The trend continues

[fPrime]

All of these statements might be true but not necessarily meaningful unless one either crops a lot, prints very large, or has pixel peeping as a favorite pastime.

Nope, my Z85 1.8S makes easily visible better pictures than my 85 1.8D in normal viewing on the normal screen I look at.

Instead of saying it, put up side by side images. Let us decide if the lenses make the image.

I'm of the belief it doesn't. But you have an opportunity here to change my mind.

Happy to leave your mind unchanged.

For very good reason, I suspect. Kind of a lame reply on your part.

I would be really nice to see some images. As a user of the 85 1.8D myself! But if not possible could you clarify what you mean by visibly better pictures? Are you talking about portraits? if so would be great to understand your point of view. Many thanks Toby

Here's the $797 85 1.8S compared to the $427 85 1.8G. The 85 1.8S is already so much visibly better, isn't it? Now just imagine how it would totally destroy the 85 1.8D! It can be done if you have a really vivid imagination. LOL /s



https://nikonrumors.com/2019/12/28/...f-1-8-s-lenses-compared-on-the-nikon-z7.aspx/

fPrime

--
Half of my heart is a shotgun wedding to a bride with a paper ring,
And half of my heart is the part of a man who's never truly loved anything.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

All of these statements might be true

They are easily demonstrated as true.

but not necessarily meaningful unless one either crops a lot, prints very large, or has pixel peeping as a favorite pastime.

If you are happy with reasonable 10x8 prints or viewing on a low resolution low priced laptop then improvements may not be meaningful - to you.

What I find ironic is that I encountered more than once on this forum that some of the same folks who criticize older cameras and lenses are raving about new smartphones.

Maybe this is because using them sensibly and taking advantage of their inbuilt post processing ability they can usually easily exceed 10x8 inch print standard - are are even good for 4k monitors.

The smartphones do not have a significant telephoto lens option - but sometimes at wider angles straight out of a smartphone can beat straight out of an old DSLR and lens.

 

[yray]

All of these statements might be true

They are easily demonstrated as true.

but not necessarily meaningful unless one either crops a lot, prints very large, or has pixel peeping as a favorite pastime.

If you are happy with reasonable 10x8 prints or viewing on a low resolution low priced laptop then improvements may not be meaningful - to you.

I made a lot of “reasonable” 12x18 inch prints out of af-d lenses and 10-12 MP sensors over the years. With decent software you can resize images quite effectively for print if needed. I usually view my images on a 32” $1000+ monitor. I rarely find that resolution is what’s missing. What normally separates a good shot from a mediocre one are subject, light, and composition, or any combination of the three, or possibly misfocus.

What I find ironic is that I encountered more than once on this forum that some of the same folks who criticize older cameras and lenses are raving about new smartphones.

Maybe this is because using them sensibly and taking advantage of their inbuilt post processing ability they can usually easily exceed 10x8 inch print standard - are are even good for 4k monitors.

If you try to zoom closely, iPhone pics taken even in decent lighting fall apart long before DSLR pics do, even taken with a 10 year old camera, I know because my daughter has iPhone 11. If you don’t zoom in they look pretty good, and their built in post processing is superior to OOC jpegs. But I never cared for OOC jpegs anyway.

The smartphones do not have a significant telephoto lens option - but sometimes at wider angles straight out of a smartphone can beat straight out of an old DSLR and lens.

I am not saying that all old lenses were great. But the better ones are keepers in my opinion.

--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.

 

[TOF guy]

Well, the Canon is a hybrid camera,that shoots faster,

Like 15% faster? That's not much of a difference

has more focus points,

Which means nothing until we see how the 1DX3 ad D6 AF compare in the field. It is striking that the D6 has a third less sensors than the D5 and yet the density of coverage is 1,6x higher than the D5. Then there is the mention of a "triple sensor arrangement". It looks like Nikon has looked for radical changes, looking for a jump in performance, while Canon has just added more sensors, more like tweaking the old recipe, and focused more on face/eyes recognition. As I said before we have to wait for actual use of the cameras to know what it is all about, but it may be that it is the D6 AF that run circles around the 1Dx3 ...

and will do video a lot better,

Which matters only for those who do video with a dSLR.

 

[Mister Anders0n]

Well, the Canon is a hybrid camera,that shoots faster,

Like 15% faster? That's not much of a difference

has more focus points,

Which means nothing until we see how the 1DX3 ad D6 AF compare in the field. It is striking that the D6 has a third less sensors than the D5 and yet the density of coverage is 1,6x higher than the D5. Then there is the mention of a "triple sensor arrangement". It looks like Nikon has looked for radical changes, looking for a jump in performance, while Canon has just added more sensors, more like tweaking the old recipe, and focused more on face/eyes recognition. As I said before we have to wait for actual use of the cameras to know what it is all about, but it may be that it is the D6 AF that run circles around the 1Dx3 ...

and will do video a lot better,

Which matters only for those who do video with a dSLR.

Well, I'm not buying either camera, but by what I've read online, people are psyched for the 1DXIII and PO'd about the D6. Also, Canon has the EOS R5 coming out which sounds phenomenal. Where's Nikon's answer to that?

 

[VBLondon]

Adding 27 grams to get AF support for AF-D lenses would break a sweat on you, VBLondon? :-D

fPrime

No but the FTZ is already too clunky, I absolutely avoid using it. An even clunkier AFDTZ has no interest to me.

 

[VBLondon]

All of these statements might be true but not necessarily meaningful unless one either crops a lot, prints very large, or has pixel peeping as a favorite pastime.

Nope, my Z85 1.8S makes easily visible better pictures than my 85 1.8D in normal viewing on the normal screen I look at.

Instead of saying it, put up side by side images. Let us decide if the lenses make the image.

I'm of the belief it doesn't. But you have an opportunity here to change my mind.

Happy to leave your mind unchanged.

For very good reason, I suspect. Kind of a lame reply on your part.

My guess is that, unless with the sole purpose to argue on this forum, one is not gonna purposefully do a side by side. So you end up comparing shots taken under different lighting conditions, with different subjects, at different apertures, etc. So your judgment ends up being based on comparing in aggregate, and you subjectively decide that you like one aggregate better than the other.

And even if you go through the effort of doing a side by side, the subject would likely be trivial and conditions limited. Even the same camera/body combination would yield markedly different results depending on the subject, settings, and shooting conditions. There is not much science to it beyond learning to use your gear in an optimal way, and choosing the right gear for the subject and the shooting conditions.

After one of these debates a few weeks ago, I took my Z6 with and Z85 1.8S and AFD85 1.8 + FTZ

I took a portrait of a family member with both at f1.8, I then took a landscape of my garden with both at f1.8. I do not share any pictures of that sort, so if you are looking for "proof", ignore me. It's just my writing my views, as 99% of posts on forums are.

First the AutoWB was worse with the AFD, especially in the landscape, so I had to normalise it to make the pictures comparable.

The portrait was just better with the Z, sharper - easily visible without zoom. There is no rendering or softer look I preferred on the AFD, but as when any two things are not identical, another person may have a different preference to mine. The landscape had a lot of detail in plants/trees/bushes all a similar distance along a garden boundary. The Z was obviously crisper and more detailed at screen level, also without some color fringing/casts of twigs against the sky. I don't know what "3D pop" and "microcontrast" are, but just guessing from the language I'd say the Z lens has a lot more of both than the AF-D.

I shot the photos the way I'd shoot them and the Z ones were visibily better. That's end of story for me. Happy that someone else's MMV!

My only point is that these differences, in this one example, do not depend on pixel peeping or cropping a lot or printing large. They depend on taking a photo and looking at it in the normal way.

 

[VBLondon]

All of these statements might be true but not necessarily meaningful unless one either crops a lot, prints very large, or has pixel peeping as a favorite pastime.

Nope, my Z85 1.8S makes easily visible better pictures than my 85 1.8D in normal viewing on the normal screen I look at.

Instead of saying it, put up side by side images. Let us decide if the lenses make the image.

I'm of the belief it doesn't. But you have an opportunity here to change my mind.

Happy to leave your mind unchanged.

For very good reason, I suspect. Kind of a lame reply on your part.

I would be really nice to see some images. As a user of the 85 1.8D myself! But if not possible could you clarify what you mean by visibly better pictures? Are you talking about portraits? if so would be great to understand your point of view. Many thanks Toby

Hi Toby, see my post above. Sorry no images. You can see some comparisons between the Z85 1.8S and F85 1.8G here (landscape and portrait, scroll down) here https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-85mm-f1-8-s-review/2/

You can then see a comparison by the same site from a few years back that includes the 85 1.8D and the 85 1.8G (but predates the Z lens). https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon_nikkor_85mm_telephoto_lens_comparison/2/

The D is fuzzier wide open and the bokeh is fussy.

But other esteemed posters think otherwise, so you decide!

 

[VBLondon]

I'm a firm believer that the difference in an image is the fellow taking it, not the gear.

I didn't change any aspect of my fellowness whilst changing lenses.

But fellows with Zees seem to believe that there's a world of difference between something shot with a Zee lens than something shot with an f mount.

No. No-one said a world of difference. Yray said you couldn't see a difference. I said you could.

My point has always been that I do not need to buy a Zee to get good images, images better than a D850 (as one body example)

Of course not. No one has argued that point. It's just a point about whether there's a normally visible difference (wide-open that is) between a 30 year old lens and a brand new one. There is. There might not be between a Z and a more modern G lens. I don't know. The tests are one thing, where the Zs beat all the Gs on a like-like basis, but real world use is individual. Also, there aren't Zs in the exact same FL as the top F (28E and 105E) so there the differences may be very small.

If you have specialised needs for top optics (and I don't) and are the sort of person who in the F mount would think many of the Nikkors aren't good enough and is looking at Sigma Arts and Zeiss Otus lenses, then the Z lenses have something for you. If you like your F Nikkors, then enjoy. They are smaller and cheaper on an f-stop/FL basis.

VB said "my Z85 1.8S makes easily visible better pictures than my 85 1.8D in normal viewing on the normal screen I look at" which suggest he already did the comparison and has the images.

I said, and still say, show me. If it would make him feel better, put up the images, point out where he feels the differences are, and I'll look but won't comment.

No. Happy that you remain totally unconvinced. Also I am sure your snowmobile is faster than mine.

If I wanted an 85 lens, I could buy a used 85 1.4G for the same price as a new Z85 1.8S in Toronto, I'd have 1.4, I wouldn't need to change systems. I doubt anyone could show me a difference between those two lenses that would affect final image. I can guarantee there'll be no difference at 1.4

Where did this come in? We are talking about the question of the AFD85 1.8D? It's a fair point on the 1.4G (which I had) and the Z. I just don't like the adapter so I sold my 1.4G.

 

[Leonard Shepherd]

Well, I'm not buying either camera,

As your gear list is blank we can only speculate as to what you might buy.

but by what I've read online,

A lot of web posts are a long way from true, accurate or considered.

 

[Toby43]

All of these statements might be true but not necessarily meaningful unless one either crops a lot, prints very large, or has pixel peeping as a favorite pastime.

Nope, my Z85 1.8S makes easily visible better pictures than my 85 1.8D in normal viewing on the normal screen I look at.

Instead of saying it, put up side by side images. Let us decide if the lenses make the image.

I'm of the belief it doesn't. But you have an opportunity here to change my mind.

Happy to leave your mind unchanged.

For very good reason, I suspect. Kind of a lame reply on your part.

I would be really nice to see some images. As a user of the 85 1.8D myself! But if not possible could you clarify what you mean by visibly better pictures? Are you talking about portraits? if so would be great to understand your point of view. Many thanks Toby

Hi Toby, see my post above. Sorry no images. You can see some comparisons between the Z85 1.8S and F85 1.8G here (landscape and portrait, scroll down) here https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon-z-85mm-f1-8-s-review/2/

You can then see a comparison by the same site from a few years back that includes the 85 1.8D and the 85 1.8G (but predates the Z lens). https://www.cameralabs.com/nikon_nikkor_85mm_telephoto_lens_comparison/2/

The D is fuzzier wide open and the bokeh is fussy.

