Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lenses for D800 - where's the weak link?  (Read 26015 times)
risedal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2013, 03:54:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

What is your problem with Canon? DR at low ISO? Resolution? Color rendition?

If you happen to have a decent MFDB, wouldn't a Hartblei H-cam or Alpa FPS be a good solution?

What is wrong with Nikon 14-24/2.8, Zeiss 18/3.5 and Zeiss 21/2.8? All those lenses seem to be decent and around 20 mm.

I don't have any personal experience of any of that stuff, but from what I have seen they are pretty attractive. All right, I have heard about field curvature on the Zeiss lenses, but not much else.

Sorry for asking. I can feel your frustration, just want to know what aspects it is about?

Best regards
Erik



They are no TS lenses.
14-24 is nice resolution wise but have severe problems with flare
Zeiss 18/3,5 nice but not excellent as 21/2,8 with more vignetting
Canons  two TS-E lenses are unique and they are gruesomely good
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2013, 03:55:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi, certainly resolution, I would have preferred the D800 sensor, but above all I've never particularly liked the Canon bodies.

I'm happy enough with my current MFD setup. I'm looking for a more versatile option; something that a tech camera or MFD couldn't offer.

They're decent enough but I was really hoping for a T/S solution/s.

Hey ho.


Hi Keith,

I can't help wondering: if you get the right 135 format body and the lenses you need, would you then be happy to abandon your Hassy outfit in favour of lightness - if there's really much difference? I think that a tripod is probably as big a carriage problem as a larger format! Years before my first heart attack I discovered that carting my Gitzo G 410 around was more than my body could handle for longer than maybe half-an-hour.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2013, 03:58:03 AM »
ReplyReply

On ZD I usually use F10 to get acceptable depth of field. Field curvature on Mamiya 80mmAF is not as curvy as on Nikon 50AFD1.4.
In my application field curvature is quite important - when I shoot a model laying (or flying:)) perpendicular to the lens axis, filling most of the frame length.
Comparison using models *could* be faulty, as models used with different systems were different, so there is variation in skin texture and hair thickness and some lighting variation as well.
Nevertheless, It appeared to me that if I shoot the same object using these systems not to preserve framing, but to maintain number of pixels per object dimension, ZD version would be sharper.
May be this is due to aliasing of the large pixels, hard to say.



You see the advantage of brick walls?

Rob C
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2013, 04:10:38 AM »
ReplyReply


Hi Keith,

I can't help wondering: if you get the right 135 format body and the lenses you need, would you then be happy to abandon your Hassy outfit in favour of lightness - if there's really much difference? I think that a tripod is probably as big a carriage problem as a larger format! Years before my first heart attack I discovered that carting my Gitzo G 410 around was more than my body could handle for longer than maybe half-an-hour.

Rob C

Hi Rob

Every time I use the Hasselblad I'm taken aback by how lovely the files are.  

If I do buy into Nikon or Canon - and it's looking more likely now I've rejected the Leica M - I'll leave making a decision on the Blad until I can make some comparisons.

I'm currently waiting to see how good the new Samyang T/S is http://www.samyang-lens.co.uk/samyang-t-s-24mm-f35-ed-as-umc-lens.html before making any decisions.

Ideally I'd like to see a high MP camera from Canon to take advantage of the TS-E lenses. Either way a tripod is still essential.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2013, 03:01:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Michael,

I made a quick check, comparing the Sigma to the Nikon 60 mm. To me it seems that the Nikon is quite a bit better than the Sigma.

The SQF values tell a slightly different story, right now I don't know if I would believe SQF.

Which apertures are you using on D800E and what is your maximum intended print size?

I'll try to make some better plots tomorrow.

Best regards
Erik

« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 03:07:47 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 18, 2013, 04:03:17 PM »
ReplyReply

If anyone here is using the Zeiss Distagon T 15mm/2.8 on a D800/E I'd appreciate your thoughts on the lens.

Or perhaps links to full size images?
Logged

MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2013, 04:23:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Erik,

Which apertures are you using on D800E and what is your maximum intended print size?
On D800e I will likely use about F8-F10 in the studio most frequently. Otherwise, F5.6 for the sharpest application
Max print size from a single exposure is likely 24"x36".

About the Sigma images, here is an updated composite image with replaced Sigma 70mm samples, after using live view focusing.
This is made of the same samples I referenced in PM as "Set B".
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #47 on: February 18, 2013, 04:43:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Michael,

I have run some calculations on Sigma 70 and Nikon 60/2.8. I find the results somewhat odd.

It seems that they are very close up to something like 30 lp/mm, at that point the curves part, Nikon is a straight line while Sigma drops quite a bit faster. I used lp/mm in this comparison as I feel it is easier to grasp. When comparing ZD and D800E I use LW/PH which tells actual resolution of the sensor ignoring size.

Visual impression dominated by low frequencies so I think the images can be quite close but Nikon is much better at fine detail.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Erik,
On D800e I will likely use about F8-F10 in the studio most frequently. Otherwise, F5.6 for the sharpest application
Max print size from a single exposure is likely 24"x36".

About the Sigma images, here is an updated composite image with replaced Sigma 70mm samples, after using live view focusing.
This is made of the same samples I referenced in PM as "Set B".
« Last Edit: February 18, 2013, 05:52:39 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

risedal
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #48 on: February 18, 2013, 05:40:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I just bought Nikon 60mm AF-S G (flat field), hoping that it would outperform my old Nikon AF 50mmF1.4D on D800e.
I cannot see any significant improvement in sharpness.
I also compared it to a pretty sharp Sigma 70mmF2.8 that also is flat field lens.
Sigma is a bit sharper, although it has a bit more pronounced CA.
Tested at F5.6-F9, at 15 feet distance.

In general I am quite disappointed in 35mm glass...
My 22MP Mamiya ZD with Mamiya 80mm AF2.8 and especially Mamiya 55mm AF2.8 is quite noticeably sharper - bitingly sharp.
Unfortunately, none of the above lenses give that bitingly sharp MF quality result.
As a result, I have an impression that ZD has about the same, or possibly even more details in a smaller file (after it is compressed to DNG).

Does anyone know of any 35mm AF lens (besides $$$ Coastal Optics)  that would give truly sharp (MF quality) D800e files?

The_Suede and I did a test with Hasselblad 150mm and the 40Mp back + Nikon D800 with Sigma 105 macro (it is a superb cheap lens)
When we used Camera Raw or Lightroom etc there where no big difference between  the two cameras results  and  careful USM added .
The Hasselblad shines more together with their own software Phocus = more micro contrast etc  but our conclusion was, the Hasselblad combo is very expensive compared to Nikon.
Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 578


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2013, 06:47:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Are there any comparisons of the best 35 mm lenses vs. Digitars and Rodenstocks used on say the Nikon D800? Such comparison will of course only be possible for focal lengths that would allow the Nikon to be mounted on the back of e.g. an Alpa or Arca.
If nobody has really compared it - what would you exspect? These lenses are of course designed for a larger pixel pitch.
The reason I ask is that all of these top 35 mm lenses are insanely heavy. Digitars in a mechanical Copal would only weigh about 150 grams! Of course there would be the problem of adapting them, but I hope it could be done using a focussing helicoid and an adapter ring, the latter custom built if necessary.
Any ideas, or, better, experience?
Good light! - Hening
Logged

MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659



WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2013, 09:29:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded a trial from quickmtf.com and generated these graphs of all tests @F5.6
I hope that I used the software correctly:) Erik, does this correspond to your findings?

Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2013, 10:52:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Michael,

Takes some time to find out ;-)

Best regards
Erik

I downloaded a trial from quickmtf.com and generated these graphs of all tests @F5.6
I hope that I used the software correctly:) Erik, does this correspond to your findings?


Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #52 on: February 19, 2013, 12:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Here are very preliminary plots in lp/mm of a Rodenstock Digaron W 40 mm and a Zeiss 25/2, both images converted in LR4 without sharpening.

