head-to-head comparison of 50mm lenses (large pic)

Mike Rementer said:

Thoughts on this, including subject, comparison shot, and
conclusions are welcome. This is my first attempt at this...Mike

Click to expand...

Drew Loker said:

Mike Rementer said:

You're right -- some at different distances would be more helpful.

Click to expand...

Problem with the father distances is that is much more difficult to
tell the difference.

Drew Loker said:

I'm also thinking of doing a different, more realistic, subject --
nothing against Tony the Tiger, but I don't think he would be
considered a perfect subject for this type of discussion

Click to expand...

Actually, on the contrary. I like the idea because I can go to the
store and get the same box and test my 28-70 to make sure I get
similar results as you to make sure my 28-70 is as sharp as it
should be...it was afterall a store demo.

Only problem is that I don't want to eat Frosted Flakes...I am on a
diet!!

Drew
http://www.pbase.com/lokerd
http://primerica.itgo.com/

Click to expand...

squash said:

Mike Rementer said:

Hello. This is the first run of a head-to-head comparison of
several lenses I own. My intent here is to come up with a
technique for comparison of lenses, then do a more comprehensive
test in the fiture. The first run is using the following lenses:

50mm 1.4D AF
50mm 1.8D AF
28-70 2.8D AF-S

With the following subject:



Using the following settings:

1) WB auto
2) Color Mode II
3) Aperature Priority
4) No Sharpening
5) No Hue
6) Matrix Metering
7) Sharpeneing None
8) NR off
9) Shutter Delay on
10) Distance from focal plane to subject 33".

Here are the comparison shots:



My conclusions:

1) WB: I should have used a grey card to set WB-- the colors and
exposure on this shot sucks -- it was shot in my kitchen using
ambient fluroescent lights.
2) Wide Open Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4 is
the softest wide-open, followed by the 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8 and, the best
of the bunch the 28-70 @ 2.8 -- this is no surprise really.
3) Mid Rage Performance: From f/4 to f/11 the differences in
sharpness between the lense are minute. The 50mm 1.8 and 28-70 2.8
seem to lead the pack, with the 50mm 1.4 bringing up the rear.
4) Stopped Down Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.8 is
the softest stopped down to the minumum aperature (in this case
f/22). Second softest is the 28-70 2.8 (at f/22), followed by the
sharpest stopped down, the 50mm 1.4 (at f/16).

Thoughts on this, including subject, comparison shot, and
conclusions are welcome. This is my first attempt at this...Mike

--
--- Mike
--- http://www.pbase.com/mike_rementer

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mike Rementer said:

I agree, it's going to be difficult to find a subject where
qualititative differences in image quality will be readily apparent
at distances. Did some walking today and found a nice beige cement
wall with vines growing on it. Not sure if there is enough texture
in the stuccoed walls to show up, but the vines have lots of nice
detail to do comparisons in the center of the frame. I'm still
looking.

Click to expand...

Mike Rementer said:

I've finished some 60mm tests, comparing the:

60mm 2.8D AF MACRO
28-70 2.8D AF-S zoomed to 60mm

Click to expand...

Drew Loker said:

Mike Rementer said:

I agree, it's going to be difficult to find a subject where
qualititative differences in image quality will be readily apparent
at distances. Did some walking today and found a nice beige cement
wall with vines growing on it. Not sure if there is enough texture
in the stuccoed walls to show up, but the vines have lots of nice
detail to do comparisons in the center of the frame. I'm still
looking.

Click to expand...

I think the ideal subject is something that is readily found
anywhere so that the test can be duplicated anywhere, by anybody
wishing to compare their lens to yours (same lens for same lens) or
even their own variety of lenses. A webpage on-line somewhere would
be the coolest.

As I was pouring over all of the research on the lens, and the many
sample shots I took (600+ mb of test shots), there was little
ability to compare even my own test shots against each other
because I was always shooting something different. Very
furstrating. In the end, after reviewing the shots that I did have,
the Nikon 24-85 AFs and the 28-70 AFs were clearly sharper than any
other lens I tested (of the lenses that I tested).

Drew
http://www.pbase.com/lokerd
http://primerica.itgo.com/

Click to expand...

