Lens analysis: true COLOR v. sharpness

[Dave442]

i still have some in the deep freeze

Now you are just going to have to figure out how to develop that Kodachrome. Might be worth more just sitting on ice and wait to see if Kodak actually does bring this film back or go with the caffenol cross processing (where you lose all of what Kodachrome was known for but you do get an image).

 

[Derrel]

I think @gsgary (film forum stalwart) has souped some old Kodachrome in fairly common "stock" B&W film developers, which typically are more energetic, by far, than caffenol recipes. Pretty sure there are some how-to articles on the www on developing Kodachrome in simple developers like Kodak's D-76, or Kodak HC-110, also perhaps some other "classic" developers from Ilford or Kodak.

 

[fmw]

Regardless of what the lens does, digital cameras do not record colour. All the pixels in a Raw image are monochrome and stay that way until the Raw converter demosaics the Raw file. Any details of colour rendition by the lens is going to be compromised in that process, if not completely lost.

Absolutely, all a digital camera does is produce a digital description of the image that has to be reconstructed by a computer. If you want to see something special, look at some Kodachrome 25 slides from 50 years ago.

I have all kinds of 50 year old Kodachromes. Most of them are faded but not as badly as the 50 year old Ektachromes. They are fairly easy to fix after being digitized, however. The thing Kodachrome did was motivate the used of tripods. ISO 25 didn't leave much room for hand holding a camera except in bright environments. I still use a tripod whenever I can. It is a good habit.

 

[nerwin]

Didn't Nikon use a plastic element in the 17-35 2.8?

I've taken photos with the same settings at 28mm using my 16-35 f/4 and obviously the 28 1.8 and I find they render images completely different. The 28 1.8 image just has for a lack of better term, soul. It just seems to be more lively, you know? And it doesn't even have ED elements! While the 16-35 (which has 2 ED elements) at 28mm just seems more flatter and boring, doesn't seem to "pop" as good. Nonetheless, still a very good image. I seriously think the element count has an effect on the image. But what do I know...I'm dumb. lol

 

[Frank F.]

I do not by the "old designs are better" tune.

Sure there are some great and very good lenses from the past that still have their place in our bags for a reason. I only know a bit about Nikon Glass.

There is the famous Noct 1.2/58 that is traded for 3000 Euros far above its original price, the 2.5/105 in two different optical designs, the 2.0/28 in several generations or the 1.4/35 and the Micro Nikkors 3.3/55 and 4.0/200 .... all very good in the olden manual focus versions, some till today without proper replacement. But.

Current Nikon designs of the last years: the whole of the 1.4 and the 1.8 line of primes are very, very good. Also the Neo Noct 1.4/58.

And some newcomers like the 1.4/24, 1.4/105, 4.0/300PF. It is not so easy to say that newer designs are worse because they have more elements. They also have new glass varieties, tremendously improved coatings etc.

Of course most of the mentioned lenses come at a price. So if you are on a budget great designs from the past have a lot of merit. In the case of Pentax and Nikon old lenses can still be used on the newest bodies.

Another aspect is that new designs tend to be much bulkier. We see a lot of 77 mm filters today while the old designs could do with 58mm. So the small and unintrusive lens you might need could be just the lucky find on ebay or in a garage sale.

 

[Frank F.]

PS. Nikon seems to have forgotten how to make decent affordable small and simple 50mm glass. The current 1.8/50 is great for the price. The current 1.4/50 is simply not up to the task for high res cameras any more. Next replacement must be a new 1.4/50 bread & butter. Not anyone can afford the Neo Noct 1.4/58

 

[Frank F.]

PPS: I do not remember lenses for the 24x36 qmm Format that have shown the qualities of the OTUS Series and the price (except for Leica glass)

 

[nerwin]

I love my 28 1.8G but I have no idea why Nikon made it this big, that's the only thing that bugs me. Canon makes a 28 1.8 and that thing is compact.

 

[Derrel]

PPS: I do not remember lenses for the 24x36 qmm Format that have shown the qualities of the OTUS Series and the price (except for Leica glass)

Word is they're now calling them the Bloatus by Cosina to be Labeled as Zeiss.

Huge lenses, with terrible ergonomics, and manual focusing, so you can set the perfect distance, at your lesisure, on the silky-smooth manual focus ring, to get the best test chart scores. SUPER on star charts! Sublime on the USAF 1953 Test Chart.

For advertising, they have trimmed the name slightly, to Bloatus by Cosina for Zeiss.

These new Bloatus series lenses are great in slow-paced environments, like the f-Stoppers Labs, or the CameraLabs test facility,etc.. Nevermind the lousy ergonomics and ungainly balance, nor the God-awful massive oversizing: these Cosina-built Zeiss Otus lenses, IF they can be set to the right focus point, deliver good images. However, missing the focus by three inches to five inches to can turn that 36-MP Nikon into a 6-MP Nikon D70 equivalent. But yeah, the optics are great. But the lenses themselves are so bad in the field that they've not been adopted widely by professionals, or even serious amateurs who've rented them and went, "Ewwwwww...another missed focus shot..." Huge, bad balance, slow, manual focusing on AF cameras.

The idea of using high-performance, but manual focusing lenses on an AF camera, and losing tremendous numbers of images due to bad focus, well who owns that idea? Cosina? or Zeiss executives looking to make a profit?

(The above post is not entirely sarcasm: this has huge amounts of reality in it, designed to counteract the marketing coming from Zeiss by Cosina.)

 

[greybeard]

Given the flexibility today's software gives us with color and saturation, it is hard to know what "true color actually is". In lightroom one only needs to click on any color in a given image and adjust any part of the color pallet to suite one's self. So, lens manufactures have concentrated in resolution which is something they can actually measure rather than the more intangible characteristics of a given lens. The is a much like microphone manufactures went through several years ago with frequency response charts and distortion measurements. Now a days people are paying premium prices for ribbon mics that have terrible specs but sound great. (go figure). In a few years folks will be doing the same with lenses,

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

wow, lots of good feedback here folks, thanks! glad i posted before continuing further down the path of buying lenses that test best! while i first watched the "angry photographer" on youtube i found him annoying. but, like a good sitcom, he grew on me and see that he has a lot of solid advice.

i watched one of his recently where he talked about why people buy primes, mostly for "rendering". here's his chart which reflects why, although i always wanting a normal zoom, i sold it less than two years later for the 50 1.4. that was before i realized that my old 60 was what i should have used! in other words, zooms had improved sooo much that i mistakenly assumed primes had too. LAW OF IMPORTANT LENS ATTRIBUTES

as i master nikon's nx-d and plan to learn lightroom later this year, i realize that slight losses of color can be easily restored. but obviously, it is better to have never have lost it.

i've done some further comparison testing and am amazed at how good my old 60mm 2.8 is. looking at my prints from scuba shots, i further appreciate the excellent color i have in those pictures! it is lighter, less obvious for candids and less worry about damage. used ones at bhphoto are $260.

so for an 85, i now plan to get a nikkor D series 1.4. i don't regret selling my 1.8, as i knew it was not as good when i bought it in the mid 1990's, but budget restraint at the time... and, seriously, you don't really want super sharpness in a portrait. i remember that some people said, with good reason, that my 60mm 2.8 was too sharp for portraits. the old D series has almost half as many elements as the current sigma or nikon 85. 86mm filter size!, really tough to sneak up on someone with that.

there are plenty for sale on ebay, and i'm not in a hurry to buy. meanwhile, i plan to do some more comparison testing of the 60D, 50 ART, 105 micro and the 70-200. casual testing today shows me that they are all excellent. agree/disagree?

Should i post the comparisons in this forum?

I kicked off this thread because i sold my 300 f4 ED lens to get the 150-600 sport for motorcycle races. the old boy focused too slowly. looking back at the shots from it made me appreciate its superior color. i agree that the almost doubling of the elements to improve sharpness has reduced "rendering". glad i sorted this out before buying an expensive long prime lens!

i shot some ducks this week. it was dark and because it was raining, i did not want to spend too much time getting better shots and still learning this lens. should have stopped it down for more DOF for some of these. point is that i cannot complain about the color from the sigma sport (be sure to click to zoom): _RAL0114

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

meanwhile, until i get the 85 1.4D, i still have an excellent portrait lens in the hand-cannon-zoom: 1) popup flash down one stop in commander mode for CLS wireless communication to the 2) nikon 910 flash down a third of a stop with diffuser and white bounce card hand-held high to my left.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

thanks to all who helped me get a grip on the lens analysis issues now.

one needs to consider the main benefit that current high-end extra sharp lenses bring to the party versus more natural rendering from less elements.

in most comparisons, primes are sharper than zooms.
consider comparing a current a high-end prime, a state-of-the-art modern zoom and a top glass film-era prime with regards to sharpness, rendering, and discretion for candids:

now, if i walk-around with my 24 ART instead the excellent Tokina 24-70 2.8 (which I sold after buying the 50 ART) and crop instead of zooming to get 70mm. then, i will have a sharper pic up to an X" x Y" print. when i get a chance, i'll go to one one of the two excellent shops in town to take a few shots to prove.

I've lost the ability to make a large print from a 70mm shot AND THE ability to crop a zoomed-in 70mm shot, by carrying a 24 instead of 24-70. (not that this is my plan)
and have lost some rendering that the film era lens has by carrying the photographer's equivalent of Mr. T's necklace (current ART or zoom) which is awful for candids!

following me?

unless you have the resources of jay leno and drag a suitcase full of lenses on rollers, you gotta make hard choices!

my plan was to buy the 85 ART which just came out and is incredible. great to crop, but bad for rendering & concealment; it is Mr T++ (86mm filters!). but now i see that a film era prime is superior for portraits. HOWEVER, carrying both the 24 & 85 ARTs would provide some serious capabilities!

i hope this helps folks from spending big bucks & not staying satisfied!

if you still "don't buy" the rendering issue, you may enjoy your opinion without confrontation from me. if any of you own a high end turntable, chime in about how CDs (even with players costing thousands) have lost some 'rendering' when compared to vinyl. arguing with engineers about that in the '80's, i will not repeat with ken rockwell types!

 

[astroNikon]

wow, lots of good feedback here folks, thanks! glad i posted before continuing further down the path of buying lenses that test best! while i first watched the "angry photographer" on youtube i found him annoying. but, like a good sitcom, he grew on me and see that he has a lot of solid advice.

i watched one of his recently where he talked about why people buy primes, mostly for "rendering". here's his chart which reflects why, although i always wanting a normal zoom, i sold it less than two years later for the 50 1.4. that was before i realized that my old 60 was what i should have used! in other words, zooms had improved sooo much that i mistakenly assumed primes had too. LAW OF IMPORTANT LENS ATTRIBUTES

as i master nikon's nx-d and plan to learn lightroom later this year, i realize that slight losses of color can be easily restored. but obviously, it is better to have never have lost it.

i've done some further comparison testing and am amazed at how good my old 60mm 2.8 is. looking at my prints from scuba shots, i further appreciate the excellent color i have in those pictures! it is lighter, less obvious for candids and less worry about damage. used ones at bhphoto are $260.

so for an 85, i now plan to get a nikkor D series 1.4. i don't regret selling my 1.8, as i knew it was not as good when i bought it in the mid 1990's, but budget restraint at the time... and, seriously, you don't really want super sharpness in a portrait. i remember that some people said, with good reason, that my 60mm 2.8 was too sharp for portraits. the old D series has almost half as many elements as the current sigma or nikon 85. 86mm filter size!, really tough to sneak up on someone with that.

there are plenty for sale on ebay, and i'm not in a hurry to buy. meanwhile, i plan to do some more comparison testing of the 60D, 50 ART, 105 micro and the 70-200. casual testing today shows me that they are all excellent. agree/disagree?

Should i post the comparisons in this forum?

I kicked off this thread because i sold my 300 f4 ED lens to get the 150-600 sport for motorcycle races. the old boy focused too slowly. looking back at the shots from it made me appreciate its superior color. i agree that the almost doubling of the elements to improve sharpness has reduced "rendering". glad i sorted this out before buying an expensive long prime lens!

i shot some ducks this week. it was dark and because it was raining, i did not want to spend too much time getting better shots and still learning this lens. should have stopped it down for more DOF for some of these. point is that i cannot complain about the color from the sigma sport (be sure to click to zoom): _RAL0114

I too found my old 300/4 AF lens had excellent colors. I now use a Tamron 150-600 which is really good too. In between though I had a Sigma 150-500 which had washed out colors (the newer Sigmas 150-600s don't seem to have that problem). Though when researching it I found out that to be true before I bought my copy. This goes back to the quality/type of optical glass that is used in the lens. My LR skills at that time weren't good enough to bring the richness of colors back compared to the Tamron, plus with a shorter reach I sold it.

Also the quality of glass, element design, aperture design etc can render the OOF background in various ways and I've seen (and have been learning) about how the BG can be nice and smooth or jagged. The 85/1.4 AF-D you mentioned being one of the best smooth BG. Great lens. I have mostly AF-D lenses and they work well.

I also went with a lower cost route. I have the Nikon 24-85/2.8-4.0 (instead of a big and heavy 24-70/2.8 and the 80-200/2.8 AF-D (instead of a bigger and heavier 24-70/2.8). I've thought of going the route of a 24-70/2.8 Tokina or Tamron but really got confused when I reviewed Dxo numbers compared to the 24-85/2.8 and just stuck with what I have. With those lenses I was able to afford better camera bodies with the features that I need.

It's interesting how much money you can save not getting a brand new hi-tech lens, and using that saved money to obtain a better camera body.