Lens character is a real thing

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

What stands out for you in this article (difference wise)?

Click to expand...

The obvious thing is the swirly bokeh of the 80, and the cats eye bokeh at the edge of the frame, which appears even when you look at the thumbnails. However, there are other differences as well. The colours are different between the two lenses, and the out of focus areas appear to show more contrast in the 80mm image, perhaps in part due to under-exposure in the corners due to vignetting.

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

What stands out for you in this article (difference wise)?

Click to expand...

The obvious thing is the swirly bokeh of the 80

Click to expand...

What is swirly bokeh? I can see it and I've always kind of liked it. But how do we properly describe what we're seeing?

Iuvenis said:

, and the cats eye bokeh at the edge of the frame, which appears even when you look at the thumbnails. However, there are other differences as well. The colours are different between the two lenses, and the out of focus areas appear to show more contrast in the 80mm image, perhaps in part due to under-exposure in the corners due to vignetting.

Click to expand...

I noticed exposure differences too which complicates things. That's one of those situations that would require more controlled conditions to be certain bout.

The cats eye bokeh is a clear one although from a qualitative standpoint, that doesn't bother me in a lens. I guess I do like perfect discs better, but cat's eye doesn't ruin it for me necessarily.

I have the 90mm and would love to own the 80mm. From that article, while I can see differences, I can't say that any of them bother me one way or the other.

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

What stands out for you in this article (difference wise)?

Click to expand...

The obvious thing is the swirly bokeh of the 80

Click to expand...

What is swirly bokeh? I can see it and I've always kind of liked it. But how do we properly describe what we're seeing?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the problem with this topic. It's perfectly visible and even obvious, but not easy to understand why it has that effect.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

, and the cats eye bokeh at the edge of the frame, which appears even when you look at the thumbnails. However, there are other differences as well. The colours are different between the two lenses, and the out of focus areas appear to show more contrast in the 80mm image, perhaps in part due to under-exposure in the corners due to vignetting.

Click to expand...

I noticed exposure differences too which complicates things. That's one of those situations that would require more controlled conditions to be certain bout.

Click to expand...

I thought that at first. However, if you look at the face, the exposure is very similar in that area.

stevo23 said:

The cats eye bokeh is a clear one although from a qualitative standpoint, that doesn't bother me in a lens. I guess I do like perfect discs better, but cat's eye doesn't ruin it for me necessarily.

I have the 90mm and would love to own the 80mm. From that article, while I can see differences, I can't say that any of them bother me one way or the other.

Click to expand...

I can relate to that. The image shot with the 80 has what you might call bokeh flaws, but I'm not sure I don't actually like it more.

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

What stands out for you in this article (difference wise)?

Click to expand...

The obvious thing is the swirly bokeh of the 80

Click to expand...

What is swirly bokeh? I can see it and I've always kind of liked it. But how do we properly describe what we're seeing?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the problem with this topic. It's perfectly visible and even obvious, but not easy to understand why it has that effect.

Iuvenis said:

Iuvenis said:

, and the cats eye bokeh at the edge of the frame, which appears even when you look at the thumbnails. However, there are other differences as well. The colours are different between the two lenses, and the out of focus areas appear to show more contrast in the 80mm image, perhaps in part due to under-exposure in the corners due to vignetting.

Click to expand...

I noticed exposure differences too which complicates things. That's one of those situations that would require more controlled conditions to be certain bout.

Click to expand...

I thought that at first. However, if you look at the face, the exposure is very similar in that area.

Iuvenis said:

The cats eye bokeh is a clear one although from a qualitative standpoint, that doesn't bother me in a lens. I guess I do like perfect discs better, but cat's eye doesn't ruin it for me necessarily.

I have the 90mm and would love to own the 80mm. From that article, while I can see differences, I can't say that any of them bother me one way or the other.

Click to expand...

I can relate to that. The image shot with the 80 has what you might call bokeh flaws, but I'm not sure I don't actually like it more.

Click to expand...

That's the subjective area, but still demonstrable. I like a bit of swirl in my bokeh at times.

And that becomes the crux of it in many conversations. Some people argue that "you can't measure it" when I think they're just afraid to say that some flaws and aberrations can be pleasant at times. And by the same token, I don't see any point in saying that a very well corrected lens like 90mm is "sterile" just because it's really well corrected and very sharp. Images from that lens are quite pleasant.

It turns out for me that most flaws and aberrations are not pleasant. Enter my old 50mm 1.8D Nikon. It was described by a friend as "overly sharp" such that it's "harsh". So you mean it's flaw is that it has a high MTF and if it were lower it would be a stellar lens? I don't think that works. What I think happens with that lens is that it's rendering of OOF areas is not so pleasing and it has poor coma correction. So while it has a high MTF, many of the other easily measured aspects are not so great. The bokeh of this lens showcases most of these flaws.

Sorry for the ramble. Just trying to make sense of what we see vs. what we repeat from others.

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

There was a lot of wasted space. For sharpness simply generate MTF charts and be done with it. On a 24 MP APS-C diffraction will become a limiting factor starting at about 5.6 so yes you won't be able to see any sharpness difference from about 5.6 on - no surprise.

Clearly the Bokeh is different for the two lenses. I prefer the 90's Bokeh by a large degree than the Bokeh of the 80. The image of the face - they are different in each lens. The tonal gradation in the 90 is smoother and as a result the face (the model's right side) is rendered fairly harshly in the 80 compared to the 90. If one wants a measure on the tonal gradation - the directional derivative at each point of the the luminance value with in all directions would probably work. Such a measure is how edges of objects are detected in automatic target recognition systems in military application. Another measure is the cross plot fractal dimension. All these measures are not only important in ATR but in computer vision.


Quite frankly the 80 seems to render very similarly to my 50 f2 - my least favorite Fuji lens. In fact the rendering of faces and backgrounds are quite similar between my 50 f2 and what you see here in the 80. Some call it clinical, some call it harsh. I call it unacceptable for my preferences. There is no doubt which lens rendering I prefer - and it has nothing to do with sharpness. Sharpness is a given today. It is all the other factors in the rendering that are not.

There is a theory that has been talked about concerning lens rendering and the number of elements. That is more glass impacts the image rendering. There may be a lot of physical reasons for that. One being while coatings are good in mitigating some reflection at air/glass boundaries - none can be perfect and they are today far from perfect.

The more of such surfaces the more reflections. The 80 has 16 elements, hence 30 air/glass and glass/air interfaces. The 90 has eleven elements, hence 10 fewer interfaces. The second issue is the reflections at air/glass boundaries cannot be described by the classical ray model of light propagation nor the wave theory of wave propagation by which the coatings are designed. What happens physically is quantum phenomena of partial reflection (with is a property of the glass itself will still be an issue) which requires Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) to analyze. QED is the quantum field theory for electrodynamics for which Richard Feynman won his Nobel Prize.


The more glass the greater impact from partial reflection and the more difficult it is to control. Light polarization plays a key roll in how much reflection is roaming around inside the lenses on any given image. So based on a QED argument I think there might be some validity to the less glass is better argument. Given that polarization in any given image can impact the amount of partial reflection - the amount of internal reflection will vary from image to image. Of course a macro lens needs more elements so one might not expect the 80 to render as well as the 90. I sure would not expect a lens designed for macro to render an image as well as a non-macro in general photography.

Truman Prevatt said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

There was a lot of wasted space. For sharpness simply generate MTF charts and be done with it. On a 24 MP APS-C diffraction will become a limiting factor starting at about 5.6 so yes you won't be able to see any sharpness difference from about 5.6 on - no surprise.

Click to expand...

Huh? It goes downhill from 2.8 with the 90mm and f/4 on the 80mm. What does that tell us?

stevo23 said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

There was a lot of wasted space. For sharpness simply generate MTF charts and be done with it. On a 24 MP APS-C diffraction will become a limiting factor starting at about 5.6 so yes you won't be able to see any sharpness difference from about 5.6 on - no surprise.

Click to expand...

Huh? It goes downhill from 2.8 with the 90mm and f/4 on the 80mm. What does that tell us?

Click to expand...

At one point when the D800E came out - there was an analysis that showed that on the 36 MP sensor without an AA (D800E) that diffraction started to become a limiting factor between f2.8 and f4. Of course that is image dependent. The 24 MP APS-C sensor has approximately same density sensor as the 36 MP FF. So that it falls starting at 2.8 to 4 is not surprising. I was referring to the reviewers comments. By 5.6 diffraction is the limiting factor no matter the sharpness.

Truman Prevatt said:

stevo23 said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

There was a lot of wasted space. For sharpness simply generate MTF charts and be done with it. On a 24 MP APS-C diffraction will become a limiting factor starting at about 5.6 so yes you won't be able to see any sharpness difference from about 5.6 on - no surprise.

Click to expand...

Huh? It goes downhill from 2.8 with the 90mm and f/4 on the 80mm. What does that tell us?

Click to expand...

At one point when the D800E came out - there was an analysis that showed that on the 36 MP sensor without an AA (D800E) that diffraction started to become a limiting factor between f2.8 and f4. Of course that is image dependent. The 24 MP APS-C sensor has approximately same density sensor as the 36 MP FF. So that it falls starting at 2.8 to 4 is not surprising. I was referring to the reviewers comments. By 5.6 diffraction is the limiting factor no matter the sharpness.

Click to expand...

Ah, that's helpful - I hadn't looked up the density. I think you still get situations where edge/corner sharpness increases into f/5.6 or even f/8 - and that on a 36Mp sensor. So some lenses can be poorly corrected and reach their best after diffraction starts to take it's toll.

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

What stands out for you in this article (difference wise)?

Click to expand...

The obvious thing is the swirly bokeh of the 80

Click to expand...

What is swirly bokeh? I can see it and I've always kind of liked it. But how do we properly describe what we're seeing?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the problem with this topic. It's perfectly visible and even obvious, but not easy to understand why it has that effect.

stevo23 said:

stevo23 said:

, and the cats eye bokeh at the edge of the frame, which appears even when you look at the thumbnails. However, there are other differences as well. The colours are different between the two lenses, and the out of focus areas appear to show more contrast in the 80mm image, perhaps in part due to under-exposure in the corners due to vignetting.

Click to expand...

I noticed exposure differences too which complicates things. That's one of those situations that would require more controlled conditions to be certain bout.

Click to expand...

I thought that at first. However, if you look at the face, the exposure is very similar in that area.

stevo23 said:

The cats eye bokeh is a clear one although from a qualitative standpoint, that doesn't bother me in a lens. I guess I do like perfect discs better, but cat's eye doesn't ruin it for me necessarily.

I have the 90mm and would love to own the 80mm. From that article, while I can see differences, I can't say that any of them bother me one way or the other.

Click to expand...

I can relate to that. The image shot with the 80 has what you might call bokeh flaws, but I'm not sure I don't actually like it more.

Click to expand...

That's the subjective area, but still demonstrable. I like a bit of swirl in my bokeh at times.

And that becomes the crux of it in many conversations. Some people argue that "you can't measure it" when I think they're just afraid to say that some flaws and aberrations can be pleasant at times. And by the same token, I don't see any point in saying that a very well corrected lens like 90mm is "sterile" just because it's really well corrected and very sharp. Images from that lens are quite pleasant.

It turns out for me that most flaws and aberrations are not pleasant. Enter my old 50mm 1.8D Nikon. It was described by a friend as "overly sharp" such that it's "harsh". So you mean it's flaw is that it has a high MTF and if it were lower it would be a stellar lens? I don't think that works. What I think happens with that lens is that it's rendering of OOF areas is not so pleasing and it has poor coma correction. So while it has a high MTF, many of the other easily measured aspects are not so great. The bokeh of this lens showcases most of these flaws.

Click to expand...

That was indeed one of the most unpleasant lenses I wasted my money on- fortunately not very much of it.

I think it's much easier to see flaws in a lens when other aspects are good. Edge resolution on that POC was atrocious, even on a D700. Massive CA and coma. Centre was quite good by comparison, which just made it look worse.

I much prefer a well balanced lens that has not obvious flaws and a good all-round performance. If it's reasonably even across the frame I can deal with that. If it isn't, it's much harder to correct.

If I want a less sharp result, that's easy. Either don't sharpen the image, or add blur.

57even said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

stevo23 said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

What stands out for you in this article (difference wise)?

Click to expand...

The obvious thing is the swirly bokeh of the 80

Click to expand...

What is swirly bokeh? I can see it and I've always kind of liked it. But how do we properly describe what we're seeing?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the problem with this topic. It's perfectly visible and even obvious, but not easy to understand why it has that effect.

Member said:

Member said:

, and the cats eye bokeh at the edge of the frame, which appears even when you look at the thumbnails. However, there are other differences as well. The colours are different between the two lenses, and the out of focus areas appear to show more contrast in the 80mm image, perhaps in part due to under-exposure in the corners due to vignetting.

Click to expand...

I noticed exposure differences too which complicates things. That's one of those situations that would require more controlled conditions to be certain bout.

Click to expand...

I thought that at first. However, if you look at the face, the exposure is very similar in that area.

Member said:

The cats eye bokeh is a clear one although from a qualitative standpoint, that doesn't bother me in a lens. I guess I do like perfect discs better, but cat's eye doesn't ruin it for me necessarily.

I have the 90mm and would love to own the 80mm. From that article, while I can see differences, I can't say that any of them bother me one way or the other.

Click to expand...

I can relate to that. The image shot with the 80 has what you might call bokeh flaws, but I'm not sure I don't actually like it more.

Click to expand...

That's the subjective area, but still demonstrable. I like a bit of swirl in my bokeh at times.

And that becomes the crux of it in many conversations. Some people argue that "you can't measure it" when I think they're just afraid to say that some flaws and aberrations can be pleasant at times. And by the same token, I don't see any point in saying that a very well corrected lens like 90mm is "sterile" just because it's really well corrected and very sharp. Images from that lens are quite pleasant.

It turns out for me that most flaws and aberrations are not pleasant. Enter my old 50mm 1.8D Nikon. It was described by a friend as "overly sharp" such that it's "harsh". So you mean it's flaw is that it has a high MTF and if it were lower it would be a stellar lens? I don't think that works. What I think happens with that lens is that it's rendering of OOF areas is not so pleasing and it has poor coma correction. So while it has a high MTF, many of the other easily measured aspects are not so great. The bokeh of this lens showcases most of these flaws.

Click to expand...

That was indeed one of the most unpleasant lenses I wasted my money on- fortunately not very much of it.

I think it's much easier to see flaws in a lens when other aspects are good. Edge resolution on that POC was atrocious, even on a D700. Massive CA and coma. Centre was quite good by comparison, which just made it look worse.

I much prefer a well balanced lens that has not obvious flaws and a good all-round performance. If it's reasonably even across the frame I can deal with that. If it isn't, it's much harder to correct.

If I want a less sharp result, that's easy. Either don't sharpen the image, or add blur.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I guess it all points to perceived sharpness as the goal, not just a good MTF.

stevo23 said:

Truman Prevatt said:

stevo23 said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Iuvenis said:

I thought it might be useful to have an example to refer to, but I don't have two lenses that really lend themselves to that sort of test. I suspect most people are in that position.

However, Mirrorless Comparisons have compared the Fuji 80 and 90 - see the link here: https://mirrorlesscomparison.com/x-mount-lenses/fuji-xf-80mm-vs-90mm/#Depth-of-field

Respecting their copyright, I haven't inserted the images directly.

If you look at the images from the 80 and 90 at f2.8, you will see a startling difference in the appearance of the images, despite the fact that both of these are very highly corrected lenses with a very similar field of view at the same aperture.

Click to expand...

There was a lot of wasted space. For sharpness simply generate MTF charts and be done with it. On a 24 MP APS-C diffraction will become a limiting factor starting at about 5.6 so yes you won't be able to see any sharpness difference from about 5.6 on - no surprise.

Click to expand...

Huh? It goes downhill from 2.8 with the 90mm and f/4 on the 80mm. What does that tell us?

Click to expand...

At one point when the D800E came out - there was an analysis that showed that on the 36 MP sensor without an AA (D800E) that diffraction started to become a limiting factor between f2.8 and f4. Of course that is image dependent. The 24 MP APS-C sensor has approximately same density sensor as the 36 MP FF. So that it falls starting at 2.8 to 4 is not surprising. I was referring to the reviewers comments. By 5.6 diffraction is the limiting factor no matter the sharpness.

Click to expand...

Ah, that's helpful - I hadn't looked up the density. I think you still get situations where edge/corner sharpness increases into f/5.6 or even f/8 - and that on a 36Mp sensor. So some lenses can be poorly corrected and reach their best after diffraction starts to take it's toll.

Click to expand...

The article I saw was when the D800E came out and people were trying to compare the D800 and D800E. One can easily calculate the Airy disk radius and compare that to detector separation. However, on a CFA camera it's not really that simple. It depends on which detectors are overlapped, color, and statical frequency. They showed on some images - the D800 diffraction did not show in the image until about f8. While on others images you could see it at between 4 and 5.6. Once diffraction started to show it would be the limiting factor as the Airy disk gets larger as you stop down.

What they also showed was the D800E was slightly sharper and along with that the limits of diffraction started to show up about a stop earlier. I looked around for that article but couldn't find it today.

It could very well be that the reason Fuji and others are pushing the APS-C pixel density higher is at some point - what's the use if diffraction becomes the limiting factor.

stevo23 said:

Pritzl said:

stevo23 said:

There is nothing that can't be measured or characterized in a lens - nothing. There is no such thing as a "magical quality that can't be measured". Be it halation that you like in your Canon or some other aspect that creates a "dreamy look", if you can see it, you can characterize it objectively. Period.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the aberration cannot be measured. It certainly can. And usually is, albeit in a negative connotation. What I meant was that the desirable impact such an aberration might have on some images to some people is harder to quantify.

Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were saying that - I totally get what you're saying. Had mentioned my own old Nikon lens as an example, but alas, I wasn't clear.

But when theses discussions come up, there is always that inevitable mention of "secrect sauce" and "things you can't measure". I think people may not know how to quantify them and then sometimes tend to dismiss them as unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

All of this discussion reminds me of arguing high-end audio buffs trying to describe what makes one $20K system sound better than another $20k system, or the benefits of high end cables vs regular ones...

Jim King said:

stevo23 said:

Pritzl said:

stevo23 said:

There is nothing that can't be measured or characterized in a lens - nothing. There is no such thing as a "magical quality that can't be measured". Be it halation that you like in your Canon or some other aspect that creates a "dreamy look", if you can see it, you can characterize it objectively. Period.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the aberration cannot be measured. It certainly can. And usually is, albeit in a negative connotation. What I meant was that the desirable impact such an aberration might have on some images to some people is harder to quantify.

Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were saying that - I totally get what you're saying. Had mentioned my own old Nikon lens as an example, but alas, I wasn't clear.

But when theses discussions come up, there is always that inevitable mention of "secrect sauce" and "things you can't measure". I think people may not know how to quantify them and then sometimes tend to dismiss them as unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

All of this discussion reminds me of arguing high-end audio buffs trying to describe what makes one $20K system sound better than another $20k system, or the benefits of high end cables vs regular ones...

Click to expand...

Oh yes there are fist fights there. But in general what makes one better is when you put them in your house - which one sounds better to you. It's pretty simple. One system also might sound better for jazz than another but another might sound better for classical. At the end of the day it gets down to which system you would rather sit down with with a glass of good red wine and enjoy your evening. Of course that brings up to what is a good wine :-D

Jim King said:

stevo23 said:

Pritzl said:

stevo23 said:

There is nothing that can't be measured or characterized in a lens - nothing. There is no such thing as a "magical quality that can't be measured". Be it halation that you like in your Canon or some other aspect that creates a "dreamy look", if you can see it, you can characterize it objectively. Period.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the aberration cannot be measured. It certainly can. And usually is, albeit in a negative connotation. What I meant was that the desirable impact such an aberration might have on some images to some people is harder to quantify.

Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were saying that - I totally get what you're saying. Had mentioned my own old Nikon lens as an example, but alas, I wasn't clear.

But when theses discussions come up, there is always that inevitable mention of "secrect sauce" and "things you can't measure". I think people may not know how to quantify them and then sometimes tend to dismiss them as unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

All of this discussion reminds me of arguing high-end audio buffs trying to describe what makes one $20K system sound better than another $20k system, or the benefits of high end cables vs regular ones...

Click to expand...

Whose arguing?

Truman Prevatt said:

Jim King said:

stevo23 said:

Pritzl said:

stevo23 said:

There is nothing that can't be measured or characterized in a lens - nothing. There is no such thing as a "magical quality that can't be measured". Be it halation that you like in your Canon or some other aspect that creates a "dreamy look", if you can see it, you can characterize it objectively. Period.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the aberration cannot be measured. It certainly can. And usually is, albeit in a negative connotation. What I meant was that the desirable impact such an aberration might have on some images to some people is harder to quantify.

Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were saying that - I totally get what you're saying. Had mentioned my own old Nikon lens as an example, but alas, I wasn't clear.

But when theses discussions come up, there is always that inevitable mention of "secrect sauce" and "things you can't measure". I think people may not know how to quantify them and then sometimes tend to dismiss them as unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

All of this discussion reminds me of arguing high-end audio buffs trying to describe what makes one $20K system sound better than another $20k system, or the benefits of high end cables vs regular ones...

Click to expand...

Oh yes there are fist fights there. But in general what makes one better is when you put them in your house - which one sounds better to you. It's pretty simple. One system also might sound better for jazz than another but another might sound better for classical. At the end of the day it gets down to which system you would rather sit down with with a glass of good red wine and enjoy your evening. Of course that brings up to what is a good wine :-D

Click to expand...

Oh oh oh...raises hand...I've got a good one. My neighbor/commercial photographer (used to be) had a client who painted wine still lifes for the big names in Napa Valley. One of the painter's clients was Silver Oak and after my neighbor did a series of copy art shots for this paintings, the guy sent him a case of Silver Oak. These were $200+ bottles of wine. He said, "I've never cared much for wine, always been a beer guy. But that stuff converted me."

After [the unfortunate experience] of reading through this thread, I’m going to have to file a claim with my medical provider to repair the damage caused by repeated and extreme eye rolls. The worst part is that he thinks it might have affected my ability to render.

Geez, thanks a lot, folks...

--
Jerry-Astro
Fujifilm X Forum Co-Mod

stevo23 said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Jim King said:

stevo23 said:

Pritzl said:

stevo23 said:

There is nothing that can't be measured or characterized in a lens - nothing. There is no such thing as a "magical quality that can't be measured". Be it halation that you like in your Canon or some other aspect that creates a "dreamy look", if you can see it, you can characterize it objectively. Period.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the aberration cannot be measured. It certainly can. And usually is, albeit in a negative connotation. What I meant was that the desirable impact such an aberration might have on some images to some people is harder to quantify.

Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were saying that - I totally get what you're saying. Had mentioned my own old Nikon lens as an example, but alas, I wasn't clear.

But when theses discussions come up, there is always that inevitable mention of "secrect sauce" and "things you can't measure". I think people may not know how to quantify them and then sometimes tend to dismiss them as unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

All of this discussion reminds me of arguing high-end audio buffs trying to describe what makes one $20K system sound better than another $20k system, or the benefits of high end cables vs regular ones...

Click to expand...

Oh yes there are fist fights there. But in general what makes one better is when you put them in your house - which one sounds better to you. It's pretty simple. One system also might sound better for jazz than another but another might sound better for classical. At the end of the day it gets down to which system you would rather sit down with with a glass of good red wine and enjoy your evening. Of course that brings up to what is a good wine :-D

Click to expand...

Oh oh oh...raises hand...I've got a good one. My neighbor/commercial photographer (used to be) had a client who painted wine still lifes for the big names in Napa Valley. One of the painter's clients was Silver Oak and after my neighbor did a series of copy art shots for this paintings, the guy sent him a case of Silver Oak. These were $200+ bottles of wine. He said, "I've never cared much for wine, always been a beer guy. But that stuff converted me."

Click to expand...

Well he had probably been drinking Boon's Farm so had nothing to compare :-D

An ex-wife story. She used to love cheap wine. Most of them would make me wretch - so I stuck to beer and bourbon. Well one day we somehow got invited to a wine tasting. They were rolling out high end wines. She tasted an expensive Pinot Noir and that was it - no more cheap wines. From that point I could only afford really cheap beer. How much PBR can one stand :-D

Jerry-astro said:

After [the unfortunate experience] of reading through this thread, I’m going to have to file a claim with my medical provider to repair the damage caused by repeated and extreme eye rolls. The worst part is that he thinks it might have affected my ability to render.

Geez, thanks a lot, folks...

Click to expand...

Rendering is best accomplished at 200 degrees internal temp for about 45 minutes. For brisket anyhow.

Truman Prevatt said:

stevo23 said:

Truman Prevatt said:

Jim King said:

stevo23 said:

Pritzl said:

stevo23 said:

There is nothing that can't be measured or characterized in a lens - nothing. There is no such thing as a "magical quality that can't be measured". Be it halation that you like in your Canon or some other aspect that creates a "dreamy look", if you can see it, you can characterize it objectively. Period.

Click to expand...

I did not say that the aberration cannot be measured. It certainly can. And usually is, albeit in a negative connotation. What I meant was that the desirable impact such an aberration might have on some images to some people is harder to quantify.

Click to expand...

Sorry - didn't mean to imply you were saying that - I totally get what you're saying. Had mentioned my own old Nikon lens as an example, but alas, I wasn't clear.

But when theses discussions come up, there is always that inevitable mention of "secrect sauce" and "things you can't measure". I think people may not know how to quantify them and then sometimes tend to dismiss them as unmeasurable.

Click to expand...

All of this discussion reminds me of arguing high-end audio buffs trying to describe what makes one $20K system sound better than another $20k system, or the benefits of high end cables vs regular ones...

Click to expand...

Oh yes there are fist fights there. But in general what makes one better is when you put them in your house - which one sounds better to you. It's pretty simple. One system also might sound better for jazz than another but another might sound better for classical. At the end of the day it gets down to which system you would rather sit down with with a glass of good red wine and enjoy your evening. Of course that brings up to what is a good wine :-D

Click to expand...

Oh oh oh...raises hand...I've got a good one. My neighbor/commercial photographer (used to be) had a client who painted wine still lifes for the big names in Napa Valley. One of the painter's clients was Silver Oak and after my neighbor did a series of copy art shots for this paintings, the guy sent him a case of Silver Oak. These were $200+ bottles of wine. He said, "I've never cared much for wine, always been a beer guy. But that stuff converted me."

Click to expand...

Well he had probably been drinking Boon's Farm so had nothing to compare :-D

An ex-wife story. She used to love cheap wine. Most of them would make me wretch - so I stuck to beer and bourbon. Well one day we somehow got invited to a wine tasting. They were rolling out high end wines. She tasted an expensive Pinot Noir and that was it - no more cheap wines. From that point I could only afford really cheap beer. How much PBR can one stand :-D

Click to expand...

LOL!!! I've actually come to appreciate PBR on tap quite a bit.

stevo23 said:

Jerry-astro said:

After [the unfortunate experience] of reading through this thread, I’m going to have to file a claim with my medical provider to repair the damage caused by repeated and extreme eye rolls. The worst part is that he thinks it might have affected my ability to render.

Geez, thanks a lot, folks...

Click to expand...

Rendering is best accomplished at 200 degrees internal temp for about 45 minutes. For brisket anyhow.

Click to expand...

Well done, Stevo, well done.