Many Feathers said:

Hi Mike,

I find your tests incredibly interesting. I just bought the
expensive 28-70 and am awed by its autofocus, and f/2.8 thoughout
the whole range, and my initial photos. Yet, I wanted to prove how
good it was to my brain (that needs to rationalize the expense).
So, I started a few tests before yours came up. I was comparing the
28-70 to the 24-85D (no comparison...didn't even have to "study"
the photos) to the 35-70 (my brother has that lens) to the 50
f/1.8. Shot about 50 photos and then cropped out a section. I
really like how you set yours up. My difficulty is I set the camera
on autofocus and was kind of sure the autofocus square wound up in
the same place, but I think in at least one instance, the focus was
different. But even with that, I could tell the results were about
the same as yours. I also noticed that the contrast with the 28-70
is incredible.

There should be a website somewhere where you could post these
results, permanently.

Great work! Thanks!

MF

Click to expand...

Jeff-C said:

Mike Rementer said:

I've finished some 60mm tests, comparing the:

60mm 2.8D AF MACRO
28-70 2.8D AF-S zoomed to 60mm

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dan Coughlin said:

I'll tell you, I am incredibly happy with the performance of the
50mm f/1.8 lens. Cheap(!!!!) and great. Low light or in good
light. I've been having a lot of fun with tight portraits

And lots more in http://www.pbase.com/efatapo/friends

If anyone is considering these lenses, go for the 50mm f/1.8. You
will not be dissapointed.

--
Dan

http://www.med.umich.edu/pibs
http://www.pbase.com/efatapo
http://www.hillsdale.edu

Click to expand...

Dan Coughlin said:

I'll tell you, I am incredibly happy with the performance of the
50mm f/1.8 lens. Cheap(!!!!) and great. Low light or in good
light. I've been having a lot of fun with tight portraits







And lots more in http://www.pbase.com/efatapo/friends

If anyone is considering these lenses, go for the 50mm f/1.8. You
will not be dissapointed.

--
Dan

http://www.med.umich.edu/pibs
http://www.pbase.com/efatapo
http://www.hillsdale.edu

Click to expand...

Mike Rementer said:

Hello. This is the first run of a head-to-head comparison of
several lenses I own. My intent here is to come up with a
technique for comparison of lenses, then do a more comprehensive
test in the fiture. The first run is using the following lenses:

50mm 1.4D AF
50mm 1.8D AF
28-70 2.8D AF-S

With the following subject:



Using the following settings:

1) WB auto
2) Color Mode II
3) Aperature Priority
4) No Sharpening
5) No Hue
6) Matrix Metering
7) Sharpeneing None
8) NR off
9) Shutter Delay on
10) Distance from focal plane to subject 33".

Here are the comparison shots:



My conclusions:

1) WB: I should have used a grey card to set WB-- the colors and
exposure on this shot sucks -- it was shot in my kitchen using
ambient fluroescent lights.
2) Wide Open Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4 is
the softest wide-open, followed by the 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8 and, the best
of the bunch the 28-70 @ 2.8 -- this is no surprise really.
3) Mid Rage Performance: From f/4 to f/11 the differences in
sharpness between the lense are minute. The 50mm 1.8 and 28-70 2.8
seem to lead the pack, with the 50mm 1.4 bringing up the rear.
4) Stopped Down Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.8 is
the softest stopped down to the minumum aperature (in this case
f/22). Second softest is the 28-70 2.8 (at f/22), followed by the
sharpest stopped down, the 50mm 1.4 (at f/16).

Thoughts on this, including subject, comparison shot, and
conclusions are welcome. This is my first attempt at this...Mike

--
--- Mike
--- http://www.pbase.com/mike_rementer

Click to expand...

Mike Rementer said:

Drew Loker said:

Mike Rementer said:

I agree, it's going to be difficult to find a subject where
qualititative differences in image quality will be readily apparent
at distances. Did some walking today and found a nice beige cement
wall with vines growing on it. Not sure if there is enough texture
in the stuccoed walls to show up, but the vines have lots of nice
detail to do comparisons in the center of the frame. I'm still
looking.

Click to expand...

I think the ideal subject is something that is readily found
anywhere so that the test can be duplicated anywhere, by anybody
wishing to compare their lens to yours (same lens for same lens) or
even their own variety of lenses. A webpage on-line somewhere would
be the coolest.