But other esteemed posters think otherwise, so you decide!

thanks thats useful. I dont shoot portraits with an 85mm at f1.8 as I prefer the features in focus so tends to be 5.6 ish for me. Sharpness in portraits doesnt interest me much and white balance not really relevant as I mostly process portraits in black and white.

 

[BGD300V1]

The D780 improved too little over the D750 and now it appears that the D6 improves too little over the D5.

I've never understood why people feel they need to replace their camera every new model as it comes out. They're almost always incremental improvements that are unlikely to make much difference to your results.

A good camera should - easily - last you five to ten years, even in the current era of rapidly changing technology. Longer, as the technology settles down.

Perhaps we need a seperate forum for "Digital Photography Business Consultants"

 

[BGD300V1]

My Nikon journey has been a long evolution from the Nikkormat fTn though to the D500 and now Z6, soon to be 7. Along the way I had an F2 and F4 but didn't like the bulk of the F5 and never went with that.

It was only last year that I let go of my old 55mm f3.5 and I still have some old lenses of limited fungibility.

The consumer mentality that you need the latest and greatest of the line is fine and sometimes offers interesting options and capabilities but doesn't make you a better photographer.

 

[yray]

I'm a firm believer that the difference in an image is the fellow taking it, not the gear.

I didn't change any aspect of my fellowness whilst changing lenses.

But fellows with Zees seem to believe that there's a world of difference between something shot with a Zee lens than something shot with an f mount.

No. No-one said a world of difference. Yray said you couldn't see a difference. I said you could.

Hi VBLondon, -- a couple of things: I think I acknowledged is some earlier post, maybe indirectly, that wide open many (most?) old lenses aren't paragons of sharpness. I'm talking in particular about AF-D and older AI/s lenses. There are exceptions among long telephoto primes I think, but that is probably it.

I argued that I can generally live happily with a lens which is only good and not great wide open, because I'm used to it well enough to not mind stopping down 2/3 of a stop or a full stop from the maximum aperture if wide open sharpness is less than desired for a given occasion. This is not always necessary, but in case it is I don't consider it a showstopper.

The reason for the above is twofold. First, I may like the rendering of old lenses. Second I may not want to spend money to replace something I like well enough. Not everything demands clinical sharpness which sometimes comes with a somewhat sterile look.

Basically, it comes to matters of taste and economic reasons, for me, and I don't think it invalidates your position, -- we just view the situation from different vantage points.

My point has always been that I do not need to buy a Zee to get good images, images better than a D850 (as one body example)

Of course not. No one has argued that point. It's just a point about whether there's a normally visible difference (wide-open that is) between a 30 year old lens and a brand new one. There is. There might not be between a Z and a more modern G lens. I don't know. The tests are one thing, where the Zs beat all the Gs on a like-like basis, but real world use is individual. Also, there aren't Zs in the exact same FL as the top F (28E and 105E) so there the differences may be very small.

If you have specialised needs for top optics (and I don't) and are the sort of person who in the F mount would think many of the Nikkors aren't good enough and is looking at Sigma Arts and Zeiss Otus lenses, then the Z lenses have something for you. If you like your F Nikkors, then enjoy. They are smaller and cheaper on an f-stop/FL basis.

VB said "my Z85 1.8S makes easily visible better pictures than my 85 1.8D in normal viewing on the normal screen I look at" which suggest he already did the comparison and has the images.

I said, and still say, show me. If it would make him feel better, put up the images, point out where he feels the differences are, and I'll look but won't comment.

No. Happy that you remain totally unconvinced. Also I am sure your snowmobile is faster than mine.

If I wanted an 85 lens, I could buy a used 85 1.4G for the same price as a new Z85 1.8S in Toronto, I'd have 1.4, I wouldn't need to change systems. I doubt anyone could show me a difference between those two lenses that would affect final image. I can guarantee there'll be no difference at 1.4

Where did this come in? We are talking about the question of the AFD85 1.8D? It's a fair point on the 1.4G (which I had) and the Z. I just don't like the adapter so I sold my 1.4G.

 

[Nikon 79]

I spent a lot of money one lenses before i realize that my beloved lens could be a cheap and old AF-D lens.
The first 50 shots with the great (at least for me ) 28-105 AF-D

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58919412@N00/

 

[TOF guy]

Well, I'm not buying either camera, but by what I've read online, people are psyched for the 1DXIII and PO'd about the D6.

I can only speak for myself: I was disappointed that the rumor that the D6 would have IBIS turned out to be incorrect.

Also, Canon has the EOS R5 coming out which sounds phenomenal. Where's Nikon's answer to that?

A Z9 or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Antal I Kozma]

Well, I'm not buying either camera, but by what I've read online, people are psyched for the 1DXIII and PO'd about the D6.

I can only speak for myself: I was disappointed that the rumor that the D6 would have IBIS turned out to be incorrect.

Also, Canon has the EOS R5 coming out which sounds phenomenal. Where's Nikon's answer to that?

A Z9 or whatever you want to call it.

That is a good answer.........

The Z7 is not as "bad"as some folks say. I do not have it and I would not want to have it since I am still a DSLR person. However, I had the chance of using a Z7 with the 500mm PF last fall on a grizzly bear photo adventure. I was pleasantly surprised how light the whole rig was and it also brought in a lot of keepers.

It will be fascinating to see if a new Canon vs Nikon top tier era will be born out of the two DSLR leaders' getting serious in the high end mirrorless market. Such head to head competition will surely bear some good fruit.

Best to all, AIK

 

[VBLondon]

Hi VBLondon, -- a couple of things: I think I acknowledged is some earlier post, maybe indirectly, that wide open many (most?) old lenses aren't paragons of sharpness. I'm talking in particular about AF-D and older AI/s lenses. There are exceptions among long telephoto primes I think, but that is probably it.

I argued that I can generally live happily with a lens which is only good and not great wide open, because I'm used to it well enough to not mind stopping down 2/3 of a stop or a full stop from the maximum aperture if wide open sharpness is less than desired for a given occasion. This is not always necessary, but in case it is I don't consider it a showstopper.

The reason for the above is twofold. First, I may like the rendering of old lenses. Second I may not want to spend money to replace something I like well enough. Not everything demands clinical sharpness which sometimes comes with a somewhat sterile look.

Basically, it comes to matters of taste and economic reasons, for me, and I don't think it invalidates your position, -- we just view the situation from different vantage points.

Totally agree with the above. There are many reasons to be happy with an older lens.

I only wanted to point out that the differences with a newer lens can be more evident than just special use cases like large prints, small crops, pixel peeping etc.

Probably there was a time when this was true. On XGA screens and Letter size prints with a 6MP or 12MP sensor, I don't remember much difference when I upgraded some older AFDs to newer AF-Gs.

But going from AFD to Z (or AF-E) with >4K large screens on >=24MP sensors, I think there can be readily visible differences (especially wide open) which some might prefer without being a "specialist" user.

 

[Nikon 79]

I work using 4k screen. All of these shots look great to me.
(Nikon D700 and lens 28-105 AF-D)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/58919412@N00/

 

[BGD300V1]

Well, I'm not buying either camera, but by what I've read online, people are psyched for the 1DXIII and PO'd about the D6.

I can only speak for myself: I was disappointed that the rumor that the D6 would have IBIS turned out to be incorrect.

Also, Canon has the EOS R5 coming out which sounds phenomenal. Where's Nikon's answer to that?

A Z9 or whatever you want to call it.

I wouldn't expect IBIS on a top end pro camera. It is not a panacea and and the shutter speeds of most action shots doesn't really accomplish much.

Here is a part of a thread about it quoting Thom Hogan

Loading…

www.dpreview.com