I need to recheck the data I compared D800 and D800E and found a stunning difference, so I recheck that no sharpening was applied. Anyway, here are the plots.

The Digaron W 40/4 is 530 grams and the Distagon 25/2 comes in at 570 - 600 g but gives two extra stops and a helicoid focusing.

The "knee" around 110 lp/mm is the Nyquist limit, all info beyond that is fake.
Best regards
Erik


Are there any comparisons of the best 35 mm lenses vs. Digitars and Rodenstocks used on say the Nikon D800? Such comparison will of course only be possible for focal lengths that would allow the Nikon to be mounted on the back of e.g. an Alpa or Arca.
If nobody has really compared it - what would you exspect? These lenses are of course designed for a larger pixel pitch.
The reason I ask is that all of these top 35 mm lenses are insanely heavy. Digitars in a mechanical Copal would only weigh about 150 grams! Of course there would be the problem of adapting them, but I hope it could be done using a focussing helicoid and an adapter ring, the latter custom built if necessary.
Any ideas, or, better, experience?
Good light! - Hening
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 01:25:36 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7888


WWW
« Reply #53 on: February 19, 2013, 12:38:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I think Imatest gives slightly higher figures. I think it uses green channel data only. Will try to find out more.

This page may be intesresting, by the way: http://www.imatest.com/docs/mtf_appearance/

Best regards
Erik

I downloaded a trial from quickmtf.com and generated these graphs of all tests @F5.6
I hope that I used the software correctly:) Erik, does this correspond to your findings?


Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2013, 04:15:28 AM »
ReplyReply

If anyone is interested here is a link to some comparisons between the Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 15 and Samyang 14.

http://3d-kraft.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=127:uwa-comparison&catid=40:camerasandlenses&Itemid=2
Logged

JohnBrew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 759


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2013, 06:45:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the link, Keith. A terrific comparison.
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #56 on: February 19, 2013, 07:49:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the link, Keith. A terrific comparison.

You're welcome, John.

For my applications the Samyang is a non-starter, the distortion is too complex and too extreme. The Zeiss is slightly sharper in the centre than the Nikon but surprisingly poor towards the edges. On balance I'm veering towards the Nikon 14-24 which seems to hold up well over the entire frame. Focus shift on the Nikon wouldn't be a problem as I'd be using live-view.
Logged

Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 578


WWW
« Reply #57 on: February 19, 2013, 09:14:04 AM »
ReplyReply

> Here are very preliminary plots in lp/mm of a Rodenstock Digaron W 40 mm and a Zeiss 25/2, both images converted in LR4 without sharpening.

Thank you, Erik. Obviously there is no weight to save on the wide angles. But they could not be adapted anyway. The shortest that could would be the Digitar 72. Flange to focal distance 68.4 mm, of which the Nikon would take 46.5, leaving 21.9 mm for a helicoid (17-34mm) + adapter rings. Here the weight difference would be significant, about 220 grams vs. 525 for the Sigma 70mm. From f=100 mm and up, a Zörk or Mirex shift adapter might be squeezed in.
Logged

Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 539


« Reply #58 on: February 19, 2013, 11:53:48 AM »
ReplyReply

If anyone is interested here is a link to some comparisons between the Nikon 14-24, Zeiss 15 and Samyang 14.

I "leafed" through the site and had a feeling that Nikon was doing as well as Zeiss on the average. Having 14-24mm focal lengths is a big bonus, and Nikon costs $1000 less! The only problem with the Nikon is the no-filter design, and maybe weight. I have to say that the 14-24 Nikon zoom is an amazing feat of optical engineering.
Logged
KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1703



WWW
« Reply #59 on: February 19, 2013, 11:57:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I "leafed" through the site and had a feeling that Nikon was doing as well as Zeiss on the average. Having 14-24mm focal lengths is a big bonus, and Nikon costs $1000 less! The only problem with the Nikon is the no-filter design, and maybe weight. I have to say that the 14-24 Nikon zoom is an amazing feat of optical engineering.

Agreed, on all points.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad