line pairs less.

What's the significance of this? An increased resolution of 204 line pairs over 3784, represents an increase in resolution of a mere 5.4%, which pales into insignificance compared with the 64% increase in resolution of the 120mm lens compared with the 70mm lens of the 24-70/2.8, when that image is cropped to the same FoV as the 120mm lens.

I suppose one could argue that the wider aperture of the 24-70 provides a shallow DoF advantage. On the other hand, the VR of the 24-120/F4 will often provide a qualitative advantage for hand-held shots because it enables the use of a slower shutter speed which in turn enables the use of a lower ISO with less noise.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #74 on: May 22, 2012, 10:16:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray
Just for you!
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8899


« Reply #75 on: May 22, 2012, 10:32:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Well It's a day off and I have the time and it is a good way to get familiar with a new camera so let me re-shoot it and see what happens!
Marc

Focussing is absolutely critical with such shots for purposes of resolution comparison. One should also try different apertures. One lens my be sharpest at F5.6 and the other at F4, for example.

I received my D800E yesterday. Ordered it on the 9th of May; received it on the 22nd of May. If I'd ordered the D800, I guess I'd still be waiting for it.

I'm pleased that the D800E takes the same batteries as the D7000 because I already have a couple of those. No need to buy more batteries. However my 32GB SDXC card and 8GB Compact Flash card might be insufficient, so I've ordered a Sandisk Extreme Pro 16GB Compact Flash card and a Sandisk 64GB SDXC Extreme Pro card which is actually cheaper than the 16GB Compact Flash, but slower. 70GB of memory in the camera at one time should be enough for most purposes.  Grin

I intend doing some comparisons between the D7000 and the D800E, using the same zoom lenses at the same focal lengths, apertures and shutter speeds, from the same position.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8899


« Reply #76 on: May 22, 2012, 10:53:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray
Just for you!
Marc

Marc,
I see no difference between these latest two crops. I'm viewing them on a Sony LCD monitor set at its native resolution of 1280x1024. If these are 100% crops, then effectively I'm peering at a 6ftx4ft print from a distance of a couple of feet.

If I can't see any diffierence under such conditions, then I'd say the Nikkor 24-120 is good enough.  Grin
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #77 on: May 23, 2012, 01:52:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Marc,
I see no difference between these latest two crops. I'm viewing them on a Sony LCD monitor set at its native resolution of 1280x1024. If these are 100% crops, then effectively I'm peering at a 6ftx4ft print from a distance of a couple of feet.

If I can't see any diffierence under such conditions, then I'd say the Nikkor 24-120 is good enough.  Grin

the next thing to do is retest my lenses at different apertures to find the sweet spot for each
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1724



« Reply #78 on: May 28, 2012, 10:00:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Had a week with the 24-120 VR and I'm Happy it's very good for what I wanted a "Walk Around" lens
Marc

In camera jpegs, default settings, AF, auto iso, auto white balance
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 10:07:31 PM by marcmccalmont » Logged

Marc McCalmont
Jim Pascoe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 823


WWW
« Reply #79 on: May 29, 2012, 01:38:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Greg, my walk around lens is the Zeiss 50 Makro - on ANY Nikon.

And on my Canon 1Ds.

Jim
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad