Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

Started Oct 4, 2016 | Discussions thread
primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,094
Still waiting...

Marianne Oelund wrote:

fPrime wrote:

Hope you got what you wanted out of the perception experiment, Marianne, but I believe the case can now be closed on TAP's review of the 105E. In retrospect the evidence shown here makes it is clear that his review was 100% right. Recall that he basically postulated three things:

  • Color shift vs. the 105 DC - Confirmed. When shot side by side in numerous, independent comparisons the 105E has been consistently yellower. The debate over if blue light absorption by the 105E is the cause can continue, but the fact that this lens renders more yellow than the 105DC is incontrovertible.

This is correct, and in accordance with the numbers that I've already given you. If the 105 DC is slightly better than the 135 DC due to having one less element, it should fall just under a 2% red shift. The 105/1.4E is at 6% red shift, but this is almost the same as the AFS 20/1.8G which Ken has endorsed as excellent.

Also, the new 105 actually has 2 less groups which means 4 fewer air-glass interfaces than the 20/1.8G! How is it that removing 4 coatings from the system suddenly brings on such condemnations regarding color shift/saturation, microcontrast issues and supposed flare? Ken has it completely backwards, and it's high time that people changed to another channel.

By the way, the magenta shift he has tried to show in green hues, has nothing to do with a little more red shift from the lens. That problem arises from issues with light sources that have low CRI (and lenses do not reduce CRI).

Cats-eye bokeh is an issue with any f/1.4 lens. There's no point in getting excited about an issue that's been with us for decades.

  • Flat images - Confirmed. First by numerous flat 105E examples from Art Jacks and Fotoinfo which originally raised the rendering concern, secondly by you when you adjusted the exposure on the resurrection plant photos showing the 105E as dead flat next to the 3D pop of the 105DC, lastly by Derek Z once again in string of nicely composed but utterly flat examples here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4062893#forum-post-58455488

How can something which isn't defined, be confirmed? None of the TAP lackeys in your camp have come up with any kind of unambiguous, objective criterion to use. But that is exactly what I am trying to get to, and I will have more examples for the 2D depth impressionists to gawk at, to rule out various potential mechanisms.

The main issue that I have with Ken's bleating, is that he has extrapolated his perceptions of "flatness" to infer that the new 105 brings losses in contrast and color saturation - and exhibits flare issues ("lens milk") which he tries to suggest are absent from the classic lenses. All of those assertions are completely absurd, as I proved on my "Maligned Modernity" thread and elsewhere.

Finally, as to whether or not the 105/1.4E is truly responsible for any "flatness" as reported by a limited number of observers, the jury is still out - at least mine is.

Against the stark review accuracy by TAP,

That's a new low for you - calling outright lies, distortions, fabrications, misrepresentations and invalid extrapolations "stark accuracy." Ken has the worst reporting accuracy of any reviewer that I know. If you still think he's accurate, I'll enumerate a list of outright lies he spouted on his video that was directed at me personally (his forum "warriors" video, which seems to have been taken down very recently).

I'll say it again. Version one...left or right side pops more? Version two, left or right side pops more?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
tko
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow