Talking of lenses ......

... I have several for my DCS14n that whilst giving excellent definition are totally useless due the Italian Flag Syndrome. I do have a copy of the original lst posted for a number of years (it vanished but I found had a copy I had printed, so link is in my Signature).

Reason for this post is I have been relatively OK using a little 35-80 Nikor kit lens - for most work is fine and no Iti-Flag problems ... BUT ... when checking the posted images in other thread (about JPEGs from camera v RAW) it was obvious that where corner sharpness could matter (only on some shots) it lacked coverage - check the image (tree branches top left) to see what I mean.

Obviously, anyone not owning a 14n could recommend a lens to replace this but would not be able to confirm whether suffers from the problem mentioned but it could be helpful if any forum member has the same 14n if they could give some information on better coverage lenses that could be used. As I have mentioned before, the 55mm Micro-Nikor has superb sharpness, corner to corner and not being of retro-focus design, the DOF is excellent as can use easily at such as f32 BUT it is totally unusable - even for B+W - due the tonal value densities changing across the frame - colour even worse of course.

Any help appreciated.

bassotto said:

bassotto wrote: Although I can understand from KenRockwell.com, he sees sharpness declining from f/8 or f/11 because of diffraction, that's why I prefere f8 in my shoots.

Click to expand...

Diffraction is mentioned (often incorrectly) as being a common occurrence in all lenses, whereas in fact, that is not true. In the lenses designed for the smaller sensors, because of the extremely short actual focal length of the lenses, it is almost impossible to have iris mechanisms to be able to realistically get anything sensibly smaller than about f8 - the number of iris diaphragm blades is not that many due simply mechanical limitations and so the opening is far from being a true circle. That's the main reason for "diffraction" occurring even at apertures wider than f8. Many cameras only go down to f8 anyway. The construction is also mainly using the retrofocus design, which exacerbates the problem. That's why the Micro-Nikor, being 55mm, does not suffer (50mm and short focal length lenses for full frame film 35mm and sensors have to be retro-focus design because otherwise, their rear element or housing would impede the acton of the mirror in DSLRs).

Obviously, zoom lenses where the widest angle is 50mm or less also have this retro-focus design. However, for lenses that are, like say my 35-80 Nikor, for full frame tend to not have much problem as regards diffraction - and when they do, for many the increased DOF is vastly more important - especially as the effects of most diffraction effects can be mostly, if not fully, corrected in post processing so that does not in fact become a practical problem as regards images - especially if going to be printed (I am personally not at all enamoured with onscreen image viewing - only really like prints - but one does have to be realistic, of course, in that viewing onscreen of images by other people around the World is the only practical way to get to see tham . BUT - I don't pixel peep).

The Micro-Nikor range can easily cope with very small apertures without diffraction problems. I have an old 1860 Goertz lens in a pneumatic shutter - uncoated - that I used regularly on my 5x4 camera - the aperture and the shutter blades - all 18 of them - were the same, thus the shutter opened to the aperture set and it could be used easily at even f64. The quality was absolutely superb. Being uncoated, the tonal range was also amazing - so provided the lens was shielded from flare, it was vastly superior to all other lenses.

Anyway - after rambling on a bit - I am not worried about diffraction as most full-frame (even zoom) lenses often only suffer slightly, so as mentioned, that can be easily dealt with after the event. My basic 35-80 is generally fine but I would like to get something better for when I need corner sharpness, which is, to be honest, only for certain subjects.

I have seen results on a D800 with the Nikor 24-120 that are excellent and at small apertures (f16 and f22) but I'm afraid the cost is way beyond what I am prepared to pay - perhaps in a few years one will become available at a more sensible cost.

Diffraction has less to do with lenses and more to do with the CoC which has a definite physical area on each sensor. As such it's effect on resolution will depend on the size of the lens aperture, size of CoC and raw conversion (interpolation method).