As I was pouring over all of the research on the lens, and the many
sample shots I took (600+ mb of test shots), there was little
ability to compare even my own test shots against each other
because I was always shooting something different. Very
furstrating. In the end, after reviewing the shots that I did have,
the Nikon 24-85 AFs and the 28-70 AFs were clearly sharper than any
other lens I tested (of the lenses that I tested).

Drew
http://www.pbase.com/lokerd
http://primerica.itgo.com/

Click to expand...

--
--- Mike
--- http://www.pbase.com/mike_rementer

Click to expand...

GenoP...! said:

Actually I sometimes wonder if that softness is a focusing problem?

GenoP

Mike Rementer said:

Hello. This is the first run of a head-to-head comparison of
several lenses I own. My intent here is to come up with a
technique for comparison of lenses, then do a more comprehensive
test in the fiture. The first run is using the following lenses:

50mm 1.4D AF
50mm 1.8D AF
28-70 2.8D AF-S

With the following subject:



Using the following settings:

1) WB auto
2) Color Mode II
3) Aperature Priority
4) No Sharpening
5) No Hue
6) Matrix Metering
7) Sharpeneing None
8) NR off
9) Shutter Delay on
10) Distance from focal plane to subject 33".

Here are the comparison shots:



My conclusions:

1) WB: I should have used a grey card to set WB-- the colors and
exposure on this shot sucks -- it was shot in my kitchen using
ambient fluroescent lights.
2) Wide Open Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4 is
the softest wide-open, followed by the 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8 and, the best
of the bunch the 28-70 @ 2.8 -- this is no surprise really.
3) Mid Rage Performance: From f/4 to f/11 the differences in
sharpness between the lense are minute. The 50mm 1.8 and 28-70 2.8
seem to lead the pack, with the 50mm 1.4 bringing up the rear.
4) Stopped Down Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.8 is
the softest stopped down to the minumum aperature (in this case
f/22). Second softest is the 28-70 2.8 (at f/22), followed by the
sharpest stopped down, the 50mm 1.4 (at f/16).

Thoughts on this, including subject, comparison shot, and
conclusions are welcome. This is my first attempt at this...Mike

--
--- Mike
--- http://www.pbase.com/mike_rementer

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/genop754

Click to expand...

Mike Rementer said:

What "softness" are you talking about?...Mike

GenoP...! said:

Actually I sometimes wonder if that softness is a focusing problem?

GenoP

Mike Rementer said:

Hello. This is the first run of a head-to-head comparison of
several lenses I own. My intent here is to come up with a
technique for comparison of lenses, then do a more comprehensive
test in the fiture. The first run is using the following lenses:

50mm 1.4D AF
50mm 1.8D AF
28-70 2.8D AF-S

With the following subject:



Using the following settings:

1) WB auto
2) Color Mode II
3) Aperature Priority
4) No Sharpening
5) No Hue
6) Matrix Metering
7) Sharpeneing None
8) NR off
9) Shutter Delay on
10) Distance from focal plane to subject 33".

Here are the comparison shots:



My conclusions:

1) WB: I should have used a grey card to set WB-- the colors and
exposure on this shot sucks -- it was shot in my kitchen using
ambient fluroescent lights.
2) Wide Open Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.4 @ 1.4 is
the softest wide-open, followed by the 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8 and, the best
of the bunch the 28-70 @ 2.8 -- this is no surprise really.
3) Mid Rage Performance: From f/4 to f/11 the differences in
sharpness between the lense are minute. The 50mm 1.8 and 28-70 2.8
seem to lead the pack, with the 50mm 1.4 bringing up the rear.
4) Stopped Down Performance: Of all the lenses, the 50mm 1.8 is
the softest stopped down to the minumum aperature (in this case
f/22). Second softest is the 28-70 2.8 (at f/22), followed by the
sharpest stopped down, the 50mm 1.4 (at f/16).

Thoughts on this, including subject, comparison shot, and
conclusions are welcome. This is my first attempt at this...Mike

--
--- Mike
--- http://www.pbase.com/mike_rementer

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/genop754

Click to expand...

--
--- Mike
--- http://www.pbase.com/mike_rementer

Click to expand...