Real life test: D800E with AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
edited January 2015 in D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
I think on several threads I have stated I was going to do this, so on a cold rainy day, I headed out and in horrid conditions, shot some candid images, maintaining f/4 so I could see the lens work wide open,
At 24mm, f/4, 1/100 sec, ISO 2000
Carolina_Theatre_01.03.15

And to see how sharp:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16188701061/sizes/o/

At 75mm, f/4, 1/160 sec, ISO 3200
Carolina_Theatre_01.03.15-5

Bigger:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16164756796/sizes/o/

Heavily cropped and processed at 65mm, f/4, 1/160 sec, ISO 6400
Carolina_Theatre_01.03.15-3

Big:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16003139528/sizes/o/

On this last one, ...although a bit of noise and sharpening is present....I kinda like the interesting detail in the figure

All were wide open and I think at 24mm the edge fall off is seen. But the center sharpness wide open with the D800E is quite acceptable IMO

Oh, yeah, one in color
Carolina_Theatre_01.03.15-2

Bigger:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16003146628/sizes/o/
Post edited by Msmoto on
Msmoto, mod
«1

Comments

  • HammieHammie Posts: 258Member
    But was the edge fall off due to the f/4 setting or limitations of the lens?

    It would be interesting to see the results at f/8 or smaller. Would there be the same fall off?
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Next set will be at f/8 or smaller. Some folks like to see the toughest test, and IMO wide open, higher ISO shot in pretty tough conditions is very much real world.
    Msmoto, mod
  • NukeNuke Posts: 64Member
    Next set will be at f/8 or smaller. Some folks like to see the toughest test, and IMO wide open, higher ISO shot in pretty tough conditions is very much real world.
    Yep, waiting to see more. I have the lens and I quite like it. A friend has the same lens and complains about a lack of sharpness at 120mm and out beyond 50-75 feet. Says it's fine at closer distances.

    I'm guessing the two of us use the lens differently. I probably use my 70-200 at the greater distances and beyond 70+mm.

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    Hi Tommie, what post did you do to those images before putting them up here?
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2015
    Well, first of all, here is a shot at 105mm at f/9.

    Greensboro_Flyers_01.10.15-3

    Bigger: https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16258385372/sizes/o/

    Post processing....? Me?

    The B & W has been sharpened, probably too much, the shadows have been heavily brought up, highlight pulled into range. I wanted to have the result similar to what we saw with B & W film when we puled down the ASA, underdeveloped and then printed to get all the shadow we could.

    The color also has huge work on bringing the overall dynamic range down into something one can see. The actual image under the marquee was so dark one could hardly see anything. But, the D800E had lots of info in the shadows. Also, each theatre light has been popped with a highlight so as to make the sign a bit more alive.

    I will answer any questions one has. On the one I just posted today the goal was to have the image be somewhat as I saw my subjects, actually folks I know who are on the street.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    edited January 2015
    @Msmoto: Thanks for your reply on the PP. I asked because I noticed that your shots don't show any vignetting in the corners and my 24-120 has huge vignetting - so much vignetting that clicking the lens correction button in Lightroom doesn't come close to fixing it. My 24-120 also shows lots of sagittal coma which I really hate as it makes it useless for night sky photography. It is already an f4 lens so I can't stop it down to improve that.

    Anybody else have these problems?
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2015
    SO, more from my recent visit to The Henry Frd in Dearborn, Michigan. The album has several shots with the D800E/24-120mm f/4 combo, most at very small apertures.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16306033206/in/set-72157648071166424/

    This is one I especially enjoy... all the detail..

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16144612020/sizes/o/
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • funtagraphfuntagraph Posts: 265Member
    Is it because of f/16 or 20" (and maybe some vibrations in the building?), the downsampling using uneven numbers (not /2 or /4) or the lens itself: In that shot you particularly enjoy, I miss the sharpness I'm used from D80x0 series.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    @Msmoto: Those are very nicely detailed images Tommie.

    Can you answer my question above please? - The question about there being so much vignetting on my shots that clicking the lens correction button in Lightroom doesn't come close to fixing it. Also, my 24-120 also shows lots of sagittal coma which I really hate as it makes it useless for night sky photography. It is already an f4 lens so I can't stop it down to improve that. How did you remove your vignetting? I may have a poor copy which would explain my disenchantment with it.

    Always learning.
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2015
    @funtagraph

    Wow, you are sharp. The locomotive cab interior was of course taken from the engineers cab of the locomotive. And, there was a "sound effect" of the steam locomotive which indeed had a slight vibration in the floor. But, this is where I had to place the tripod and shoot the long exposure. Great catch!

    @spraynpray

    I do so much post processing with images I do not seem to notice the vignetting. As to sharpness, this image is at f/22 and suffers as a result. Sharpness is not like the 105/2.8 macro lens, for example.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16306033206/sizes/o/

    The 105/2.8 at f/10 A bit sharper IMO

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16331975755/sizes/o/

    Overall, I think the 24-120mm f/4 is a great carry around, can do some nice work, but is not my favorite les for absolute sharpness. Look at this and see if you see any sagittal coma here.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/15639313263/sizes/o/

    One more thing... I shoot people and am looking for a fine point of focus, not much concerned about other areas as to sharpness, so I guess for me the edges are less important. Hope this helps.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • funtagraphfuntagraph Posts: 265Member
    edited January 2015
    @funtagraph
    Wow, you are sharp.
    No, you are :D I've seen quite a couple of super sharp photos from you on your flickr account, so this one has a lot of detail but also not top notch micro contrast. So either it was aperture-based decreasing sharpness or some vibrations, but for sure not a lack of skill :)
    Post edited by funtagraph on
  • EmceeEmcee Posts: 48Member
    Would it be possible to get some lower ISO samples? Great shots but the grain really takes away from the sharpness. Many thanks.
    D800 | 14-24 2.8G, 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 58 1.4G, 85 1.4D, 24-85G VR
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    I guess I am confused...there is no noise, no grain in the images above. The last one is shot at ISO 900 and still lacks any noise. The first two are at ISO 100.

    Any of these could go to 4 foot by 6 foot and be entirely satisfactory to a client paying big bucks.
    Msmoto, mod
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    @Msmoto: Thanks anyway, but that image is unfortunately not suitable for assessing coma. f4 night sky with stars shots are where it is a killer, and I haven't seen you do any of those.

    There is no vignetting in your shots after PP, I just wondered if your example was different to mine in that the vignetting does not come close to completely disappearing when I tick the box in Lightroom, I have to do manual vignetting correction too. Yours does look sharper than mine at f4 too.
    Always learning.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    @S&;P I think you can customise the lens profile setting in LR ,so may be you can apply so more vignette removal
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    Thanks seven, I'll look into that.
    Always learning.
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited January 2015
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,236Moderator
    Thanks! Downloading...
    Always learning.
  • EmceeEmcee Posts: 48Member
    edited January 2015
    EDIT: I finally saw the Jan 22nd post. Sorry.
    I guess I am confused...there is no noise, no grain in the images above. The last one is shot at ISO 900 and still lacks any noise. The first two are at ISO 100.

    Any of these could go to 4 foot by 6 foot and be entirely satisfactory to a client paying big bucks.
    ISO 100? Did I miss something? The very first image was shot at ISO2000...
    I think on several threads I have stated I was going to do this, so on a cold rainy day, I headed out and in horrid conditions, shot some candid images, maintaining f/4 so I could see the lens work wide open,
    At 24mm, f/4, 1/100 sec, ISO 2000
    Carolina_Theatre_01.03.15

    Post edited by Emcee on
    D800 | 14-24 2.8G, 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 58 1.4G, 85 1.4D, 24-85G VR
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    ISO 2000 on a D4 is equal to ISO 100 on other cameras :)
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2015
    @Emcee

    Sorry, I was referring to the long exposures shot at ISO 100. For sure, the heavily processed Carolina Theatre shots have noise, especially when blown up. But, this just might have been done to achieve the "look" in B & W of a nearly HDR image. These images are cropped heavily as well. But, IMO the image falls off when shot at ISO 200 at f/4, but as someone who has shot Tri-X at 800 ASA, I do not get concerned about noise or grain. I do a lot of fiddling in Lightroom, but do not use all the automatic stuff.... probably do not even understand it...LOL

    I have offered up my random stuff, not as a lens test, but simply some of the experience in the field under different situations.

    I guess what I need is some ISO 100 at f/4....
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited January 2015
    We are from the grainy ASA, DIN (asty) and Peyton Place generation, hahaha.
    No noise allowed in this generation, it's all plastic.

    Thanks for this very, very useful field test on the D800E.
    I have only 60 photo's on the D600, when I changed the lens with a friend, when I had the 24-70mm on.
    Post edited by [Deleted User] on
    Those who say it can't be done, should not interrupt those doing it!
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    Well, more stuff... and this is to illustrate how much detail is present in only a 3000 pixel image from the D800E, 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor at f/25 (i.e., some loss from diffraction).

    The Henry Ford 2015_-5

    What I would suggest, just for fun, open the link, then magnify the image on your monitor, and you can alms read the serial number on the engine distributor.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16144651990/sizes/o/

    Please note, there are many other ways to shoot the photo, many actually which would produce a much finer image. But, this is about "real life" using the limitations of shooting in a museum, having to accommodate other photographers and not using flash. I was able to use an LED flood to "paint" some light into the engine as the area under the hood was nearly black.
    Msmoto, mod
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2015
    Oh, yeah... the thread was about the 24-120mm, so, have a peek at this one shot at f/16.....to get a long exposure allowing the light painting.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/16152161567/sizes/o/
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • funtagraphfuntagraph Posts: 265Member
    edited January 2015
    You're light painting in only five seconds exposure? Sporty lady :D

    The pictures, both of them: yummy. What you show and how you compose, that is. I do not find the train picture a recommendation for the 24-120 :( sorry. I know, it's not a prime. But I also saw what the Sigma is doing in wide angle - and what it's doing at the long end, which appears to be a weak range of the Nikkor, although "weak" on a high level.

    Btw., from the Flickr downsample I could not read the serial number, but I'm sure you can on your 100% view of the full res. The train picture I rotated by 1° ccw, to me the train fell to it's left side. I thought the column or door frame would be good orientation.

    I'd love to see you doing the same shot twice, with Nikkor and Siggy. Actually, we see how well you handle that lens. I'm nearly ashamed to see always those little bits, but believe me, I'm the same way with my own pictures.

    But even if the Sigma would be "only" equally good - the costs are 25% less...
    Post edited by funtagraph on
Sign In or Register to comment.