Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Wow.
That is quite difficult to assess, based on the test. The lens is actually pretty sharp in the centre in my opinion. However, all lenses should be sharp in the centre at f/8. That is simply table stakes. It is why I like the MF lenses in my signature. I am using them for landscapes and even a 30 year old lens (admittedly a professional lens in its day) is sharp at f/5.6 to f/8.0 which is where I use them at. As an aside they are also sharp on the edges stopped down which makes them good for landscapes -though my 20mm is weak in this area.
I think the real test is shooting the lens at f/4.0 and comparing it to other lenses at f/4.0. A couple of years ago I did perform this experiment with the 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. They did not perform well against my primes and coupled with the fact that they only went to f/2.8 and I love bokeh, I opted for a prime strategy and have only bought the 14-24 2.8 because at 14mm, it performs better than the 14 2.8 prime.
That said, there is something about this lens that I don't like. However, I am unsure of my opinion because I am not able to properly test it. However, the feeling is strong.
Somehow it looks like my 28-200D lens. This is a lens I bought in the late 90s and is not in my signature because I think it is only good enough for a paperweight. I don't think it is as bad as my 28-200, but it has that "look" that I don't like.
My educated guess on what is causing the look is low edge contrast (not colour contrast) and spherical aberration. These attributes produce a slightly hazy look because even though the lens is sharp, small amounts of light from one part of the image are "leaking" over to other parts of the image. Also, human perception of sharpness is not only based on real sharpness, but also contrast. It is why using the sharpening tool in Lightroom or other programs increases perceived sharpness. They are increasing edge contrast. This deception convinces the human visual system that sharpness has increased. It is also why I could not figure out what the slider actually did that was beneficial in Lightroom until I learned this. It is not going to help much on a lens that is optically excellent - say a good prime. These already have good contrast and increasing the sharpness makes them look fake and harsh. When I took an image with my 28-200 and increased the sharpness in Lightroom, I could see the difference and it actually looked better. I should also note that I can make an image look better at normal screen resolutions by sharpening but when I zoom, I do not like the look so I don't do it. I should further note that when Lightroom uploads pictures to Flickr, I have it set to "Sharpen for Screen" in "Output Sharpening" as it is only going to be used for the screen.
However, back to this lens, I don't know for sure. However, I am putting my money on it being sharp, but somehow "hazy", likely due to sub-par performance relating to contrast and spherical aberration. This is not a negative against this lens. It is a 24-120 zoom for a little more than a thousand dollars. The performance issues that I am complaining about are actually quite subtle and well controlled compared to my 90s era 28-200. This lens therefore has no performance issue and is good value. I would highly recommend it for most people that want a zoom. If you want better like I do, you have to spend a lot more money and will likely end up with primes.
And I think that it reinforces that it is the lens that really matters, not the camera. Cameras are just photon detectors to be bolted onto the ends of lenses.
I could live with a cheap camera, but not a cheap lens.
Let all beginners or amateurs take note.... An FX sensor does not produce "sharper" or "higher quality" images than a DX sensor all things being as equal as possible. In this regard lens choice remains king. That doesn't mean there aren't advantages to either FX or DX depending on your situation and clearly FX will give more options and flexibility (but sometimes with consequences such as size, price, etc).
It's just my opinion after starting this thread and reading all the commentary here, one should not be fearful to invest in the DX system or scared away by those comments out there that just say "FX makes better pics..."
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
You did the D7100 vs D750. I dont have the D750 but I have the D610 and I recently got the D7200.. still not set up properly (the way I would like) but I have done some testing very simple, but I can say it is basically the same conclusions that was drawn between your D7100vsD750. Although, the D7200vsD610 has a few interesting "side notes". I will post the NEFs soon . :-) its uploading now :-)
Ok here is the dropbox link ... https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4ucxkc4fnra69ma/AACJFKz4tJxsCgtLMkwY1bkza?dl=0
Images taken with flash bounced off the ceiling ISO 100 F5.6 for D7200 and F5.6 and F8 for D610. Lense used 70-200 F4 about 100mm on D7200 and about 150mm on D610. (PS:Note that I have set my D610 to underexpose a bit by default)
Note I autofocused on the "al" of the word "Original". There seems to be some "front focus" on my new D7200 with this lense? may have to dial in some micro-adjustments ? and a bit of back focus on my D610 ?
Also I am sure you notice the flat profile on the D7200. It may make it looks less sharp due to the lower contrast .. dial up the contrast a bit and it turns out much better than the D610 !! I would say that the new D7200 performs much better (well maybe not "much" better but "pixel peeper" better) than the D610 with this lense, although the colours of the D610 ooc are awesome !!
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
Now what we need is a comparison between the D7100 and D7200 by somebody with no axe to grind.
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
Is anyone able to take some shots with these combos of a detailed subject at 135mm F5.6 (which seems to be the lens's sweet spot) to compare?
Our test was at f/8.0 and f/11.0. The DxO tests are at the maximum aperture or wide open. Lens sharpness degrades quite significantly when it is wide open.
I will use the example of my 85 1.4G because it is a lens that I know the characteristics of well, I would expect an identical result between a D750 and D7200 at F/8.0. This is because the lens is sharper at f/8.0 than any current sensor’s sharpness, be it a 24 megapixel DX sensor using the sharp centre of the lens (about half of the image circle) or a 36 megapixel D810 sensor. Since the 24 megapixel DX sensor has a higher pixel density, as long as the lens is sharper than the DX sensor, the D750 and D7200 will produce an identical result.
I would imagine that this would be the same for most Nikon lenses. It is not that difficult to make a lens sharp at f/8.0. Apparently, Nikon has done it with the 24-120.
When the tests are performed with the lens wide open, I predict a different result.
The 85mm 1.4G is famous for being sharp wide open, but that is only in comparision to the 85mm 1.4D, which was relatively softer wide open, especially in the corners. However, I can tell you that from experience, wide open the lens is softer than my D800’s 36 megapixel sensor. Adding more megapixels will not make a difference. At some point, as you stop down, the lens becomes sharper than the sensor. I have not probed exactly where that point is, but my gut says that at f/4.0, I am not going to make the lens sharper on my D800’s sensor. Perhaps with a D7200 and a higher pixel density, that transition might be f/5.0 or f/5.6.
Since the lens is the limiting factor wide open, think of the lens as having a certain resolution. BVS, do you notice how the resolution on the DX sensor is about half the FX sensor? This is because the higher pixel density of the DX sensor is not helping sharpness because the FX sensor has either exceeded the sharpness of the lens or is close to the boundary. Note that a DX sensor is about half of the area of an FX sensor. Since both sensors are effectively identical for the DX portion of the lens, the FX sensor will achieve better sharpness and resolution results because it uses twice as much of the lens.
As sensor resolution increases (and therefore pixel density) I anticipate that this advantage of FX will become apparent at higher f-stops. How many megapixels does an FX sensor need to be before this is true even at f/5.6? (Note: F/5.6 is approximately the maximum sharpness of a really sharp lens, as stopped down past f/5.6 sharpness will decline due to diffraction. You can say that such a lens is diffraction limited at f/5.6. It is why I love my 28mm 2.8 AIS which is diffraction limited at f/5.6 in the centre and f/8.0 in the edges. You can also say that the lower the f-stop that a lens is diffraction limited, the sharper the lens. A lens that is diffraction limited at f/4.0 would truly be a sharp lens.) There is no real way to tell, but I imagine that it will be some time before we see that.
This is one reason that I have picked FX as a system, as I see this natural advantage of FX asserting itself as sensor resolution increases.
Also, I think this speaks to both a strength and weakness of DxO scores. I think that they are really onto something with their perceptual megapixel concept. It rings true and is essentially what Spraynpray and I tested with his D750/D7100 24-120 f/4.0 combo. The weakness is that they don’t do the same test at f/5.6, probably because they cannot until sensors increase in sharpness. The recent DxO test in the blog on the Voightlander Ultron 40mm f/2.0 is an example. According to DxO, it tested poorly at f/2.0. I just bought this lens and was shooting it this weekend. I can tell you that it is sharp for what I am using it for, f/5.6 – f/8.0 for landscapes etc. The DxO test results don’t help me much in this case.
What's worse is that if you select a lens and go to Measurements -> Sharpness -> P-MPix Map it shows the change in P-MPix across different apertures, but there's no way to see the actual numbers on the graph (that I can tell), even though it would seem DXO has them.
Here's what DXO says about their Sharpness scoring:
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Lens-scores/Metric-Scores
However, I do think my comments on FX being better than DX where the sensor is sharper than the lens is valid.
When I can access the DxO site, I will look at this more closely and see if something comes to mind.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4ucxkc4fnra69ma/AACJFKz4tJxsCgtLMkwY1bkza?dl=0
Looks like the expeed 3 vs 4 is quite different as I wasn't able to get them as similar as I hoped.. so I am giving up .. (NOTE I have not been able to work out how to post images due to my access issues :-( )
( Fixed the back focus on the D7200/70-200f4 combo :-) )
Ok from what I see... from the new photos ..
1) Center is pretty much the same both are super sharp ! if I were really to nitpick the split hairs of a nit .. I would say the D610 is ahead but it may just be micro missed focus...
2) the edges the DX D7200 is clearly ahead at 100% crop .. I would say the D7200 at the edges are just as sharp as the center !! as I have nothing to look at for the far corners edges there is nothing to say about that accept it would probably be more of the same.
PS:I think i remember now .. i set the D610 for warmer output a while ago and forgot .. thats why the images have a warmer tone ! argh ! I am not redoing it! its all in the RAW files anyway !!
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
How much sharper....not enough to really make any decisions upon which to use, but I suppose the issue is whether one can take as good an image with a smaller sensor. Also, in spite of VR on the lens, I think test images may need to be done in controlled venues, always same light, no wind, etc., as looking at the image magnified many times may be identifying differences between the vibrations present from wind, even ground vibrations can affect this.
Interesting discussion but let's remember that in the original days the D1 had 2.66 MP on a crop sensor and billboards came out of these images.....
The conversation frankly should be over. It's definitive in my book that there simply are not obvious winners/losers here when talking IQ and image sharpness on a DX/FX sensor. It's about the lenses and then of course a few tradeoffs in regards to costs, size, depth of field (large or small) and then some features that may or may not be available in one of the platforms.
I think I can see why maybe Nikon is not really putting a whole lot of DX lens product out in the marketplace and also why Fuji is doing so well (relatively) and why they chose to invest in APS-C size'd sensor and tech. If we had amazing primes and zooms that were built for DX, smaller/lighter and less expensive but maintained great optical characteristics optimized for DX. Very few would really buy a large framed sensor. Even when it comes to DOF advantages, FX could be minimized by going with faster glass (56mm 1.2 vs 85mm 1.4, etc).
Interesting times...
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
I can imagine a DX mirrorless in the form of the D750 body with a killer digital viewfinder could be my next body. Dreaming....