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

Started Oct 4, 2016 | Discussions
H o g n e
H o g n e Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: The Angry Photographer's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
7

fPrime wrote:

Hope you got what you wanted out of the perception experiment here, Marianne, but I believe the case can now be closed on TAP's review of the 105E.

I sincerely hope so but for other reasons than yours.

From any reasonable review of the evidence presented it is more than fair to conclude 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 yellow is incontrovertible.

Unconfirmed. I think a number of experiments where conducted by Marianne to show that the 105 f/1.4e has a superb color rendering. There is no color cast with this lens that makes it a bad choice.

Confirmed. However, this is nothing new. Under certain (predictable) conditions you get this effect. You will find it in all lenses with a smaller exit pupil. Check the lower left lens image which shows how this occurs:

http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html

I have the same effect in my 200mm f/2 under certain conditions. Check this thread for a number of other examples: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4049421

What is the big deal? It is an issue for all such primes.

  • 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

Unconfirmed. Sorry. This is just in your head. Keep looking for proof of what you believe in and you will find it. I am not going to spend any time on debating this issue.

Against the stark review accuracy by TAP how did our self-anointed "experts" do in their own forum reviews of the 105E? Horribly! Although Lance B, anotherMike, and you were among the first to buy the 105E, it's embarrassing that not a single one of you either discovered or reported ANY of these three issues to the forum before TAP did.

What is embarrassing is your rants around here. I am sorry for you that you are not able to understand that yourself.

Why on earth should the mentioned people care? Why should they report 2 claims which do not exist (color shift and flatness) and 1 claim which is the property of any lens similar to this (cat's eye bokeh)?

While all of you were gushing like schoolgirls over sharpness and bokeh, TAP was doing your job of finding the cons and posting examples. If you think this doesn't fundamentally undermine your credibility, think again.

Because those of us who have used the lens are impressed. And, rightly so. It is an excellent tool in the right hands. An optical achievement.

Somebody compared TAP to Trump earlier on here and there's more than a little truth to this. When it's right and obvious, TAP is apparently the only one willing to tell it like it is... no politically correct bs. Is he vulgar? Yes. But is he wrong... not on this matter, for sure. You are all collectively the Hillary/Kaine ticket running a tired campaign of insults against reality by suggesting he doesn't have the demeanor to be a lens reviewer or that people who agree with his findings are a basket of deplorables. The parallels are both funny and sad.

I won't go into US-politics but anyone who is as vulgar as TAP will automatically lose credibility in my book. It is perfectly possible to have an opinion without resorting to such tactics.

 H o g n e's gear list:H o g n e's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +9 more
Yake Senior Member • Posts: 1,531
Nonsense
1

TAP's review is full of nonsense.  This guy just sees what he wants to see, and then rants about it all day.

TAP = Talentless Angry Photographer.

 Yake's gear list:Yake's gear list
Sony a7 III Canon EOS RP
nottabot New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Funny thing perception
2

fishy wishy wrote:

You are living in your own world as if post-processing for color doesn't happen. You're trying to lay claim to subtle differences in a test that is not properly controlled for lighting, and the colour differences are well within the scope of post-processing adjustments anyway. I have wasted hours trying to bring into line artificial lighting in post, and someone can't cope with a little difference in lens cast. We're not having to shoot slides with filters anymore.

If that photographer had left the tripod where it was, removed the body with the plate attached, changed the lens and put the body back on the tripod, he could have got exactly the same perspective on a solid tripod. The fact that he didn't and that there is a little more fill light on the more modern lens side suggests he was fiddling or incompetent.

Besides, the childishness is plain to see from the overlaid text on the photo. IT BOTHERS HIM MORE THAT THE NEW LENS IS IN PLASTIC THAN ANYTHING ELSE

This is one of the best posts in this thread. I'm glad you noticed they were taken at different angles too. I pedantically ran a difference layer over the photographs, to see that it wasn't simply a focal length shift due to focus breathing.

They were 100% taken at different angles.

nottabot New Member • Posts: 7
Re: There is a specific goal in all of this
2

primeshooter wrote:

What if 10,000 people choose the same sides of both images being more 3-D? They might not quantify why but it still proves something I think...

Argumentum ad populum doesn't prove anything, especially when the shots are taken at a different angle, with a different exposure, lighting and possibly slightly different focal length and whatnot.

Well in that case I will try and see it again then if it's that good. I've no doubt if I can get that to work it'll appear more 3-d than a difference between lenses. But the point is the difference is there, between the lenses - already as I've said there is a pattern in this thread most people have made the same selections!

Just as there'd be a further difference if the camera was moved even further to the left. What significance does this have in a review?

Maybe not. But show these images to thousands and I bet I know which sides of which images they will select. Maybe then it'll become more real for you. Then perhaps we can see how to quantify it, no?

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and you're trying to use it to prove something. Why?

This must be hard for you to take, granted.

Going off on a tangent again, about emotions. This isn't about feelings, although you do seem to be gloating quite a bit.

Come on, you've posted at length talking about TAP and how the new lens is better, your dog in this fight it to hold that theory to the fire and prove it isn't it? Your own post title seemed like gloating to me a little too, so lets not dwell on that too much. In these pictures, I see a clear winner as do the other respondents.

The burden of proof ultimately lies on the Angry Photographer; how can he prove his claims when the shots have been taken at a different angle (lighting, exposure, and more)?

Now we are back tracking I see...so you admit that you see a difference here, between these sides of the images, albeit as you've said light affects this more - by what you've just said, you've still admitted the lens can have an affect too, as as I've said several times now, it's not coincidence people are selecting the same sides of the images as better.

It doesn't matter whether a difference is seen because the shots were not taken in the same place, with the same exposure, etc.

nottabot New Member • Posts: 7
Re: A different view...
4

photoreddi wrote:

nottabot wrote:

Hello, I don't like to post on forums too much but I was asked to write about lenses a bit; someone I know is interested in buying the Nikon 105mm f/1.4.

It's not a lens that I'm ever likely to get but that's because I wouldn't use it enough in conditions that would take advantage of its strengths, it's too heavy for me to be tempted to use it when I could get by with the 105mm VR Micro Nikkor or the 135mm DC Nikkor, and it's too expensive. I have more immediate expenses that have a much higher priority. But it's a wonderful lens that deserves to be used and not put on a pedestal.

.

One mistake I think people make is they look at objects, it doesn't matter what they are, and then they begin to make assumptions. For example, if you had never heard of a vehicle before and you saw a Ferrari drive by at 5MPH, but you only saw Coaches do 30mph, you might make the assumption that Ferraris are not very fast. People look at big lenses and they assume they have to be big (to an extent this is true, but I won't get into that subject here). People look at high element count lenses and assume they have to be bad. It's not necessarily so.

Theoria Apophasis also states that to "insult a fool is the praise of wisdom." Personally I think this is not logical. Digging a hole under someone's toes does not elevate yourself. For that reason, I kindly ask that if he does post here insulting me, admin does something about it.

That's unlikely unless forum members send an avalanche of feedback to DPR's admin. It's unlikely that using the Complain button will do anything because it appears that this forum's three moderators aren't actively keeping tabs on the forum. They might be, but we wouldn't know it from checking their posting history which shows this :

Formotioner : Three posts to this forum in Feb. 2015. Stopped posting to other forums about a year and a half ago and he was by far most active in several of the Sony forums.

.

Mike Cialowitz : Moderately active in several Nikon forums but his most recent 5 posts (2 to this forum, 3 to the Sony Alpha / Nex E-mount (APS-C) forum were posted in 2014. All other posts date back to 2013 or older.

.

ltcdata : Similar. The 2 most recent replies were posted in this forum 11 months ago. After that a mix of posts to other Nikon forums. One to the Nikon Pro DX SLR forum in Jan. 2014 and all the rest were most recently posted in 2013.

So feedback needs to be used to get the attention of DPR's administration. Only they can tell if the forum moderators are actually (at least) lurking or whether they need to be supplemented or replaced by more active moderators. If feedback isn't used, it's unlikely that the lens trolls and sock puppets will ever disappear.

I don't want to come across as a conspiracy theorist, but if TAP and his minions and sock puppets barraged DPR's forums with videos and theories about how horrible it was to purchase camera gear from Amazon, I think they'd be swept out of DPR's forums in short order, as they should be.

Thanks for the reply. Only time will tell. I tried to write what I did in a way that people can mimic without too much hassle (different layers, upping exposure, etc. is not difficult to do) so hopefully people will try it and get the same results.

As far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof doesn't lie on anyone in this thread, but rather the Angry Photographer. He made the claims, and those photographs are insufficient because they're not taken from the same place, with the same exposure and whatnot. Therefore, the respectful thing for him to do would be to take the photographs down (they're misleading, and that's something he attacked someone else for) and start again.

Tommy Cooper New Member • Posts: 1
Re: Is an apology required for being a realist?
11

Iain G Foulds wrote:

... Prime: Absolutely agree that there is no moderation at this forum. Half the posts on these threads should have been deleted and the posters banned.

... I'm not clear on the series, but it is obvious that in the latest series, the image on the right has depth and life. The image on the left is flat and dead.

... There is something that just don't make sense in Marianne's reply to my post. It is so severely over intellectualized that you would think that you were dealing with a machine, and not a human being/ photographer. I feel sorry for her. It puts all her opinions in question.

What ridiculous comment. If you want to have a private conversation to abuse Marianne, then use a private message. If you want to attack someones character on a forum, then do so to the person your attacking, not a third person. Its extremely rude and disrespectful.

-- hide signature --

Tom.

 Tommy Cooper's gear list:Tommy Cooper's gear list
Pentax *ist D
Just Tim New Member • Posts: 11
Re: Is an apology required for being a realist?

Marianne Oelund wrote:

Iain G Foulds wrote:

... Marianne: Seriously, you don't see depth in subjects, apart from the composition as a whole? In a portrait, an ear doesn't seem further away than a nose?

In that particular case, there is a manufactured sense of depth which only results from conscious recognition of the subject, and knowledge of what the subject is like in 3 dimensions, from prior experience. Light and shadow can help this, but at no time am I confused into thinking I am looking at anything remotely as realistic as an actual 3D subject. My binocular vision insists powerfully that I am looking at a flat surface (display or printed photo), and no conscious process can override that.

Now, if I close one eye and stay still, my mind becomes free to interpret as it pleases: Looking at the application windows on my monitor, I can certainly make them appear separated in depth, and I can fool my perceptions into believing that the stars on my background photo are as remote as real stars. But as soon as I have both eyes open again, everything immediately snaps together into a flat surface.

What I am trying to make clear, is that there is a huge difference between knowing depth from mere inference, and seeing depth through binocular-difference processing. To me, they are not remotely similar.

No portrait has any cues in it, which would allow you to discern whether the photo was taken of a live person, or was just a photo of a flat photograph. Anyone who has done photo copy work knows this first-hand.

The consciously-derived sense of depth from a 2D image does not occur at the level of the visual cortex, and it is only a rough approximation (typically an underestimate) of the original subject's true depth features, with a high degree of uncertainty - not to mention a high error and omission rate.

No single 2D image gives the visual cortex any 3D stimulation. That is the only place in your brain where a detailed and accurate third dimension can be constructed, free of uncertainties and confusion.

If you were shown a photograph of a collection of unfamiliar objects, without cues such as overlap or shadow or defocus, you could not determine what the relative distances of the objects were. Many convincing "trick" photographs have been produced, which take advantage of this fact.

Not entirely so. A lot of photographers make the false assumption that what they see is absolute. It is not. In many cases it is a figment of the imagination, quite literally.

What we see and how we interpret it is not 'hard wired' into the brain but learn through experience. Bi-nocular vision is only part of it. There are lots of small clues that we pick up subconsciously that allow us to place order and understand the world we see. For instance you understand distance because contrast and detail diminish with it. You can understand scale because you know the size of the cow in the field through your experience and memory of seeing it at close hand.

We do not see a fully sharp or colourful world with our eyes, in fact our range of sharp colour vision is actually quite small. Also we do not see with wall to wall sharpness. The image is not what your eye sees but is a construct of the brain which, to pinch a phrase or two, stitches and focus stacks the results of your eyes continually scanning the scene. Now this is an incredible amount of data, (your eyes have a greater resolution than your camera), and takes a short time to process. A very short time, but the effects are not so small.

Most of the time when we look at things, we do not see them properly. We just glance at them. When we just glance we do not always give the brain time to construct a complete image, and when this happens then our memory fills in the gaps based on how we've seen and understood similar objects in the past.

This is what a lot of photographers do, they don't actually look at things but just glance and make assumptions. A funny thing happens when we do that. We glance at one or two visual clues and force ourselves to associate them with what we want to see, the logic we wish to impose. We then become blind to any other way of seeing because we refuse to look any further or deeper into the object or image once we've seen in it what we want to see.

I know it sounds odd and almost unbelievable, but it's actually very easy to demonstrate:

You may think that it's a maths test, but all it really does is test how closely you look at something. If you just glance then you memory fills in the gaps, you see one type of flower and assume all the other similar ones are the same and cease to look any closer. When you do look carefully the maths is impossible to solve because the flowers in the last row are different to the ones above, (a single yellow instead of two, and four blue petals instead of five).

It is very difficult to add the visual clues into an image that overcome your bi-nocular vision when viewing images at close range, but one of them is linked to the reduction in contrast and detail with distance. You can do this with selective focus as the acutance naturally softens as focus decreases and is sharper in focus. This is not how we normally see things, we construct image in our brains that are in focus, but we associate the decreasing contrast and detail with distance. Now with some of your tests and well observed results you can understand that this is easier to do with some lenses than others. It is not the lens that creates this but an understanding of the effect through careful obsevation, actually looking carefully and not just glancing and making assumptions. This is the 3D pop. The best demonstration can usually be seen in flowing water on a long exposure. The water is light and lacks acutance against a far bank thats sharp and has deep blacks. In this case you can often observe the illusion that the far bank is actually in front of the water, almost floating above it. It's easy to confuse the eye not only when you remove the visual clues, but also when you jumble them up because it goes against our experience of how we've interpreted it in the past.

However even with this long ramble there will be those that do not wish to be converted or learn anything new. They will just glance at the words and only see in them what they want to see, make assumptions. The points they can argue against to convince themselves that their vision is absolute and what they think they see and the way the've labelled it is actual fact.

"No learning has any value if it leaves such habit undisturbed," and in a way you're banging your head against a wall.

VadymA Senior Member • Posts: 1,487
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
1

JCB123 wrote:

Ah but what about the swirly bouquet in combination with cats-eye bokeh ?

While I am on the critics side for this lens mostly on the cost vs benefits argument, swirly cats-eye bokeh can often be seen in both 105 DC and 135 DC as well. Here is one example but there are plenty more if you google:

Review of 135 DC:

 VadymA's gear list:VadymA's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon 1 J5 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +7 more
H o g n e
H o g n e Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
1

VadymA wrote:

JCB123 wrote:

Ah but what about the swirly bouquet in combination with cats-eye bokeh ?

While I am on the critics side for this lens mostly on the cost vs benefits argument, swirly cats-eye bokeh can often be seen in both 105 DC and 135 DC as well.

Thanks for giving a balanced view even if you are on the sceptical side. Kudos.

As I pointed out in my own reply: cat's eye bokeh is not special to this lens.

 H o g n e's gear list:H o g n e's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +9 more
akul60 Regular Member • Posts: 137
Re: yup

tko wrote:

akul60 wrote:

  1. I have no idea what 'micro contrast' means. - resolution and micro contrast to me means pretty much the same.

Microcontrast seems to be an invented word that means nothing, and is already described by existing contrast based resolution test. No need to make up words

  1. I hate that word '3D pop'. It is one of the most meaningless word that I really would be happy to never read again.

Agree also.

  1. Now I am looking at the images on my laptop but my impression stays the same.

Be it high-fidelity, wine tasting, or photography, pseudo-experts like to make up terms that make them seem more important.

The probelm with invented term is that I have no idea what his/her definition of that term is. First time I read the word 'micro contrast' was about 5 years ago. Till this day, I still don't feel the terminology is used in the same way. LOCA is LOCA, abberation is abberation, flare if flare, but micro contrast ....  I may well be wrong.  It may be that I didn't get the invitation for the party.   Well, it seems you didn't get that invitation either, so I should not feel too bad, eh!

Luka

Yake Senior Member • Posts: 1,531
Re: Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"
4

VadymA wrote:

JCB123 wrote:

Ah but what about the swirly bouquet in combination with cats-eye bokeh ?

While I am on the critics side for this lens mostly on the cost vs benefits argument, swirly cats-eye bokeh can often be seen in both 105 DC and 135 DC as well. Here is one example but there are plenty more if you google:

Review of 135 DC:

Of course.  This type of bokeh is common to many excellent lenses, including lenses that Talentless Angry Photographer promotes!  That's why people are wasting their time arguing with the nonsense that he puts out.

 Yake's gear list:Yake's gear list
Sony a7 III Canon EOS RP
primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,126
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
2

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.
  • Swirly, Cats-eye bokeh - Confirmed. Vetted first by Hogne and plainly visible once again in the latest 105E examples by Derek Z here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4062893#forum-post-58455488
  • 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

Against the stark review accuracy by TAP, how did our self-anointed "experts" do in their own forum reviews of the 105E? Horribly! Although Lance B, anotherMike, and you were among the first to buy the 105E, it's embarrassing that not a single one of you either discovered or reported ANY of these three issues to the forum before TAP did. While all of you were gushing like schoolgirls over sharpness and bokeh, TAP was doing your job of finding the cons and posting examples. If you think this doesn't fundamentally undermine your lens reviewing credibility, think again.

Somebody compared TAP to Trump earlier and after some consideration there's more than a little truth to that. When it's right and obvious, TAP is apparently the only one willing to tell it like it is... no politically correct bs. Is he vulgar? Yes. But is he wrong... not on this matter, for sure. You are all collectively the Hillary/Kaine ticket running a tired campaign of insults against reality by suggesting he doesn't have the demeanor to be a lens reviewer or that people who agree with his findings are a basket of deplorables. The parallels are both funny and sad.

fPrime

The thing about tap is he actually has a lot of good recommendations re lens buying and best lenses for the money. He also does not just love old lenses...i know he loves the 20mm 1.8g and there are other examples of modern lenses he thinks are great - the 14-24mm etc. He'll quickly call out a new overpriced lens that every other reviewer on here or youtube will gush about, if there are downsides which there are and he mentions the old lens is better - his opinion yes but it may ring true for many...

Unlike every other reviewer hes not like the big names on youtube that tell you every lens released is awesome and that you should buy it right away...that you somehow need it...via their affiliate link of course so its in their interest to say its great isn't it! Yes TAP makes money off donations and youtube but this troubles me much less than the rest of them who clearly want to recommend every lens via their affiliate link! I think we know who these guys are..

And to everyone who says the lens isnt yellow rendering...why is it every time its shot next to the 105dc its yellow? Every comparison on the internet clearly shows the overly yellow rendering it provides. The swirley bokeh with cats eyes is present. Yes other long fast primes has this...but this lens has it in spades compared to others. Its a consideration if you get motion sickness but want to shoot wide open at times.

At the end of the day people can buy what they wish. But all i see is people buying it and gushing about its sharpness and bokeh...at least tap had the balls to demonstrate the downsides. The 105 DC really pops in his test compared to this new 105 lens which looks flat and lifeless SOOC, and what he says is right...skintones ain't as good as the 105mm DC .

HFLM Senior Member • Posts: 1,947
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
5

Different angle of view and distance to subject resulting in different focus/out of focus transition. Different histograms indicating a larger tonal range in the 105/1.4 shot. If you STILL insist on the TAP being right even though these basic differences, you ridicule yourself, I am sorry to say that.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=949297618515473&set=a.949290818516153.1073741828.100003057322002&type=3&theater shows several images of the 105DC and 105/1.4. I could just link to one below and say: Hey look, the eye pops out better from the 105/1.4 below therefore it is better. I would never do that based on single images without exactly controlling the scene.

