"pics or it didn't happen" ... right there on cue.. i'm sorry but no i will not be sharing any personal pics on this forum.. i do portraits and have zero desire in my subject's nose or ears being dissected by a bunch of hostile strangers that seem to already have made their mind up on basically their gear being flawless and superior to any other.. if however you are genuinely curious/interested in the topic at hand, i suggest you do like me and go out there and do your own comparison. it really isn't that hard or expensive to pick up a good AF-D.. to be honest i was skeptical myself but the results spoke for themselves.. seeing is beleiving i know so just go check it for yourself if you really wanna find out.. the truth is out there..
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Probably the most amazing thing I've read about modern vs old lenses and optics
- Thread starter primeshooter
- Start date
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Ok, that was silly. So how many elements does my Nikkor 55mm f1.2 have? Or my Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8? Or my Canon EF 35mm f2?
I am curious about if there is anything to it. Since you have done comparisons, I asked you. No, I do not have the most modern and high element count lenses to "do my own comparison".
It is really expensive to pick up a Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM II, a Zeiss 55mm f1.4 Otus and such.
So I asked. And you won't show what you say you see.
Though of course the same could be said of cameras - that one could find the low-light performance of the d7000 more than adequate but the higher center-to-corner performance of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art or a 300mm f/2.8 to be a necessity.
I'll play, here are some from the 50mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8Ganalogue said:
The lens used is in the image name. I doubt these are of much use as they are too different to really compare but someone might enjoy comparing them. Need to click on view gallery page to see.
--
Stuart...
http://sjmphotography.carbonmade.com/
SJM Photography
Attachments
Last edited:
anotherMike
Forum Pro
An addendum, written in the morning instead of late hours 
Regarding wide angle lenses in general: I can't speak for what you photograph, or how large you print, or if you even print, nor can I speak for what level of excellence you (or anyone else) considered important. We all have our own standard.
Speaking personally, I have a standard of what I would like wide angles to perform like, at moderately stopped down apertures (say F/5.6 - F/7.1 - I chose those so I can stay out of diffraction a bit more than stopping down to F/11). Unfortunately, on a D8xx series body, in my mind, once we get wider than 35mm, there are no wide angles currently available that I've worked with (remember, I haven't shot the Otus 28) that meet my standard. So there is a gap between "where we are now" and "where I'd like to be". This gap (for me) is substantially bigger with current wide angles relative to current semi-telephotos and telephotos, because my standard can (and is) being met by several expensive but not hyper-expensive (otus level coin) lenses today. But it's not on the wides. So for me, if they had come out with an Otus wide at 20 or 24mm, a focal length I use a lot (I'm just not a "28mm" shooter), I would have gone for the lens, even though they are insanely expensive. Because at that point I expect there would no longer be a gap between the "where we are now" and the "where I'd like to be".
For some, there may be no gap because their standard is set differently. But I tend to think most people who bothered to go spend 3 grand on a D8xx body have resolution as a relatively high priority in the overall mix, so I think that those photographers would like better performance in the wide angles than what we have now. Whether they want to pay 6 grand for it is entirely another question. Ultimately wide angles are some of the trickiest designs to correct, and thus it's no surprise that many of us feel most of the AFD wides (most designed prior to digital sensors and the different design parameters required when it's a sensor not a piece of film back there) aren't performing that well on modern high rez bodies.
-m
Regarding wide angle lenses in general: I can't speak for what you photograph, or how large you print, or if you even print, nor can I speak for what level of excellence you (or anyone else) considered important. We all have our own standard.
Speaking personally, I have a standard of what I would like wide angles to perform like, at moderately stopped down apertures (say F/5.6 - F/7.1 - I chose those so I can stay out of diffraction a bit more than stopping down to F/11). Unfortunately, on a D8xx series body, in my mind, once we get wider than 35mm, there are no wide angles currently available that I've worked with (remember, I haven't shot the Otus 28) that meet my standard. So there is a gap between "where we are now" and "where I'd like to be". This gap (for me) is substantially bigger with current wide angles relative to current semi-telephotos and telephotos, because my standard can (and is) being met by several expensive but not hyper-expensive (otus level coin) lenses today. But it's not on the wides. So for me, if they had come out with an Otus wide at 20 or 24mm, a focal length I use a lot (I'm just not a "28mm" shooter), I would have gone for the lens, even though they are insanely expensive. Because at that point I expect there would no longer be a gap between the "where we are now" and the "where I'd like to be".
For some, there may be no gap because their standard is set differently. But I tend to think most people who bothered to go spend 3 grand on a D8xx body have resolution as a relatively high priority in the overall mix, so I think that those photographers would like better performance in the wide angles than what we have now. Whether they want to pay 6 grand for it is entirely another question. Ultimately wide angles are some of the trickiest designs to correct, and thus it's no surprise that many of us feel most of the AFD wides (most designed prior to digital sensors and the different design parameters required when it's a sensor not a piece of film back there) aren't performing that well on modern high rez bodies.
-m
Albert Silver
Senior Member
An addendum, written in the morning instead of late hours
Regarding wide angle lenses in general: I can't speak for what you photograph, or how large you print, or if you even print, nor can I speak for what level of excellence you (or anyone else) considered important. We all have our own standard.
Speaking personally, I have a standard of what I would like wide angles to perform like, at moderately stopped down apertures (say F/5.6 - F/7.1 - I chose those so I can stay out of diffraction a bit more than stopping down to F/11). Unfortunately, on a D8xx series body, in my mind, once we get wider than 35mm, there are no wide angles currently available that I've worked with (remember, I haven't shot the Otus 28) that meet my standard. So there is a gap between "where we are now" and "where I'd like to be". This gap (for me) is substantially bigger with current wide angles relative to current semi-telephotos and telephotos, because my standard can (and is) being met by several expensive but not hyper-expensive (otus level coin) lenses today. But it's not on the wides. So for me, if they had come out with an Otus wide at 20 or 24mm, a focal length I use a lot (I'm just not a "28mm" shooter), I would have gone for the lens, even though they are insanely expensive. Because at that point I expect there would no longer be a gap between the "where we are now" and the "where I'd like to be".
Sigma A 20 mm f/1.4 DG HSM review - Image resolution - LensTip.com
Best digital cameras and lens reviews. If you are looking for the information about digital cameras and lenses you are in a right place. We have many professional tests of digital photography equipment.
www.lenstip.com
But Mike...the 28mm f/2.8d is more than adequate. Hell, it's even better than the new Otus (see linked article, above).An addendum, written in the morning instead of late hours
Regarding wide angle lenses in general: I can't speak for what you photograph, or how large you print, or if you even print, nor can I speak for what level of excellence you (or anyone else) considered important. We all have our own standard.
Speaking personally, I have a standard of what I would like wide angles to perform like, at moderately stopped down apertures (say F/5.6 - F/7.1 - I chose those so I can stay out of diffraction a bit more than stopping down to F/11). Unfortunately, on a D8xx series body, in my mind, once we get wider than 35mm, there are no wide angles currently available that I've worked with (remember, I haven't shot the Otus 28) that meet my standard. So there is a gap between "where we are now" and "where I'd like to be". This gap (for me) is substantially bigger with current wide angles relative to current semi-telephotos and telephotos, because my standard can (and is) being met by several expensive but not hyper-expensive (otus level coin) lenses today. But it's not on the wides. So for me, if they had come out with an Otus wide at 20 or 24mm, a focal length I use a lot (I'm just not a "28mm" shooter), I would have gone for the lens, even though they are insanely expensive. Because at that point I expect there would no longer be a gap between the "where we are now" and the "where I'd like to be".