Alexey.Danilchenko said:

AlexeyD wrote: ... more to do with the CoC ...

Click to expand...

Definition .... of a Camera Club!

"Circle of Confusion"

bassotto said:

bassotto wrote: Must be a wonderfull lens the Goerz, would like to own one.

Click to expand...

Yes - not many about - only ever found one other person that had one (they were hand made) and it was the then owner of (in UK) the very respected retail outlet Teamwork in London (was founded specialising in mainly large format equipment, nowadays, like many shops, is mostly digital based). By chance it came up in conversation and we swapped enthusiasm. Sadly, when only very young - and many years ago - he died on the operating table during just a simple biopsy exploration. Great loss.

Many of the articles, like those you linked to, are interesting but should never be taken as verbatim because they only really relate to a specific lens. I regularly used a 203mm Ektar (Kodak lens) on my 5x4 and it could be used at f64 without any such problems. I mainly used that - and a 150mm Tessar, at f32 for many shots. The 90mm wide-angle Angulon (not the later Super-Angulon) could also work well down to even f32, whereas the Super one could not as offered better results at f16. I had one of the convertible lenses, where with front and back it was 145mm, with just the front was 220mm and with just the back was 290mm - it had an iris scale that showed the f-stops when at 145mm and also showed mm iris openings - I even took one with the 290mm element using the smallest 1mm opening, so had f290. Not terribly sharp but usable - and an interesting lens. The cheaper wide angle for 5x4, the Wray 89mm, was useless until stopped down below f22 - meant for someone who could not afford, or get, the 90mm Angulon, it proved difficult to focus on the ground glass sceen as had to even be focused with lens on at least f22. A real fuzzy wuzzy at anything wider.

Most problems with diffraction come with specific lens designs and as said, especially on the very short focal length lenses for the smaller sensors. With 35,, format, film or digital, some lenses are fine at lower f-stops - others are not. The wider the maximum aperture - genberally the better to work at a couple of stops down from the maximum widest - that's why many lenses of modest maximum aperture actually are far better to use if wanting best overall definition and freedom from diffraction and Chromatic Abberation.

As you rightly said - interesting to delve into these technical matters but many authors of articles are not as knowledgeable as they try to portray.

The top left still looks ok for me. Ok. some minor reduced sharpness, but...

The lens is neither a Leica nor a Zeiss lens. For what the lens costs on the market to today, I find the result excellent.

Regards

Dirk

Dirk124 said:

Dirk124 wrote: The top left still looks ok for me. Ok. some minor reduced sharpness, but... The lens is neither a Leica nor a Zeiss lens. For what the lens costs on the market to today, I find the result excellent.

Click to expand...

Yes, considering it is a basic kit lens (don't think mine had ever been on a camera) and often derided, it is surporising how many actually find the performance, for most shots, is so good. Certainly, the trees shot (in the RAW v JPEG thread) does show some loss in corners but as mentioned, in general, that is not noticeable nor important for most work. I would like a different lens at some time if not too expensive - I have several but all have Iti-Flag problems unfortunately. The original Tamron 28-200 that came with the 14n gave excellent quality - sometimes. Often displayed enought of the flag problem to spoil some shots but main problem (I could have managedwith that alone) was occasionally getting RH side way out of focus. Probably could be fixed (often such problems are due using lens in manual mode and the disengagement of the auto gear drive can cause this slight tilting due necessary looseness to reduce the friction overall).

Perhaps one day I will try a basic dismantling to see if I can sort that out but meantime - the little 35-80 does most of what I require. Back in film days, for some 20 years daily (Pro use, alongside my Linhof 5x4 and 6x9 cameras - and it was a used example when I got it) I used a 100% reliable Leica M3 - mostly with a f2.8 Elmar 50mm - I used many Leitz lenses but the Elmar was the best of the lot - cheapest, simplest (Tessar design) and could be used at all f-stops. passed it on to my son who continued to use it (Professionally) for many years without any problems. He still uses film with a 6x7 for most work - now in Berlin.

The 24-120 zoom worked wonders on my slr/n. Yes it had a few issues, but NO funny color effects.

I have done HUNDREDS of 20x40s with this combination.

Thanks for that feedback Peter. I have seen results from the 24-120 but on the D800 and it sure was impressive. Out of my price range at present but in due course, should be more affordable. Would also provide slightly more versatility than the current 35-80 - as I miss the range offered by the somewhat unreliable 28-200 Tamron. Like the curate's egg - good in parts!

The older model 24-85 without VR worked very well also. You can get it used for $300.00 or less.

Wholeheartedly agree Peter, this is my favourite lens and is on my SLRn most of the time. Lightweight, sharp and good contrast . . . . . I love it . . . .

Coincidentally I have just noticed one for sale on Ebay . . . . comes up for auction tomorrow, currently just over £80 . . . . . and the seller will ship to Spain for £12 !!!!!

bishopsmead100 said:

bishopsmead100 wrote: Coincidentally I have just noticed one for sale on Ebay . . . . comes up for auction tomorrow, currently just over £80 . . . . . and the seller will ship to Spain for £12 !!!!!

Click to expand...

Thanks Peter. Did check this morning after reading your post but only one I could see was now already around double that in the bidding, so clearly popular - however, I shall keep my eyes peeled. I do need to check, somehow, it is OK regarding the ITI-FLAG bit for the 14n - which seems the problem model for such effects. Hang on - I shall check the listing linked in my signature to see if anything reported there. Not much point having that if I don't use it!

I have checked and three entries say no problems with that lens, so may try for that one if it does not get too expensive - has about 7 hours to go at this time of posting.

--
Zone8: Although I am a handsome genius, when I stand in front of a mirror, I vaguely recognise the ugly idjit standing on the other side!
LINK: For B+W with Epson 1400 (and other models) using black ink only PLUS other useful tips:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/epson1400-B&W.htm
Cleaning DSLR Sensors, including Kodak DSLR Factory Cleaning method:
http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/KodakDCS-sensorcleaning.htm (Includes links to "bassotto's" images)
Solving back/front focus problems on Sigma and most other DSLRs
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=35565277
PDF format list of lenses you can print or download - covers Italian Flag YES/NO for DCS 14n but applies to others. http://www.photosnowdonia.co.uk/ZPS/ItiFlagLensList.pdf

Yes, I see this morning that it is up over £130 :-(

I guess it's a case of keep looking . . . . . if you want to see how it performs on your 14n perhaps we can arrange to meet up for a beer next time I am in Andalusia . . . . and you can try mine out on your camera, I only own the SLRn . . . . . and it is great for me.

bishopsmead100 said:

bishopsmead100 wrote: I guess it's a case of keep looking . . . . . if you want to see how it performs on your 14n perhaps we can arrange to meet up for a beer next time I am in Andalusia . . . . and you can try mine out on your camera, I only own the SLRn . . . . . and it is great for me.

Click to expand...

I'll keep looking and will bear that in mind!

... now, with an hour to go, almost £200 - interesting as a new listing from Japan, with £12.55 postage is listed as BuyNow for £172.50 and described as Excellent Condition. If I was opting to pay that much, I would go for that one as seems descriptions are virtually identical as regards condition. Wonder if anyone will now opt out of the bidding war and go for this cheaper one instead?

This older version maybe handy to check out to see if it works with your 14.... All versions worked surprisingly well on the slr/n.

. . . . but with import duty + VAT + handling charges price will be well over £200 . . . . . I found out to my cost when I last purchased from USA . . . . used to be quite a high value for personal import (around £180, or at least customs used to let it go at about that level) . . . . now anything over £15.00 value it's +20% +£8 as a minimum +duty as applicable . . . . so a trivial £20 purchase comes in at a not so trivial £32 minimum