Variation Facts and Fallacies
2 Variation Facts and Fallacies
What is normal variation?
When we at Lensrentals started using computerized analysis (we use the Imatest package) to assess the MTF of large numbers of lenses, it became obvious that there is sharpness variation among copies. The example below shows the groupings for several different 100mm lenses: six samples of the Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100, eight samples of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, and twenty-four samples of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM.
|This graph plots center sharpness against a sharpness figure for the whole lens (measured in line pairs per picture height for unsharpened RAW images)|
Two things should be apparent from this chart. First, there clearly is variation between the different copies of each lens. On average the Canon 100mm f2.8 IS L lenses are the sharpest, but some copies are sharper than others. And some copies of the other two lenses are sharper again. You can see how this might lead two different reviewers to hold slightly different opinions on which 100mm macro lens is the best.
Second, a true 'bad lens' is truly an outlier, and you can see a bad one way down on the lower left. The difference between a soft or bad copy and the main group is very large. The copy-to-copy variation that occurs between the other lenses is really minor. If you want to know how bad that bad copy is: our techs could identify it looking at JPEGs at 50% on a computer screen, but they'd be unlikely to spot it by looking at a web-sized image.
A second point about copy-to-copy variation must be made: the data above were for all of those lenses on one single camera body. As I've already explained, when you change the body the results change - the overall pattern will look the same, but each lens result will be slightly different. The sharpest lens on test camera A may well not be the sharpest on test camera B.
The example below shows two things. The green triangles represent multiple different samples of a lens shot on the same camera (notice that the range on both axis has been changed to illustrate the difference more clearly). We then took one of those lenses (circled) and shot it on 11 other camera bodies - the performance is represented here by the blue and red squares. As you can see, there is significant variation in the results from the different cameras.
|A single lens (circled) was re-tested on eleven camera bodies (red boxes and blue diamonds)|
from two different serial number series. All were brand new from box.
As suggested by our name, Lensrentals is a lens rental house, and as such I'd like to clarify one point: the variations that Ive been talking about don't occur because we're looking at used lenses. When we first started testing lenses, we made sure to carefully compare brand new lenses with our stock lenses to make sure that our quality assurance was keeping the stock lenses in good shape.
We buy new lenses in significant quantities; so we usually start testing a given lens by examining a dozen new copies right out of the box, then we start testing our rental copies. The graph below compares a group of new-out-of-the-box lenses with a group from rental stock to give an example. But in the graph immediately above, all of the camera bodies were new stock.
We’ve only found one lens so far that did show a difference with age, but results from that aren’t used in any of these illustrations (I have discussed this in detail in this article).
To give some idea of how small the difference between various lenses really is, we can examine the variation of a single camera's autofocus with a single lens. It's reasonable to assume that you shoot dozens of images with your camera and depend on autofocus to be accurate. You never notice, unless you look very carefully, that if you automatically focus on the same shot several times the camera focuses slightly differently each time. That’s why for testing purposes the data points I’ve shown were obtained using the best possible live-view manual focus for each lens.
But let’s look at the graph below, which consists of multiple autofocus shots made with one lens on one camera. First, I let the camera autofocus the lens once, turned off autofocus, and took 4 consecutive shots, represented by the blue diamonds in the graph. In theory they should be identical, since nothing was changed. In reality, they are just a little different, which demonstrates the amount of shot-to-shot variation in the testing method - very little, in short.
Without changing anything, I then moved the focus ring to one extreme or the other, let the camera autofocus again, took a single shot, and repeated that process six times. Those six shots are the red boxes. You can see the camera autofocuses the shot a bit differently each time (and this is with center focus point on a star chart: a near ideal situation). Finally, I focused the lens using live-view magnified focusing four consecutive times (represented here by the green triangles).
|A single lens shot repeatedly with no changes (blue), manually focused 4 separate|
times (green), and autofocused 6 times (red).
The scale in this series is changed again to illustrate the point clearly. It should be obvious that the variation of the camera’s autofocus system on repeated shots with a single lens is about 1/3 as great as the variation between different lenses. Autofocus microadjustment to the camera would improve the average AF performance to be nearly as good as the live-view focusing but it wouldn’t change the shot-to-shot variation (it would shift the red cluster towards the green results but it would remain just as spread out).
So How Big is This Variation in Real Life?
That’s really the point of all this. The variation I’ve described is easy to detect using modern computerized optical analysis. And we’ve seen that the variation between a truly bad lens and the group of acceptable lenses is very large. But how big is the variation between the different acceptable copies?
The best answer I can give is probably that it might be detectable by pixel-peepers, but not working photographers, at least hardly ever. Lensrentals has six full-time pixel-peepers on our staff (the inspection technicians) who are armed with a large array of well-lit charts to analyze sharpness, aberration, back and front focus, you name it. They can pick out a bad lens fairly easily, but can’t tell the difference between the best and worst images in the groups above.
But there’s a more scientific way to look at things than 'our techs said so.' The Subjective Quality Factor (SQF) is a measurement developed by Ed Granger and K.N. Cupery in the 1970s for Kodak and used by Popular Photographer for their lens reviews. Basically, SQF uses a mathematical formula, taking the MTF data from the lens (which we get from these tests) to predict with good accuracy how sharp a print would be perceived at various sizes and distances.
I’m not going into detail about SQF (for a more thorough discussion, see Bob Atkins' excellent article or the references below). The important part is that several experts have shown an SQF difference of less than 5 for a reasonably sized print is basically not detectable by human vision.
It’s a simple matter to have the computer calculate the SQF from the data we’ve already obtained in our testing. We arbitrarily calculate it for 8 X 10 inch print size, but the SQF difference would be the same for any reasonably sized print.
The graph below is for the same lens that I used for the autofocus example above, plus I added several other copies of that lens tested on the same camera. Then I had the computer calculate the SQF data for the best and worst copies.
|SQF for 8 X 10 inch print taken from selected MTF points.|
As you can see the variation in SQF is less than 5, meaning theoretically, you wouldn’t be able to detect the difference in a print. The difference is real and can be detected by Imatest, or by a careful pixel-peeper armed with a few test charts, a large monitor, and too much time on their hands. But it wouldn't be significant enough to make an obvious difference in a print.
So What’s the Point of All This?
The main points are fairly straightforward:
1) Every lens and every camera exhibits slight variations relative to its twins that are detectable, but rarely significant.
2) Variations that wouldn’t make the slightest difference in a print may seem quite different when the numbers are presented in a lens review. And, just because one copy of lens X is sharper than one copy of lens Y, doesn’t mean they all are, or that they all will be in your camera.
3) Occasionally, an acceptable lens mounted to an acceptable camera combine their variations in a way that makes them unacceptable together. The lens may be fine with a different camera, and the camera fine with a different copy of the lens.
4) Really bad, soft, out-of-acceptable range lenses do occur. They are fairly rare though and easy to detect.
5) Camera autofocus is more variable and less accurate than you think.*
* Before you go all Major League Fanboy about the superiority of your camera’s autofocus system: autofocus variation exists in every camera from every brand we’ve tested. Want to prove it? Put a wide aperture prime on your camera, mount it to a tripod, and focus on something in the middle distance. Now move the focus ring to infinity, let the camera autofocus and note exactly where it ends up on the distance scale. Now turn the focus ring to near focus, let the camera autofocus on the subject at middle distance, and note the number on the distance scale. They will be slightly different.
When you buy a lens, and assuming your camera allows you to, you should microfocus adjust it. If you do it properly, using a sensible focus distance, it really does make a difference. Then do some very basic tests to make sure it functions properly, and go take some pictures. If you like the pictures it makes, then keep it.
Oddly enough, the conclusion I’ve reached from several years of dedicated pixel-peeping and lens analysis is this: Trying to find exactly the sharpest copy of the sharpest lens is a fool’s errand: you’ll be looking for something that doesn’t exist.
Roger Cicala, Lensrentals.com
For more of Roger's thoughts on lens and camera variation - and much, much more, visit his blog.
Feb 5, 2014
Oct 14, 2011
Nov 24, 2014
Nov 22, 2014
|Sophisticated construction by the nature by Orchideon|
|Iguazu falls by Claudio Galli|
As with any creative pursuit, sometimes you find your photography stalled. And sometimes making a book of your cat photos is just the thing to get inspiration flowing again.
Following some initial lab testing results, Lensrentals has published a full review of the highly-anticipated Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 Art.
EyeEm has revealed the finalists for its fourth annual photography contest, the largest competition of its kind.
Via its strategic partnership with Huawei Leica is already in the smartphone camera development game, but chairman Andreas Kaufmann can imagine the German manufacturer taking things one step further.
In a blog post the imaging engineers behind the dual-camera in Andy Rubin's Essential Phone explain how the imaging components were developed and calibrated for best performance.
Tamron calls it an 'ultra-telephoto,' and for good reason: this lens offers a massive 27-600mm equivalent zoom range. But is it sharp?
It started with a great idea and a slick promotional video, and ended with the company headquarters being raided by the San Francisco District Attorney’s office. Wired reports on Lily, the selfie-drone maker that never got off the ground.
With card readers disappearing from MacBooks, USB-C card readers are now a necessity. Macworld's helpful guide compares five models and decodes the current mess of card speeds and certifications.
A Sony a7S II mounted on the outside of the ISS' Japanese Experiment Module (KIBO) for the last seven months has sent back some impressive 4K video and stills.
A Federal judge has refused to throw out a copyright case against controversial artist Richard Prince, who used an image by photographer Donald Graham in an exhibition.
Sony has teased its customers with news of an upcoming announcement: it will soon take the wraps off a new CineAlta motion picture camera, one sporting a 36x24mm sensor.
QuikStories is integrated into the latest version of the GoPro app and automatically creates 'stories' using the video clips you've shot during a day.
Journalists photographing a protest in the US Capitol building claim they were told by Capitol Police to delete photos and videos of arrests.
The Meizu Pro 7 Plus secondary display can be used for music playback, date and weather-related information, or as viewfinder when taking selfies with the rear cameras.
Nikon is marking its 100th anniversary in many ways, including the creation of a new scholarship program for 'future visual creators' in the USA and Canada.
Take one Digital ELPH (or IXUS), rotate it vertically, add a fully articulating LCD and a lens with a camcorder-like focal length, and what do you get? Why, the Canon PowerShot TX1, of course. In this week's Throwback Thursday we revisit Canon's one-of-a-kind hybrid stills/video camera.
Just in case there was any doubt in your mind, here's the definitive video proof that yes, a $50,000 cinema camera beats the pants off a $50 camcorder in a side-by-side test.
Photographers who fly frequently in the US may want to finally invest in that TSA Pre-check status: in standard security lines, cameras and all other electronics larger than a smartphone will need to be placed in a separate bin for screening.
Images have appeared which claim to show Nikon's forthcoming D850 DSLR, the development of which was announced this week. If genuine, the pictures indicate that the D850 will offer illuminated controls and a tilting LCD screen, but no built-in flash.
To celebrate the Daguerreotype Achromat 2.9/64 lens' successful Kickstarter campaign, Lomography has announced a chrome-plated version of the lens in Nikon and Canon DSLR mounts.
Nikon just released four new firmware updates, adding features and fixing bugs in the D600, D610, D750 and the KeyMission 80.
It probably hasn't made your landscape photography bucket list just yet, but there's a good reason to visit Idaho. Here are 9 must-visit locations in this beautiful state.
Oops... Adobe accidentally leaked their unfinished Lightroom-powered cloud-based photo editor 'Project Nimbus' to some Creative Cloud users yesterday.
Storm chaser and award-winning photographer Mike Oblinski just released his latest time-lapse, and it is absolutely stunning.
Looking to level up your video capture capabilities without buying a whole new camera? Blackmagic's Video Assist 4K is well worth considering, despite a few flaws and its lack of 4K/60p support.
We're big fans of Fujifilm's fast-growing GFX system, and the GF 110mm F2 lens is no exception. Positioned as the system's classic portrait lens, its optics are just as impressive with non-human subjects as well.
Nikon turns 100 years old today, and the company is celebrating with a wacky music video, some tributes to its history, and a new vision presented by president Kazuo Ushida.
Phottix just released the Premio Parabolic Umbrellas series, replacing their Para-Pro line with a stronger, deeper and better made set of parabolic umbrellas.
The Moto Z2 is Motorola's first dual-camera smartphone and, compared to its predecessor, comes with a number of improvements and new camera features.
Researchers at Stanford have revealed a new '4D camera system' built for robots. The system is based on the same light field tech that allowed Lytro cameras to refocus images after they were taken.