For some, there may be no gap because their standard is set differently. But I tend to think most people who bothered to go spend 3 grand on a D8xx body have resolution as a relatively high priority in the overall mix, so I think that those photographers would like better performance in the wide angles than what we have now. Whether they want to pay 6 grand for it is entirely another question. Ultimately wide angles are some of the trickiest designs to correct, and thus it's no surprise that many of us feel most of the AFD wides (most designed prior to digital sensors and the different design parameters required when it's a sensor not a piece of film back there) aren't performing that well on modern high rez bodies.
-m
Last edited:
^ Waaaaaaay too many elements. Robs all of the microcontrast. Or so I've read.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
FYI I've shot the Sigma 20/1.4 Art. No better than the 20/1.8G Nikon, as in, it's a very nice lens, but it doesn't have amazing corners. Thus, I didn't get one. BTW, You'll need something far more detailed than your typical flat chart MTF50 resolution test like photozone, lenstip and the others to really see though...
-m
-m
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Shhhh Paul, you're interrupting me! I'm busy taking all of those pesky extra lens elements out of my lenses to help with the 'depth'
-m
-m
dmanthree
Forum Pro
I have to agree with others here: if you can't produce any proof of what you say, how are we supposed to take it seriously? I've heard arguments like this for other gear, as well. Like Leica, who the Leica users claim has magical properties they can see in their images. But when the images are posted, well....nothing. There's also the possibility that you're experiencing the "vinyl/CD" effect where vinyl users claim their sound is better due to the familiar wow/flutter and surface noise of vinyl. To each his own. But I'd love to see a single example of what your claiming. It doesn't have to be portraits, either. Shoot anything that's mundane and won't betray your subjects.
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
Boy, you got that right! Let the job dictate the weapon.
because I am retired, I find something like the Sigma art series to work great for my NEEDS. I love the Otus 28 but simply have no need for it. Some guys own and fly around in multi-million dollar airplanes - and I don't even own an airplane. Why? No need.Thanks for you insightful posts - as always.
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
Try the Sigma 24mm art. Damn good lens for the $$$.An addendum, written in the morning instead of late hours
Regarding wide angle lenses in general: I can't speak for what you photograph, or how large you print, or if you even print, nor can I speak for what level of excellence you (or anyone else) considered important. We all have our own standard.
Speaking personally, I have a standard of what I would like wide angles to perform like, at moderately stopped down apertures (say F/5.6 - F/7.1 - I chose those so I can stay out of diffraction a bit more than stopping down to F/11). Unfortunately, on a D8xx series body, in my mind, once we get wider than 35mm,
Albert Silver
Senior Member
I don't doubt it, but sometimes that is all one has access to in a reliable manner. Plus it does help provide info.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Hi Steve!
I've got the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, as well as the Nikon 24/1.8G. Have run extremely exhaustive real world testing with both (> 12 test comparisons, several weeks effort, etc). Pretty familiar with them. You're right, the Sigma is quite sharp, as is the Nikon. But they aren't quite where I'd like them to be at F/7.1 in most landscape test scenes. Close, but not quite there. The Nikon tends to hold up on the edges a bit better in many cases actually, but it's close, which is why I (so far) have kept both lenses in the kit.
-m
I've got the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, as well as the Nikon 24/1.8G. Have run extremely exhaustive real world testing with both (> 12 test comparisons, several weeks effort, etc). Pretty familiar with them. You're right, the Sigma is quite sharp, as is the Nikon. But they aren't quite where I'd like them to be at F/7.1 in most landscape test scenes. Close, but not quite there. The Nikon tends to hold up on the edges a bit better in many cases actually, but it's close, which is why I (so far) have kept both lenses in the kit.
-m
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Completely off topic, but are you considering the new Tamron 85 at all?
-m
-m
Albert Silver
Senior Member
Yes, if it lives up to its promise (fast AF, great optics), it would be a top pick. Provided the price is right as well, needless to say.
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
I agree. Pretty close. I have NOT done an A/B test so I am pretty much just expounding.
Albert Silver
Senior Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum