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

Started Oct 4, 2016 | Discussions
photowurks Regular Member • Posts: 449
Re: Taking it to the extreme

Albert Silver wrote:

photowurks wrote:

photowurks wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

Just Tim wrote:

Thanks to Marianne for showing it.

We do not see in absolute values, only relative ones. So when you present two images together you see the differences between them and not the absolute qualities of either. This is a very important point when comparing things, you have to compare them against a reference and not each other.

So, going back to first principles I've taken the original colour image and equalised the exposure because the 105DC has less exposure (I don't know if this indicates less light through the lens?? No it indicates differences in calibration of the aperture).

Here's the original, note that TAP has deliberately used yellow text. This has the effect of you being the differences between the text and the images presented (crossed out in blue as well??). You see the one on the right as being more similar to the text and the one on the right as contrasting better against it.

Indeed. Here is an example to really emphasize this to the extreme. Look at this image:

Which of the two horse heads is lighter?

The answer is they are exactly the same. I.e. the same exact color and luminance.

In the same vein, look at the image below:

Do you see the center squares, one brown, and one bright orange?

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

Etc.

Here is a cute little article on the topic:

https://medium.com/@frederic_38110/tricking-the-brain-c4205977b1a4#.4dnu49pnr

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.

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

Yes, they do.

Not in the image in the post. Only if you inspect the attached JPG.

 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
Albert Silver Veteran Member • Posts: 3,313
Re: Taking it to the extreme

photowurks wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

photowurks wrote:

photowurks wrote:

Albert Silver wrote:

Just Tim wrote:

Thanks to Marianne for showing it.

We do not see in absolute values, only relative ones. So when you present two images together you see the differences between them and not the absolute qualities of either. This is a very important point when comparing things, you have to compare them against a reference and not each other.

So, going back to first principles I've taken the original colour image and equalised the exposure because the 105DC has less exposure (I don't know if this indicates less light through the lens?? No it indicates differences in calibration of the aperture).

Here's the original, note that TAP has deliberately used yellow text. This has the effect of you being the differences between the text and the images presented (crossed out in blue as well??). You see the one on the right as being more similar to the text and the one on the right as contrasting better against it.

Indeed. Here is an example to really emphasize this to the extreme. Look at this image:

Which of the two horse heads is lighter?

The answer is they are exactly the same. I.e. the same exact color and luminance.

In the same vein, look at the image below:

Do you see the center squares, one brown, and one bright orange?

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

Etc.

Here is a cute little article on the topic:

https://medium.com/@frederic_38110/tricking-the-brain-c4205977b1a4#.4dnu49pnr

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.

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

Yes, they do.

Not in the image in the post. Only if you inspect the attached JPG.

So you are saying the image in the post shows a very different RGB value for one and the other? Or that one is 149/90/0 and the other is 149/89/0 (for example)?

 Albert Silver's gear list:Albert Silver's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD +1 more
TomFid Veteran Member • Posts: 3,186
Re: Taking it to the extreme

photowurks wrote:

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.

I do have a nice IPS display, but I've certainly seen shifts from viewing angle. (CRTs were worse, because they really could have nonlocal effects from large colored areas.) However, like calibration in general, angle affects the rendering of nearby points equally. It might create a huge divergence of relative colors between users, or between display and print, but it can't create an illusion like that posted.

Just Tim New Member • Posts: 11
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.

LOL, I clearly state that TAP is talking utter nonsense, clearly show you how he's decieving you by manipulating the images (adding blue and yellow to images in which he wants to show a blue and yellow difference?), share with you my knowledge of perception and colour theory learned through years of observation and learning, and you do what?

Debunk me as being a sock puppet because I go against what you want to believe.

And you call me blind?? Spreading non-sensical gospel??

For the record I see no 3D effect in either black and white image, I completely agree with Marianne and anothermike. My new account is because I scrambled the other one as this forum is filled with posters like yourself, but felt 'compelled' to stand up against such utter nonsense as expounded by yourself.

OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,779
TAP's 105/1.4E review remains invalid
10

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).

-- hide signature --

Source credit: Prov 2:6
- Marianne

jcb9001 Regular Member • Posts: 114
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
7

The comparison to Drumpf is apt.

The distressing bit about both of them is that so many people mistake their vulgarity and their pure, unmitigated ignorance for "telling it like it is". They reward these fools with undeserved attention and praise. In one case it's purely comical. In the other case, it's downright dangerous.

Ken and Drumpf both love uneducated people. Drumpf actually said as much, pretty much word for word during primary season. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's because he can tell them just about anything and they are ready and willing to believe him.

Pick-ture Taker Junior Member • Posts: 25
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review remains invalid
4

I recall him spreading rumors about your age and gender.  Kens a ........... ahem, interesting character

 Pick-ture Taker's gear list:Pick-ture Taker's gear list
Nikon D3 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R
Albert Silver Veteran Member • Posts: 3,313
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review is vindicated
1

jcb9001 wrote:

The comparison to Drumpf is apt.

The distressing bit about both of them is that so many people mistake their vulgarity and their pure, unmitigated ignorance for "telling it like it is".

I thought that was what Marianne was doing.

They reward these fools with undeserved attention and praise. In one case it's purely comical. In the other case, it's downright dangerous.

Ken and Drumpf both love uneducated people. Drumpf actually said as much, pretty much word for word during primary season. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's because he can tell them just about anything and they are ready and willing to believe him.

 Albert Silver's gear list:Albert Silver's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD +1 more
fPrime
fPrime Senior Member • Posts: 2,952
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review remains invalid
1

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).

I think TAP endorses the 20 1.8G because it resolves some of the specific afflictions of the older 20 D lens design without a comparative loss of contrast and color pop. Same could be said for his endorsement of the 28 G versus the 28 D. Like primeshooter has already mentioned, he's not an anti-modernist if he sees true improvement in modern design. In fact, he has openly acknowledged that wide angle lens designs as a category have seen some of the greatest improvement in the last dozen years.

He's not even a "low element count" guy unless it is with regards to normal primes (35mm-400mm). I just watched his video today where he segments wide angle lenses under 35mm and zoom lenses as inherently needing more elements than a normal prime. Hence his ability to also endorse the twenty element 200-500 5.6G in the "zoom lens" category.

Anyway, the only point I wanted to make here is that independent of the cause of the shift, he was right about the presence of the color shift.

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.

Yes, yes, I already acknowledged cats-eye bokeh is a common problem when Hogne brought that up. The Petzvahl-like swirly bokeh, however, is unique and was correctly identified first by TAP. We ought to give him credit for this.

  • 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.

I don't know if we can all ever agree to a common definition of 3D pop, nor quantify it, as the perception of it resides entirely in the brain. To me it is simply one or more depth cues acting alone or multiplicatively in a 2D image that become strong enough to create the perception of three dimensional depth within a 2D medium. As the process of depth perception requires the brain to cognitively recognize and correlate various combinations of flat depth cues instantly on viewing, it does not surprise me at all that not everyone has 3D pop perception ability. It's kind of like how I can't cross my eyes to merge a side by side stereo image. I do think one can train the brain to better recognize the lens related depth cues.

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.

All I can say is that when you adjusted his resurrection plant photos below for exposure you accidentally brought out the flatter rendition of the 105 E. And Like I mentioned in my first impression... I did truly see better inter-tonal contrast and richer blacks in the 105 DC image on the right. The 105 E looks milkier just as postulated by TAP.

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.

Sure, the lens is still relatively new to market. I probably reacted a little strongly this morning as I woke up to Derek Z's photos which became the flat icing on the cake for me. I'm now more than ever convinced that the 105E has both a flat rendering of the subject on the focus plane and behind that it casts a relatively flat bokeh background (at least at f/1.4). To get 3D pop out of this lens one might well have to stack as many other, non-lens related depth cues together in the image and then post-process the file heavily like that Romanian Nikon Ambassador did.

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).

Sorry, I only meant his accuracy with regard to those 3 correct findings he made about the 105E. This wasn't a blanket endorsement of anything and everything TAP has said. Like I acknowledged... he's a vulgar shock jock and, as such, given to some melodrama. I watch his videos with serious scrutiny but also can't throw the baby out with the bathwater if he's right.

fPrime

 fPrime's gear list:fPrime's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon D1X Nikon D200 Nikon D700
msu79gt82 Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: Funny thing perceptive reading ability
1

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.

Can you read? "Just Tim" clearly debunks TAP and seems to me to agree with Marianne. How is "Just Tim" in anyway a TAP sock puppet? Also he is spot on in his analysis of TAPs color manipulation.

 msu79gt82's gear list:msu79gt82's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR Nikon AP-F 70-300mm F4.5-5.6E Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 +1 more
phaedin
phaedin Senior Member • Posts: 1,634
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review remains invalid
8

The fact that major well known and respected reviewers  such as DXO, SLRGear, Photography life, Lens Rentals and numerous others have not discovered this amazing lens secret. That Photographers from every other manufacturer have not discovered this, is really mind blowing.

That a foul mouthed, abusive, basement reviewer has "discovered" this, who for "evidence" posts completely unacceptable images that, at best show a complete lack of scientific methodology, and at worst, are deliberately manipulated to try to prove this theory.

Nothing has been proved, your images have been shown to be completely useless for trying to prove the theory, but yet you continue to ignore that evidence and scream from the top of your lungs that you are correct.

Should a boyfriend have to apologize to his girlfriend if he kisses someone else in her dream? It didnt happen, yet she "saw" it. OR are you going to assert that you have superior eyesight?

Come back when you have actual proof, which should be easy since you have all the other manufacturers to go to as well.

 phaedin's gear list:phaedin's gear list
Nikon D7100 Nikon D7500 Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG HSM | A +1 more
whimsicalmike
whimsicalmike Contributing Member • Posts: 674
Re: TAP's 105/1.4E review remains invalid
3

Maybe you need a certain type of brain to see the "pop". It sure seems obvious that Tap and his followers have a different type.

Time to start an ignore list and just not look at the pathetic rants on DPR.

 whimsicalmike's gear list:whimsicalmike's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +15 more
KnightPhoto2
KnightPhoto2 Senior Member • Posts: 2,029
Re: The right frame has the pop
1

Yake wrote:

The differences are ever so minor, but every time I've looked at Ken's example, I've concluded that the new lens has slightly more microcontrast.

He has posted the color versions of these pics and again, the new lens looks slightly richer in color. Of course, he bashes that too.

Somehow, Ken is able to convince himself that the new lens is dramatically worse, so bad that it's "horrible" and shameful. That's just bizarre.

Ken is acting like a total nut job with his multiple user accounts and his daily rants and insults against Nikon, the lens designers and the people who buy the lens. Oh, and his constant anti-Chinese jabs.

It's pronounced "CHINE-NAH" Mr. Trump would have you know (inside joke for anyone who saw the recent Saturday Night Live spoof of the presidential debate

-- hide signature --

Best Regards,
SteveK
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/119002

 KnightPhoto2's gear list:KnightPhoto2's gear list
Nikon 1 V3 Nikon D500 Nikon Z6 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR +21 more
primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,122
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?

MrScrooge Contributing Member • Posts: 746
Re: Still waiting...

primeshooter wrote:

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

The one on the right has more contrast. It's a bit of a giveaway as to which lens is which so this wasn't really a blind test.

I note that in my test nobody could consistently tell the '3d' lens from the non-3d lens.

I still want to know if this 3D thing is actually a thing or not - it hasn't been proven yet but until then I am enjoying the discussion!

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,122
Re: Still waiting...

MrScrooge wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

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

The one on the right has more contrast. It's a bit of a giveaway as to which lens is which so this wasn't really a blind test.

I note that in my test nobody could consistently tell the '3d' lens from the non-3d lens.

I still want to know if this 3D thing is actually a thing or not - it hasn't been proven yet but until then I am enjoying the discussion!

How is it obvious the better image is the 105 DC?

MrScrooge Contributing Member • Posts: 746
Re: Still waiting...

primeshooter wrote:

How is it obvious the better image is the 105 DC?

I didn't say anything about either image being better?

MrScrooge Contributing Member • Posts: 746
Re: Still waiting...

MrScrooge wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

How is it obvious the better image is the 105 DC?

I didn't say anything about either image being better?

Also the writing on the pencil is visible in one image and not on the other - quite a giveaway.

primeshooter
primeshooter Veteran Member • Posts: 5,122
Re: Still waiting...

MrScrooge wrote:

MrScrooge wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

How is it obvious the better image is the 105 DC?

I didn't say anything about either image being better?

Also the writing on the pencil is visible in one image and not on the other - quite a giveaway.

No, not really.  How do you know which aperture both were shot at?

HFLM Senior Member • Posts: 1,947
Re: Still waiting...
4

primeshooter wrote:

MrScrooge wrote:

MrScrooge wrote:

primeshooter wrote:

How is it obvious the better image is the 105 DC?

I didn't say anything about either image being better?

Also the writing on the pencil is visible in one image and not on the other - quite a giveaway.

No, not really. How do you know which aperture both were shot at?

So, we have different distance and perspective + different exposure + different aperture? Renders any discussion on which is better and more contrasty even less relevant.

 HFLM's gear list:HFLM's gear list
Sony a9 Sony a7R III Sony a7 III
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads