Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikkor new vs old lenses

Go to last post
Westmill said:
20mm F2.8 D rendering Vs
20mm F2.8 D rendering Vs

The high res and corrected G lenses
The high res and corrected G lenses

100 % crop from above.
100 % crop from above.

The one topic that is sure to bring out the most childish responses ever lol Well... genuine or not :)

Well these are my observations... I very often prefer images created by older lenses. I noticed in particular when I replaced my 20 d for the new 20 g.

From a technical point of view the new 20mm F1.8 g is a superb lens. Mounted on the d810 it showed you the advantages of 36 million pixels. It was sharp wide open, and it got as sharp as lenses get when closed down a little. Distortions are remarkably well sorted for such a wide angle lens. There is no question, that its an astounding lens. Anyone that is not seeing this, has a dud copy !

So how did my old 20 F2.8 D lens compare ? Well from a technical point of view the new G version kills it dead. Stopped down and towards the middle of the images you are not likely to see much difference. The edges and corners of the frame are far more notable. Since the newer lens is a faster F1.8 and because all lenses perform better when stopped down, by the time you reach F2.8 on the g lens, it is in another league, when compared to the older F2.8 d, which of course is wide open.

You also notice the much better distortion control of the G version. Despite all of these notable and obvious improvements.... I prefer how the older 20mm F2.8 d renders !

Yes it does seem to render a more 3d image ! I tend to think more along the lines of the more pleasant image, or less clinical perhaps. It reminds me of those blob pic things that were the rage a few years ago. Stare at them long enough and a crystal clear image popped out of nowhere. Some did it with ease while others simply could never see it.

So which is the better lens ? Clearly it is the later G version... its superb !

That is the lens.... which creates the better images.... after all.... photography should be about creating images, and not about the gear we use. I think this will boil down to personal preference and nothing more. For me.... the 20mm F2.8 d Wins ! :)
Click to expand...
Looking back at the film era, Nikon made the best 20mm and 24mm lenses, relatively speaking, and I do emphasize "relatively." However, the 20mm F/1.8 G is a truly exception lens that would have been impossible to design and manufacture 20 years ago. Generally speaking, the best vintage lenses were moderate wide angles, normals and short telephoto lenses. The vintage ultra wide angle lenses were deservedly rare, as they were expensive and not all that wonderful.
 
Assessor43 said:
Has anyone else noticed this?
Click to expand...
In reverse. To my eye there is no old lens that can hold a candle to the newer nano coated items for 3D pop, CA, Distortion, performance wide open, corner sharpness, etc.
 
noflashplease said:
The reason why the 135mm F/2.8 AI-S "pops" and a huge and expensive lens like the 105mm F/1.4 merely "plops" is because of the absurd complexity of the $2,200 lens. Your classic lens has 5 elements in 4 groups, while the ridiculous new lens has 14 elements in 9 groups! Complexity for the sake of complexity is the real reason why so many recently introduced lenses are so very underwhelming in real world use
Click to expand...
You know...for the last few weeks we've seen a LOT of excellent photos from happy owners of the new 105 f/1.4 posted here, and a lot more positive comments from the people who have viewed those photos.

And not ONE complaint about 'flat' rendering, or lack of '3D pop' in one of those threads (that I've seen).

Funny how people judge a lens differently when they're looking at the actual results as opposed to counting lens elements
 
MrScrooge said:
MrScrooge said:
noflashplease wrote

Does a 105mm prime ever need 14 elements? It's no wonder that the unedited sample images of the 105mm F/1.4 were less impressive, relatively speaking, than the results of some legacy lenses of the same focal length that had only 4 or 5 elements? Personally, I'd rather own an old 5 element 105mm F/2.5 AI-S than the thoroughly blah $2,200 14-element 105mm F/1.4.
Click to expand...
We've had a lot of people posting some fantastic shots here with their 105/1.4's since release and the response, from what I've read, has been overwhelmingly positive.

Since people have actually got their hands on this lens, the neighsayers who slated it before it was even released have been notably quiet. No comments (that I've seen) complaining about 'flat' images or dull colours at all.