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.
  • Swirly, Cats-eye bokeh - Confirmed. Vetted first by Hogne and plainly visible once again in the latest 105E examples by Derek Z here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4062893#forum-post-58455488
  • 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

Against the stark review accuracy by TAP, how did our self-anointed "experts" do in their own forum reviews of the 105E? Horribly! Although Lance B, anotherMike, and you were among the first to buy the 105E, it's embarrassing that not a single one of you either discovered or reported ANY of these three issues to the forum before TAP did. While all of you were gushing like schoolgirls over sharpness and bokeh, TAP was doing your job of finding the cons and posting examples. If you think this doesn't fundamentally undermine your lens reviewing credibility, think again.

Somebody compared TAP to Trump earlier and after some consideration there's more than a little truth to that. When it's right and obvious, TAP is apparently the only one willing to tell it like it is... no politically correct bs. Is he vulgar? Yes. But is he wrong... not on this matter, for sure. You are all collectively the Hillary/Kaine ticket running a tired campaign of insults against reality by suggesting he doesn't have the demeanor to be a lens reviewer or that people who agree with his findings are a basket of deplorables. The parallels are both funny and sad.

fPrime

 HFLM's gear list:HFLM's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7 III
fPrime
fPrime Senior Member • Posts: 2,953
Re: The Angry Photographer's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
1

H o g n e wrote:

fPrime wrote:

From any reasonable review of the evidence presented it is more than fair to conclude 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 yellow is incontrovertible.

Unconfirmed. I think a number of experiments where conducted by Marianne to show that the 105 f/1.4e has a superb color rendering. There is no color cast with this lens that makes it a bad choice.

It's a subjective call if the color rendering is pleasing or not and that's entirely besides the point being made here.  The point was that the color is shifted compared to the 105DC and that's confirmed fact.

Confirmed. However, this is nothing new. Under certain (predictable) conditions you get this effect. You will find it in all lenses with a smaller exit pupil. Check the lower left lens image which shows how this occurs:

I have the same effect in my 200mm f/2 under certain conditions. Check this thread for a number of other examples: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4049421

What is the big deal? It is an issue for all such primes.

Cats-eye bokeh may be somewhat common in fast lenses but Petzvahl-like swirl is definitely not.  Both deserve comment.  TAP was the first to do so.  Again, it's confirmed.

  • 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

Unconfirmed. Sorry. This is just in your head. Keep looking for proof of what you believe in and you will find it. I am not going to spend any time on debating this issue.

Let's choose to disagree.  I believe that the flat images I pointed to above speak volumes for themselves.  Anyone can claim that this new emperor has 3D-pop robes all day long, but it's a sad testament that 98% of the images don't show any pop at all even though the bulk of them were shot at f/1.4 with the benefit of maximum subject isolation.

We know that you're $2,000 USD invested into this lens that you like, Hogne, but that also means you have a dog in this fight.  Your viewpoints, whether you see it or not, are definitely being skewed towards defending the indefensible.

fPrime

 fPrime's gear list:fPrime's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D700
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,973
Re: Funny thing perception

nottabot wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

You are living in your own world as if post-processing for color doesn't happen. You're trying to lay claim to subtle differences in a test that is not properly controlled for lighting, and the colour differences are well within the scope of post-processing adjustments anyway. I have wasted hours trying to bring into line artificial lighting in post, and someone can't cope with a little difference in lens cast. We're not having to shoot slides with filters anymore.

If that photographer had left the tripod where it was, removed the body with the plate attached, changed the lens and put the body back on the tripod, he could have got exactly the same perspective on a solid tripod. The fact that he didn't and that there is a little more fill light on the more modern lens side suggests he was fiddling or incompetent.

Besides, the childishness is plain to see from the overlaid text on the photo. IT BOTHERS HIM MORE THAT THE NEW LENS IS IN PLASTIC THAN ANYTHING ELSE

This is one of the best posts in this thread. I'm glad you noticed they were taken at different angles too. I pedantically ran a difference layer over the photographs, to see that it wasn't simply a focal length shift due to focus breathing.

They were 100% taken at different angles.

It's also quite telling that the person being criticized ("Just Tim") has a new DPR account and has posted all of 8 replies in the few days since his DPR account was created.

Edit: He just posted another reply so the count is now up to 9 replies.
.

And yet this newcomer thinks he's qualified to criticize and argue with real, acknowledged experts, showing no expertise of his own other than cunningly trying to support the nonsense spouted by TAP. If he isn't one of TAP's sock puppets, he's a fellow traveler, here only to spread the nonsensical gospel.

TomFid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,193
Re: Taking it to the extreme

Albert Silver wrote:

photowurks wrote:

photowurks wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

It is an optical illusion. They are exactly the same color and brightness.

At most we can say they're the same numerical RGB values. Whether they are reproduced faithfully by the display device for the observer seems to be another matter.

It's implausible that a modern display would render the same RGB value differently at two nearby locations.

After inspecting it with a dropper tool, even the RGB values don't match.

Yes, they do.

Yep.

H o g n e
H o g n e Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: The Angry Photographer's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
4

fPrime wrote:

We know that you're $2,000 USD invested into this lens that you like, Hogne, but that also means you have a dog in this fight. Your viewpoints, whether you see it or not, are definitely being skewed towards defending the indefensible.

I was waiting for this.

You know that argument could easily could be turned around. You do not own the new lens and someone else could claim you try to defend your DC lens. Someone else could also claim you have no idea what you are talking about since you have no experience with the new 105mm.

We all have our agendas and you definitely have one for yourself.

I could part with this lens very easily and my money is not the issue here. The price of the lens could be debated though. Is it worth the price tag?

 H o g n e's gear list:H o g n e's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF VR Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR +9 more
Yake Senior Member • Posts: 1,531
Re: Funny thing perception
4

photoreddi wrote:

nottabot wrote:

fishy wishy wrote:

You are living in your own world as if post-processing for color doesn't happen. You're trying to lay claim to subtle differences in a test that is not properly controlled for lighting, and the colour differences are well within the scope of post-processing adjustments anyway. I have wasted hours trying to bring into line artificial lighting in post, and someone can't cope with a little difference in lens cast. We're not having to shoot slides with filters anymore.

If that photographer had left the tripod where it was, removed the body with the plate attached, changed the lens and put the body back on the tripod, he could have got exactly the same perspective on a solid tripod. The fact that he didn't and that there is a little more fill light on the more modern lens side suggests he was fiddling or incompetent.

Besides, the childishness is plain to see from the overlaid text on the photo. IT BOTHERS HIM MORE THAT THE NEW LENS IS IN PLASTIC THAN ANYTHING ELSE

This is one of the best posts in this thread. I'm glad you noticed they were taken at different angles too. I pedantically ran a difference layer over the photographs, to see that it wasn't simply a focal length shift due to focus breathing.

They were 100% taken at different angles.

It's also quite telling that the person being criticized ("Just Tim") has a new DPR account and has posted all of 8 replies in the few days since his DPR account was created.

Edit: He just posted another reply so the count is now up to 9 replies.
.

And yet this newcomer thinks he's qualified to criticize and argue with real, acknowledged experts, showing no expertise of his own other than cunningly trying to support the nonsense spouted by TAP. If he isn't one of TAP's sock puppets, he's a fellow traveler, here only to spread the nonsensical gospel.

It's funny how many times the sock puppets who support TAP have had brand new accounts created in the past few days.

 Yake's gear list:Yake's gear list
Sony a7 III Canon EOS RP
semaphore Regular Member • Posts: 123
Re: Funny thing perception
3

Yake wrote:

It's funny how many times the sock puppets who support TAP have had brand new accounts created in the past few days.

And how all of them keeps showing up in the same threads!

 semaphore's gear list:semaphore's gear list
Nikon D850 Nikon 85mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR Nikon 35mm F1.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G ED
photowurks Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Taking it to the extreme
1

TomFid wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

photowurks wrote:

photowurks wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

It is an optical illusion. They are exactly the same color and brightness.

At most we can say they're the same numerical RGB values. Whether they are reproduced faithfully by the display device for the observer seems to be another matter.

It's implausible that a modern display would render the same RGB value differently at two nearby locations.

You must be fortunate enough to never have worked with a display that shifts color based on viewing angle.

After inspecting it with a dropper tool, even the RGB values don't match.

Yes, they do.

Yep.

 photowurks's gear list:photowurks's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM +3 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads