Sorry to ask: Highest "resolution" lens for D800?

Msmoto

This has become a very interesting topic. I tend to agree with Mr. Erlewine. And, here is one reason. This image was taken with my vey old (Ca. 1966) 300mm f/4.5 Nikkor,m modified to fit on my D4, and I posted this on the thread about old lenses. What I believe it shows is a very sharp lens, but rather profound lack of apochromatic characteristics. The color fringing away from the center of the image is huge.



With the larger image here

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/8719552148/sizes/o/in/photostream/

one can look at the head of the goose and see this very well on the neck.

Golf007sd

@Msmoto: Yes you are quite right that this image has issues. The chromatic aberration is very vivid. This is not the result of body or the sensor within, nor does is it lacking "sharpness" as Michael has defined it in relation to "color." This, IMO it is due to the lens. Could this be due to the modification? Is it the design in relation to the elements within the lens itself in how it handles light? I'm not an engineer nor have knowledge base to clearly explain the flaw scientifically , but my eyes do not lie in what I see. I isolate what could be the cause: is it the body and its sensor or is the flaw due to the lens. I conclude it is the latter.

Note: In the past we have, many times agreed, that a given image will be very sharpest @ f/8.0...this image was taken @ f/8.0 and ISO 1100. Thus, I have removed from the equation of "sharpness" the aperture the image was taken at. More specifically/scientifically: diffraction.

Lastly, long before Michael ever entered this conversation about sharpness, I proposed this question to us all:

Having read all the a above responses, one those have to look at this topic with some reservation. Does lens to body calibration play a roll as well? Or is it that the sensor within the D800 the key variable in relation to the lens?

Msmoto

@Golf007sd

I suspect what we are all having difficulties with is the definition of "sharpness" or "resolution". But, if one sees the old lens as being the best there was in the 60's, which I think it was at least close, we can easily see how the image has issues with the visual impact of resolution, sharpness, or whatever one wants to call it.

As to the modification causing this...not a possibility. The modification is only a cutting of the aperture connection ring to allow clearance on modern bodies.

I think it is the issue of all the colors not focusing at the same plane which Mr. Erlewine is talking about. And, indeed, I tend to agree with him that it is specifically this issue which must be examined when attempting to compare lenses to determine which one is the best for a specific camera body.

It would be my opinion, the non-retro focus design prime lenses would be the easiest to design with the best apochromatic performance. now, what I have to do is to find one of these and see if this is true.

Golf007sd

@Msmoto: Well put. Perhaps Michael could guild you in finding that elusive "non-retro focus design prime lenses" given his plethora of lens over the years he has played with.

Michael_Erlewine

Of course sharpness can depend on a combination of the camera sensor, the AA filter, and the lens itself.

For example, compare the Nikon D800E and the Nikon D7100. I have. The Nikon D800 has an AA filter to prevent moiré. The Nikon D800E also has a filter, but it is designed (I am told) to neutralize the effects of the AA filter. However, it still blurs the image to a slight degree. The Nikon D7100 has no filter whatsoever.

I am not a test-chart tester, but just an active macro shooter. I tested the Nikon D800E and the D7100 (by taking photos) and find the D7100 slightly, but observable to me, sharper than the D800E. That is my opinion. Others may differ.

Does this mean I will use my D7100 instead of my D800E? Not necessarily and I will explain why.

The difference between DX and FX sensors affects the focal length of the lens as we know. Most of the really great macro lenses are in the 90mm-150mm range. If we put them on a DX camera, the range grows by about 1/2, making the angle of view too narrow for my taste.

While I shoot macro, I consider myself mostly a close-up photographer, meaning I like a less than 1:1 reproduction ratio, in other words, I value the contex (story value) of a wider lens.

In summary, "sharpness" to me involves finding the very sharpest (high resolution) lenses and comparing them. Among this select group, I have found that (for me) the determining factor then is how highly corrected (APO) the lens is. For example, I have two very fine and sharp lenses, the Zeiss 100mm and Zeiss 50mm Macro-Planar lenses, which are very fine and very sharp lenses. The problem for me with these two lenses is they are not corrected well enough and that lack of correction is visible to me and muddies the results, again: IMO.
So whatever we mean by "sharpness" to me is a combination of sensor size, the presence of absence of an AA filter, and the degree of correction (APO) of the lens. I need to pay attention to all three of these factors.

I do a lot of focus stacking and for that, the more megapixels (like the D800E = 36MP) give better results for stacking, especially for retouching. My favorite macro lens, the all-around workhorse, is the Cosina/Voiglander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanther. I also use a couple of Leicas, and a bunch of industrial Nikkors like the Printing Nikkor 150mm, and others.

What I really would like is a 36MP FX sensor (or higher) with no AA filter whatsoever. After that it would be up to the sharpness of the lens itself and the amount of correction for that lens.

I am interested in this topic and am always looking for new ideas on how to best use the sharp lenses with particular sensors. As mentioned, I have found that APO lenses are the clearest for my work, but the use of the acronym "APO" is not standardized, so one has to be careful to get a lens that really has been highly corrected.

spraynpray

"What I really would like is a 36MP FX sensor (or higher) with no AA filter whatsoever. After that it would be up to the sharpness of the lens itself and the amount of correction for that lens."

- Until the next generation of sensors beat the current best that is, because surely the 'sharpness' is the result of a system not any one component - unless you keep the other components in that system forever, but then eventually that would limit the sharpness results from the lens. That's progress.

"Most of the really great macro lenses are in the 90mm-150mm range. If we put them on a DX camera, the range grows by about 1/2, making the angle of view too narrow for my taste."

So with the exception of ultimate resolution (24 Vs 36 Mp), what difference do you think there is between your D7100 with the 60mm Micro Vs your D800E with your 90 or 105mm Micro?

Michael_Erlewine

Let's look at what IMO contributes to a good result, and remember that my main interest is in stacking focus, something like 100 images per stack. To do that, attention has also to be paid to the tripod, the head, the remote (mirror-up), as well as the sensor, the AA filter, and the lens. All of these factors seem to be moving (as pertains quality and improvement) in unison into the future, so I am not worried about being tied to a specific camera or sensor. The lens, however, is a different thing IMO. The lens makers seem only now to be getting around to APO considerations, like the new Zeiss 125mm sonar APO. We need more APO lenses, but they are expensive.

The D7100 is also noisier than the D800E in my experience, enough nosier to be not only noticeable, but a bit of a problem.

As for the difference between the D7100 and the D800E (lenses and focus-length being equal), there is of course the difference in sheer megapixels between 24mm and 36mm. And this is significant for focus stacking. The focus stacking software I use (Zerene Stacker) is IMO the best available (I have purchased all the main ones and tested them), in particular for its superb retouching features.

I have no scientific tests, but in my experience of many hundreds of thousands of stacked layers, the larger the sensor the easier it is for the stacking software to work and the less artifacts that are produced. Focus stacking is a digital sampling technique similar to music CDs or movie DVDs, in that by definition sampling "samples," and that means some areas are left unsampled. Because of this, when a stacking program stitches the focus in the layers together it has to approximate what was never sampled and thus produces artifacts.

Another consideration: many macro photographers try to stack focus by pushing the aperture as high as possible without having diffraction destroy the image. Of course, in focus stacking that is not necessary. It is much better to stack using the optimum resolution for a particular lens, often f/5.6 or thereabouts. In that way the entire stack is sharp.

My own preference is for lenses that are very sharp wide open because then I benefit from the bokeh from the wider angle. I have many free books and video tutorials at SpiritGrooves-dot-Net for those interested in learning my approach.

APO? Ask yourself this question: Does color fringing and the other things that can be corrected affect the quality/sharpness of the photo? You decide.

As for me: Of course it does. Color fringing very much affects what we generally call "sharpness." Therefore, APO (apochromatic) lenses correct these defects, with the resulting photo appearing clearer, "sharper."

FlowtographyBerlin

@Michael_Erlewine: From my perspective, "shapness", it is the lens that is the primery factor not the sensor on a given body. The sensor address how it can capture the image itself given the available light. Moreover, how well it controls noise, hence ISO.

Golf, I think you misunderstood what Michael was trying to say, he wasn't talking about the sensor but about the effective result that the camera delivers, influenced by the effects of AA filters.

[Edit: Sorry, I completely missed the point that there were so many more follow-up posts. I was answering directly after @Golf007sd 's answer – or at least, so I thought.]

Michael_Erlewine

Filters and the effect that sensor size has on focus-stacking software. In my experience the focus-stacking software is kinder to large sensors (36MP and higher) than smaller sensors.

FlowtographyBerlin

Let's look at what IMO contributes to a good result, and remember that my main interest is in stacking focus, something like 100 images per stack.

HOLY COW! 100 images stacked? You should immediately buy yourself a Cambo X2-PRO system and start tilting instead of wasting so much time and effort with stacking. Buying recommendations are always easier expressed than put into practice, but in this case it will take you only two pictures and you will have saved the time worth an X2-PRO.

I never understand how this workaround method of focus stacking has become so extremely popular even among serious photographers. Don't you even need a rather expensive focussing rack for this kind of photography as well?

Ironheart

@Flow, if you check out Michael's work, you will see he is well versed in the various techniques involved with macro shooting. He has literally written the book(s) on how to use the various gear, and also addresses the differences between focus stacking, bellows and rails, and studio vs. nature macro-photography. It's kinda like asking Ansel if he understands the zone system.
In any event, at very close distances, the DOF is very very small, and sometimes no amount of tilt will bring your entire image into focus the way you want. Product photographers know this, and scientific/technical photographers deal with this fact as well. Today the state-of-the-art involves both focus stacking and tilting to achieve the desired result, and many times involves 100's of images combined into a single final image.

JJ_SO

@Flowtography Not necessarily. If using Helicon remote, you can set the camera on a tripod and let the software doing the focus business. But I understood after reading some of Michaels articles - thanks a lot for that work, Michael, and also for bringing the link into this forum! - he uses Zerene stacker.

There are situations, where tilt + shift will not be enough or deforming the objects.

But so far I didn't see any article about tilting on Michaels page, @Ironheart. So he sure has a lot of knowledge on focus stacks and various methods to do so, but I haven't noticed any about medium or large format macros. Anyway, those samples I've seen are outstanding enough @-)

Ironheart

For starters.

http://macrostop.com/pdf/Close-Up_Macro_2012.pdf page 81

Also I was referring to macro-photography in the general sense, not just Michael's outstanding examples and tutorials.

Golf007sd

Another factor is the presence or absence of the AA filter. My D4 has one, my D800e has almost none, and the D7100 has none. These cameras are sharp in reverse order, with D7100 being the sharpest, i.e. no filter at all.

@FlowtographyBerlin: I did not miss understand Michaels points. My response was in relation to the above quote where by he is making a point about the sensor in relation to sharpness.

Over the past few posts I (we) have come to better understand Michaels perspective of "sharpness", lenses (i.e. APO lenses) and the manner in which he goes about obtaining the sharpest image possible via focus stacking. His method is without question the best way in taking full advantage of the D800 architecture...specially in relation to macro photography. One has to give credit where credit is due.

With that said, for the vast majority of the public at large, such a process is not within their desired level of photography (i.e. stacking 100 images together in order to get one.) This level of craftsmanship is for the true professional not the average shooter or even some pro's themselves. Thus, it is important for us to keep in mind that when a user is reading this topic and is seeking a lens to purchase to be used with his or her D800, they are not anywhere near this level of thinking process...not to mention the amount of capital they are willing to part with in order to take that weekend group shot. Sure they want a good lens, but to what extent. That is where we come in and help...lets just make sure we don't drown them in the process....if you get my meaning.

Michael I'm going to send you a PM regarding some question...do not want to take this topic off path.

JJ_SO

For starters.
http://macrostop.com/pdf/Close-Up_Macro_2012.pdf page 81
Also I was referring to macro-photography in the general sense, not just Michael's outstanding examples and tutorials.

Thanks again. It's MF, but not tilt and MF/large format which means more than a tilt/shift lens. Anyway, this thread's about D800 and highest resolution lens. Some of us agree about resolution is not necessarily sharpness just to bring that in mind again.
Therefore I still have doubts, @Golf007d, that you're not misunderstanding the idea of focus-stacking. It's not to get sharper pictures - the sharpness of the picture is still defined by the lens, focus-stacking will not improve the lens' performance. We just can work at the best aperture in respect of resolution, and increase the shallow DOF by adding layers of the next plane and so on. I never used more than 20 layers because I have my doubts, all this computerized merging of layers isn't doing something very synthetic to the subject. But I never tried. So it could be the end result looks better with 100 than with 20 layers.
If I would like to do more of this stacking, the "new" knowledge about APO lenses could lead me to get a large format APO or enlarger APO lens and look for a way to have the lens fixed and the camera body moved on a rail.

Highest resolution would only be noticed a large printing scales which is artficial in two ways: Keeping the distance to see the whole picture will lead to losing the detail it shows, because our eyes would be "outresolved". Getting close to estimate the resolution details will show us only a part of the picture an we lose the whole impression. So, high resolution is nice to have - but probably not improving our photographs since we already come close to our own visual limits.

Golf007sd

@JJ_SO: I fully understand the process of focus-stacking...how it works and what a photographer has to do in accomplishing it. Let your mind be at ease...this is not my first rodeo. :P

JJ_SO

Then I am then I am no longer worried ;;)

Michael_Erlewine

I explored medium-format cameras with a Mamiya RZ67 and a 33MP digital back, but was unimpressed, especially by the prehistoric software interface. I went through two Mamiyas before I decided that medium format is not appropriate IMO for macro work. For landscape and portraits, yes. I still have eleven MF lenses sitting around here that I am waiting for an adapter that is in the works for Nikon-F to RZ lenses.

As for tilt-shift, I have the three basic Nikon (45mm, 24mm, and 85mm) tilt-shift lenses, plus various tilt-shift bellows and adapters. I don't find them that useful for my work. I am not just looking for a focus plane, but to have the whole object in focus. In reality, I use very sharp lenses, wide open, with razor-sharp depth-of-field, and stack that as much as I want, leaving the rest in bokeh.

I do most of my macro work on a focus rail, and have tested most of the rails on the market, finally settling on the Novoflex Castel-Q as the most compact (least vertical height) of them all. I use that rail with the Novoflex Fine Adjustment Handle, which helps. I have also designed and had built special rails, etc.

I began my focus-stacking "career" celebrating what I called "short stacks" like some here are touting, but found out in time I was just being naïve. While all photography is impressionistic, because focus-stacking is simply digital sampling (in this age), the wider the gaps in the focus layers, the more artifacts appear -- simple physics.

By using fine increments (and rails) produces better results. That is what I found out. As for wanting to do such much painstaking work, well my excuse is that by nature I am impatient, therefore sooner or later I need (or want) to learn patience. Focus stacking is a relatively painless way to learn more patience, so I enjoy it.

Anyway, photography for me is a way to see more clearly. The process of photographing through fine lenses is more important than any resulting photos. In the beginning I never "finished" any photo, for years. The end result did not interest me. The clarity of mind that comes from intense concentration was what it seems I needed to do each day, and macro photography was my medium. Of course, over time the results did improve. I have yet to ever print out a photo and put it on the wall. Why? Because every photo I take is just another test, a way marker, not something finished. I am on a journey to no particular end. The process is the end itself. Make sense to anyone?

This is getting long; I don't usually get past the rumors blog on this site, so I am new to you and you to me. Those of you who like stacking focus might want to keep the following in mind.

The various stacking software out there is happiest if you do your stacking as follows, and this list is ordered from top down, so the first in the list is the preferred method.

(1) Best is if you shoot on a bellows, with the lens fixed as the front standard, and then move the camera by increments from the back standard. This fixes what is called the entrance pupil and you can see the difference from the other methods listed below. Also there are some (few) lenses that have natively what is called "back focus." The Nikon 35mm f.1.4 G lens works this way.

(2) Helicoid. Turning the lens barrel (helicoid) is the next best way to stack focus. However, some of the best lenses (Coastal Optics 60mm APO) have such a miserably short focus throw (from close to infinity) that this lens has to be used on a rail for best effect. I have a whole book on macro lenses (free) that points out which macro lenses have long focus throws, which give you enough fine movement to make incremental focusing work. It is on the site SpiritGrooves (dot) net.

(3) Focus Rail: This is the least effective, but very common method of fine focus. Placing the camera and lens on a rail and moving the whole thing forward by increments to stack photos.

Anyway, there you have a short intro to the methods of focusing for stacking. Hope this is not too technical.

FlowtographyBerlin

@Flow, if you check out Michael's work, you will see he is well versed in the various techniques involved with macro shooting. It's kinda like asking Ansel if he understands the zone system.
In any event, at very close distances, the DOF is very very small, and sometimes no amount of tilt will bring your entire image into focus the way you want. Product photographers know this, and scientific/technical photographers deal with this fact as well. Today the state-of-the-art involves both focus stacking and tilting to achieve the desired result, and many times involves 100's of images combined into a single final image.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm everything but an expert with all this Macro stuff, just the occasional product shooting, and I've done focus stacking once and never again – too much pain :-) And I didn't even have hundreds of layers for the stack...

Of course I didn't want to doubt anyones expertise, did it sound like that? Anyway, I looked at one of Michael's videos, and indeed his macro work seems to be a different goal compared to a product shot.

@FlowtographyBerlin: I did not miss understand Michaels points. My response was in relation to the above quote where by he is making a point about the sensor in relation to sharpness.

Over the past few posts I (we) have come to better understand Michaels perspective of "sharpness", lenses (i.e. APO lenses) and the manner in which he goes about obtaining the sharpest image possible via focus stacking.

Yes, sorry, I totally missed the fact that the discussion had progressed when I posted...

Golf007sd

Anyway, photography for me is a way to see more clearly. The process of photographing through fine lenses is more important than any resulting photos. In the beginning I never "finished" any photo, for years. The end result did not interest me. The clarity of mind that comes from intense concentration was what it seems I needed to do each day, and macro photography was my medium. Of course, over time the results did improve. I have yet to ever print out a photo and put it on the wall. Why? Because every photo I take is just another test, a way marker, not something finished. I am on a journey to no particular end. The process is the end itself. Make sense to anyone?

I fully understand and feel your passion in relation to how this medium: macro photograph, has become your domain. Moreover, I'm pleased it bring you the level of peace we all search in our lives, given our daily tasks. Hats of to you Michael.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective on photography, its impact on ones daily life with us all. I...correction, we, look forward in ready more and seeing more of your participation in our medium...NRF.

Happy shooting...cheers

ibecamewe

DxOMark has tested 61 lenses on the Nikon D800, and drawn some conclusions about the results. So far it has published two sections of an eventual four-part article: the first discusses how much benefit the D800's 36MP sensor really offers over the 24MP chips in cameras such as the D3X and D600, while the second looks at which lenses in the 50-100mm range come out with the best DxOMark scores. Further parts later this month will look at telephoto and wide angle lenses.

sevencrossing

from the D800 accessories thread

Question about D800 lens set: I have a 80-200mmf2.8, 105mmf2.8, 60mm f2.8 micro, 50mmf1.4, 20mmf1.8 25-80mm f4-5.6, which of these would you carry on travel as a kit of sorts? For razor sharp photos.

thank you

I am guess you mean the 35-80mm f4-5.6,

This may not be your sharpest lens, but out you existing kit, it is the lens the one I would choose for travel, it also has VR, which will help you get sharp photos. If you can carry two lenses I would add the 20mm f2.8

As the 80 - 200 does not have VR, you are probably going to have use a tripod to get sharp photos. at the 200 end

If you are traveling, with only one lens; I would go for one of your zooms rather than a prime

if you were to buy a new lens

I would go for the VR 24- 120 f 4 not one of Nikon's all time sharpest , ( most of them are primes) but a great all-round lens for travel

Golf007sd

From our home page: Best lenses for the Nikon D800E camera.

sevencrossing

From our home page: Best lenses for the Nikon D800E camera.

NB this only based on the optical metric
unless you always use a solid tripod, VR is pretty important
and if you work in the real world, build quality should be taken into account