Do you feel that now we have more experience regarding how this lens performs in the real world that the criticisms were unfounded - or do you feel that older versions of the 105 produce better results?
Click to expand...
Consider for a moment Steve McCurry's famous June 1985 National Geographic cover. He was using the 105mm F/2.5 and ISO 64 Kodachrome. There are no highlights in the dimly lit, out of focus background, but I'll assume that he was shooting the lens wide open and without a tripod or flash? As I recollect, Kodachrome 64 wasn't very good for push processing, either, so he had to keep his shutter speed up. I'd argue that lens was sharp and capable of great color contrast, even wide open. Would he have gotten the same shot with an enormous lens? Nope. My guess is that the girl's expression would have been a bit more like a celebrity being confronted by a paparazzi due to the intimidatingly large 82mm front element of the 105mm F/1.4E monster. That, and how would one contend with dealing with such as a large lens in the field? Keep in mind, he was using an all mechanical F2 and in that era just about every Nikon prime had a 52mm filter thread. Working professionals in the era of Nikon dominance wouldn't have embraced a ridiculous monster lens like the 105mm F/1.4E, even though that aperture would have been handy with Kodachrome 25.

As far as user posted samples of the 105mm F/1.4, or that other controversy magnet, the notorious 58mm F/1.4 G, I haven't seen anything that impresses me. There is a small but incredible defensive community of 58mm F/1.4G owners and I expect the same will be true of the 105mm F/1.4. These people are incredible articulate in justifying their purchase and employ and army of adjectives. I just don't see it. With photography, you show, you don't explain away.
 
noflashplease said:
MrScrooge said:
noflashplease said:
noflashplease wrote

Does a 105mm prime ever need 14 elements? It's no wonder that the unedited sample images of the 105mm F/1.4 were less impressive, relatively speaking, than the results of some legacy lenses of the same focal length that had only 4 or 5 elements? Personally, I'd rather own an old 5 element 105mm F/2.5 AI-S than the thoroughly blah $2,200 14-element 105mm F/1.4.
Click to expand...
We've had a lot of people posting some fantastic shots here with their 105/1.4's since release and the response, from what I've read, has been overwhelmingly positive.

Since people have actually got their hands on this lens, the neighsayers who slated it before it was even released have been notably quiet. No comments (that I've seen) complaining about 'flat' images or dull colours at all.

Do you feel that now we have more experience regarding how this lens performs in the real world that the criticisms were unfounded - or do you feel that older versions of the 105 produce better results?
Click to expand...
Consider for a moment Steve McCurry's famous June 1985 National Geographic cover. He was using the 105mm F/2.5 and ISO 64 Kodachrome. There are no highlights in the dimly lit, out of focus background, but I'll assume that he was shooting the lens wide open and without a tripod or flash? As I recollect, Kodachrome 64 wasn't very good for push processing, either, so he had to keep his shutter speed up. I'd argue that lens was sharp and capable of great color contrast, even wide open. Would he have gotten the same shot with an enormous lens? Nope. My guess is that the girl's expression would have been a bit more like a celebrity being confronted by a paparazzi due to the intimidatingly large 82mm front element of the 105mm F/1.4E monster. That, and how would one contend with dealing with such as a large lens in the field? Keep in mind, he was using an all mechanical F2 and in that era just about every Nikon prime had a 52mm filter thread. Working professionals in the era of Nikon dominance wouldn't have embraced a ridiculous monster lens like the 105mm F/1.4E, even though that aperture would have been handy with Kodachrome 25.

As far as user posted samples of the 105mm F/1.4, or that other controversy magnet, the notorious 58mm F/1.4 G, I haven't seen anything that impresses me. There is a small but incredible defensive community of 58mm F/1.4G owners and I expect the same will be true of the 105mm F/1.4. These people are incredible articulate in justifying their purchase and employ and army of adjectives. I just don't see it. With photography, you show, you don't explain away.
Click to expand...
I think she would have been quite amazed by his time traveling technology. Seriously, inserting a lens into a hypothetical situation 40 years in the past? Srsly??
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zlw
noflashplease said:
MrScrooge said:
noflashplease said:
noflashplease wrote

Does a 105mm prime ever need 14 elements? It's no wonder that the unedited sample images of the 105mm F/1.4 were less impressive, relatively speaking, than the results of some legacy lenses of the same focal length that had only 4 or 5 elements? Personally, I'd rather own an old 5 element 105mm F/2.5 AI-S than the thoroughly blah $2,200 14-element 105mm F/1.4.
Click to expand...
We've had a lot of people posting some fantastic shots here with their 105/1.4's since release and the response, from what I've read, has been overwhelmingly positive.

Since people have actually got their hands on this lens, the neighsayers who slated it before it was even released have been notably quiet. No comments (that I've seen) complaining about 'flat' images or dull colours at all.

Do you feel that now we have more experience regarding how this lens performs in the real world that the criticisms were unfounded - or do you feel that older versions of the 105 produce better results?
Click to expand...
Consider for a moment Steve McCurry's famous June 1985 National Geographic cover. He was using the 105mm F/2.5 and ISO 64 Kodachrome. There are no highlights in the dimly lit, out of focus background, but I'll assume that he was shooting the lens wide open and without a tripod or flash? As I recollect, Kodachrome 64 wasn't very good for push processing, either, so he had to keep his shutter speed up. I'd argue that lens was sharp and capable of great color contrast, even wide open. Would he have gotten the same shot with an enormous lens? Nope. My guess is that the girl's expression would have been a bit more like a celebrity being confronted by a paparazzi due to the intimidatingly large 82mm front element of the 105mm F/1.4E monster. That, and how would one contend with dealing with such as a large lens in the field? Keep in mind, he was using an all mechanical F2 and in that era just about every Nikon prime had a 52mm filter thread. Working professionals in the era of Nikon dominance wouldn't have embraced a ridiculous monster lens like the 105mm F/1.4E, even though that aperture would have been handy with Kodachrome 25.

As far as user posted samples of the 105mm F/1.4, or that other controversy magnet, the notorious 58mm F/1.4 G, I haven't seen anything that impresses me. There is a small but incredible defensive community of 58mm F/1.4G owners and I expect the same will be true of the 105mm F/1.4. These people are incredible articulate in justifying their purchase and employ and army of adjectives. I just don't see it. With photography, you show, you don't explain away.
Click to expand...
The "deer in the headlights" look is an all too common one in today's photographic subjects. With something as large and black as today's typical sterile Nikkor or Sigma prime dangling just a few feet in front of their faces, they can hardly be faulted for it.

But apart from the detrimental effects on the subject, one can only imagine the toll a heavy optic might exact on a photographer such as McCurry, who traveled to remote regions at altitude, often on foot. Severe pain in large and small joints? Coughing, breathlessness, shaking (from lactic acidosis), listlessness, and languor? As I said, one can only imagine!

Truly, old is gold--in more ways than one!
 
Last edited:
Manbungo Skumbaum Chimwala said:
It is conceivable that something similar is at work in the human optical system. In closing, let me stress that is my intent not to derogate the unwashed masses, but instead to help them better see what we see.
Click to expand...
You could achieve that best, by defining the properties you find desirable in the simple optical designs, using objective and measurable parameters.

Waxing poetic over technically unsupported and subjective perceptions achieves no progress toward reconciling viewpoints. Making presumptive assertions about certain products on no basis other than their optical complexity is frivolous and divisive.
 
noflashplease said:
The reason why the 135mm F/2.8 AI-S "pops" and a huge and expensive lens like the 105mm F/1.4 merely "plops" is because of the absurd complexity of the $2,200 lens. Your classic lens has 5 elements in 4 groups, while the ridiculous new lens has 14 elements in 9 groups! Complexity for the sake of complexity is the real reason why so many recently introduced lenses are so very underwhelming in real world use.
Click to expand...
I must say that this type of commentary is highly amusing, especially to those of us who actually own and use the 105/1.4E in addition to classic lenses such as the AI-s 105/2.5.

Please don't stop. The comic relief is refreshing and hugely entertaining.
 
Stian Olaisen said:
Once you pop, you can't stop.
Click to expand...
Indeed, my friend, you get it. Once you discover that certain lenses can create images with 3D pop, you only want to shoot with those lenses when possible. And this applies to Canon as equally as Nikon. Take this one, for example, that I shot with Canon's ancient 35L 1.4 Mk1 (recently replaced by a modern, more optically correct, but flatter Mk2 version):



I have shot literally hundreds of images with equal 3D pop but there's a sad futility in posting these sort of examples on here... half the disbelievers can't visualize the pop in the first place and the other half will disavow the 3D pop they see if only to spite the poster. It's simply not a measureable, quantifiable aspect. That in no way diminishes its presence or validity.

fPrime
 
Last edited:
MrScrooge said:
noflashplease said:
The reason why the 135mm F/2.8 AI-S "pops" and a huge and expensive lens like the 105mm F/1.4 merely "plops" is because of the absurd complexity of the $2,200 lens. Your classic lens has 5 elements in 4 groups, while the ridiculous new lens has 14 elements in 9 groups! Complexity for the sake of complexity is the real reason why so many recently introduced lenses are so very underwhelming in real world use
Click to expand...
You know...for the last few weeks we've seen a LOT of excellent photos from happy owners of the new 105 f/1.4 posted here, and a lot more positive comments from the people who have viewed those photos.

And not ONE complaint about 'flat' rendering, or lack of '3D pop' in one of those threads (that I've seen).
Click to expand...
Well, if you really must know I can honestly say that I'm not impressed with the 3D pop of the 105 1.4 from the examples I've seen so far. I suspect that just like the 58 1.4 or a Sigma ART lens it will end up being a one-trick pony that at best can only impart a sense of depth when shot wide open. And that's all we're seeing so far... injudicious use of f/1.4 for every shot like in this thread:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58261241

I've actually never seen anyone shoot f/1.4 so needlessly and still end up with a largely flat set of images.
MrScrooge said:
Funny how people judge a lens differently when they're looking at the actual results as opposed to counting lens elements
Click to expand...
No, we're simply trying not to rain on the 105 1.4 parade before all of the evidence is in at other apertures.

fPrime
 
Last edited:
Manbungo Skumbaum Chimwala said:
On the merits of your photo alone, it is clear that the 135 f/2.8 AI-s delivers a staggeringly good echelon of performance that many have come to (rightly) associate with the legendary three-dimensionality of yore.

Juxtaposed with today's rendition, the vintage look has never looked so good! This optic's uncommonly good color fidelity, color separation, and tonal rendition set it apart--as with so many others of its time--from today's humdrum optics.
Click to expand...
You expect us to believe that you've determined that the 135/2.8 exhibits superior color fidelity and separation (whatever that may mean) and tonal rendition, without the inclusion of a comparison image taken with a contemporary optic? Clearly, you haven't the slightest inkling of what is required for a valid optical test.
Manbungo Skumbaum Chimwala said:
If they are honest with themselves, those ill-fated to own one of today's "clinical" optics would have to agree.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, those who own and use - and have come to appreciate the advances incorporated into - modern optics, know far better than to fall for the ill-considered, presumptive musings and wild speculations of "artists" who imagine themselves endowed with super-sensibilities, and who would do well to substitute an optics textbook for their overworked thesaurus.
 
fPrime said:
Stian Olaisen said:
Once you pop, you can't stop.
Click to expand...
Indeed, my friend, you get it. Once you discover that certain lenses can create images with 3D pop, you only want to shoot with those lenses when possible. And this applies to Canon as equally as Nikon. Take this one, for example, that I shot with Canon's ancient 35L 1.4 Mk1 (recently replaced by a modern, more optically correct, but flatter Mk2 version):

View attachment 1416168

I have shot literally hundreds of images with equal 3D pop but there's a sad futility in posting these sort of examples on here... half the disbelievers can't visualize the pop in the first place and the other half will disavow the 3D pop they see if only to spite the poster. It's simply not a measureable, quantifiable aspect. That in no way diminishes its presence or validity.

fPrime
Click to expand...
How comforting it must be to see what the camera and lens companies themselves fail to see. To be able to readily discern and ascribe cause to something which those who dedicate their education and careers to optical engineering are not able to is indeed an achievement. Maybe you, yannick and the youtuber can start a kickstarter for a 3 element 50mm.
 
fPrime said:
fPrime said:
It's simply not a measureable, quantifiable aspect. That in no way diminishes its presence or validity.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If it is neither measurable nor quantifiable, its validity is no more than imaginary.

How far do you think I would get with my supervisor, if I approached him with a supposed design improvement, but could not show any objectively measurable advantage to it? Should he give me a raise, if I cannot quantify some increased value to the company that I am providing?

I would be wasting his time, just as you are wasting ours, trying to convince us of an alleged effect which is so subtle that most observers do not even agree that it is present.

If you're happy with your inferior old optics, then go enjoy them. Stop trying to convince everyone else that their choice of modern optics is dooming them to an eternity of "flat" images. We know better than that.
 
Marianne Oelund said:
Manbungo Skumbaum Chimwala said:
On the merits of your photo alone, it is clear that the 135 f/2.8 AI-s delivers a staggeringly good echelon of performance that many have come to (rightly) associate with the legendary three-dimensionality of yore.

Juxtaposed with today's rendition, the vintage look has never looked so good! This optic's uncommonly good color fidelity, color separation, and tonal rendition set it apart--as with so many others of its time--from today's humdrum optics.
Click to expand...
You expect us to believe that you've determined that the 135/2.8 exhibits superior color fidelity and separation (whatever that may mean) and tonal rendition, without the inclusion of a comparison image taken with a contemporary optic?
Click to expand...
I expect you to take it on faith. Do not disappoint me.
Marianne Oelund said:
Clearly, you haven't the slightest inkling of what is required for a valid optical test.
Marianne Oelund said:
If they are honest with themselves, those ill-fated to own one of today's "clinical" optics would have to agree.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, those who own and use - and have come to appreciate the advances incorporated into - modern optics, know far better than to fall for the ill-considered, presumptive musings and wild speculations of "artists" who imagine themselves endowed with super-sensibilities, and who would do well to substitute an optics textbook for their overworked thesaurus.
Click to expand...
We artistes will not be cowed by the overwrought sermons of those who worship at the altar of their optics bibles and other false idols. From our words flow knowledge and understanding. Must they all fall on the deaf ears of benighted skeptics?
 
Last edited:
Manbungo Skumbaum Chimwala said:
I expect you to take it on faith. Do not disappoint me.
We artistes will not be cowed by the overwrought sermons of those who worship at the altar of their optics bibles and other false idols. From our words flow knowledge and understanding. Must they all fall on the deaf ears of benighted skeptics?
Click to expand...
Now, that's funny!
 
The lack of photographic evidence on this thread is tiresome. This is so ironic when it's only a couple of minutes from shooting an image to uploading on the internet and costs nothing. I often find dpreview such a strange place, where halfwits will expend a thousand words on something they dredged up from a technical article rather than defer to the evidence of an actual photograph. I would have actually liked to see the evidence here.

It doesn't really help either that the cheerleaders for old lenses include the notorious that have even previously been banned. Okay, strictly speaking they're only cheerleaders for themselves in posting, but at least they could have tried to do something useful.

There has in fact been some nice discussion in this thread, it's just that it badly needs more photographic evidence. Do people here really care about the photography, or shooting their mouths off?
 
fishy wishy said:
The lack of photographic evidence on this thread is tiresome.
Click to expand...
An excellent observation!

I've heard worse excuses to get out and take photos!

Hopefully I'll be posting some doubleblind comparisons later - it should be interesting to see the results!
 
MrScrooge said:
fishy wishy said:
The lack of photographic evidence on this thread is tiresome.
Click to expand...
An excellent observation!

I've heard worse excuses to get out and take photos!

Hopefully I'll be posting some doubleblind comparisons later - it should be interesting to see the results!
Click to expand...
As promised!

Image 1A
Image 1A



Image 1B
Image 1B



Image 2A
Image 2A



Image 2B
Image 2B



Image 3A
Image 3A



Image 3B
Image 3B

Which ones have the 3D pop and which ones dont?
 
Don't know about 3D pop in any of those :), but 2A, 3B have nicer color and contrast, 2B, 3A has a bit of a bluish tint. IMO.

Out of the bw, 1A seems to have better contrast, but it could be the exposure too.

Maybe the tree trunk has some 3D separation, but I'm guessing it's stopped down quite a lot so the bokeh differences are minor.
 
Last edited:
MrScrooge said:
MrScrooge said:
fishy wishy said:
The lack of photographic evidence on this thread is tiresome.
Click to expand...
An excellent observation!

I've heard worse excuses to get out and take photos!

Hopefully I'll be posting some doubleblind comparisons later - it should be interesting to see the results!
Click to expand...
As promised!

Image 1A
Image 1A

Image 1B
Image 1B

Image 2A
Image 2A

Image 2B
Image 2B

Image 3A
Image 3A

Image 3B
Image 3B

Which ones have the 3D pop and which ones dont?
Click to expand...
Well I prefere the tonality of 1a, 2a seems to pop more and number 3 can't say what I prefer, it kind of lacks any point of interest but maybe 3a seems preferable.

I find it best to close my eyes as I switch from one image to another that way I don't see the images jump.

--
Stuart...

500px

500px.com 500px.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top