Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2013 · Lens Rendering Question

DWOfPaul
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Lens Rendering Question

The more I uses my Sigma 35mm f1.4 the more I notice the images seam to render close to Zeiss lenses then Nikon lenses. Besides for bokeh is it possible to get images from Nikon lenses look more Zeiss like in colors, contrast and micro contrast in post processing? Or do I just need to give into my want for some Zeiss lenses to get the Zeiss look?

Dec 20, 2013 at 01:02 AM

Derek Weston
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Lens Rendering Question

There is the notion that an image "draws" a certain way. That two lenses could be equally sharp, both good colors, both good bokeh, but still have a different look to the image itself. That's subjective and may be what you're noticing.

Dec 20, 2013 at 01:12 AM

jtra
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Lens Rendering Question

Bokeh plays larger part of lens rendering than most people assume.

See: http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/index.html
and discusssion here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1261347

Dec 20, 2013 at 02:21 AM

Alan321
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Lens Rendering Question

You can't imitate the "Zeiss look" in post processing simply because the look is based on what is and is not at the focus plane, whereas in post processing your computer is working with a flat image that has no focus plane. Put another way, the lens has the freedom to see a 3D scene and convert that into a 2D image in its own way, whereas your computer can only ever see a 2D scene and at best guess how far one part of that image is meant to be in front of another part.

Personally, I think the Zeiss look comes from a faster transition from sharp and in-focus at the focus plane to soft and out of focus not far from the focus plane, so that DOF is not the same as for other lenses at the same aperture. It's tempting to think that cannot possibly happen but then I also have Canon binoculars that give a "flat 3D look" as if the scene is made of flat partial images layered on top of each other to give a 3D effect - quite unacceptable for photography lenses but quite useful for binoculars. I wonder how it's done. There's mention of a field flattener lens group but that means little to me. However, it is clear that lens designers can do magic when they are not constrained to comply with the norms.

Besides, we can see that look on low-res web images so it can't all be attributed to areas of much higher detail with one lens than with another lens - they've both been dumbed down to way below the original detail levels.

The thing with the Zeiss look is that people often compare the sharpest parts of a Zeiss image with the sharpest parts of another lens image and see little difference if the other lens is any good. They also look at the bokeh and may see little difference. But they rarely seem to study the transition between the two zones, which can only be done with 3D scenes that have lots of detail in the transition areas. Then the Zeiss images do look different provided that they are taken at a large aperture so that the DOF does not cover everything.

I think it's a bit like looking at one of those trick images that can be either of two entirely different things depending on how your brain works (e.g. the vase vs two heads facing each other) but once you do see the effect it is much easier to recognise in other images and until you see it you just can't figure out what people are on about.

- Alan

Dec 20, 2013 at 11:31 AM

williamkazak
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Lens Rendering Question

I never noticed things like this rendering discussed above and I never had a Zeiss lens. I do like good bokeh, backgrounds that are not distracting in the way they render. I notice things like flare and ghosting, which I don't like. Usability is important to me. In the past, I have tried to make Micro Nikors work like an all around lens but I have given up on that idea since it did never worked very well for me.

Dec 20, 2013 at 12:39 PM

freddy_hayek
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Lens Rendering Question

Alan321 wrote:
You can't imitate the "Zeiss look" in post processing simply because the look is based on what is and is not at the focus plane..............Personally, I think the Zeiss look comes from a faster transition from sharp and in-focus at the focus plane to soft and out of focus not far from the focus plane,
- Alan

1+

The rapid transition is the key but not universal to all Zeiss lenses. I've used four (2,8/21, 2/28, 2/35 & 1,4/35) and the Z*35/2 most dramatically embodied this characteristic, the 2/28 less so. The 1,4/35, however, renders differently with a more gentle transition but a lovely style all its own; colors are better corrected and this adds to a unique vividness of the images, IMHO. Something the 35/1.4 G Nikkor seems to lack.

Dec 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM

BrianVS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Lens Rendering Question

Try to define the features that you like. A Sonnar has high field curvature, is center sharp, and has a lower contrast/softer focus when used wide-open due to spherical aberration. The Nikkor 55/1.2 Ai is a completely different optical formula, but gives similar rendering.

Dec 20, 2013 at 04:41 PM

DWOfPaul
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Lens Rendering Question

Thanks for all the info!

I definitely agree that bokeh and the transition from infuses to out of focus can have a big impact on an image.

What about colors and contrast? It seams like the Zeiss Greens and Blues are different. Also Zeiss seams to have more contrast and darker blacks.

Dec 21, 2013 at 12:28 AM

freddy_hayek
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Lens Rendering Question

DWOfPaul wrote:

What about colors and contrast? It seams like the Zeiss Greens and Blues are different. Also Zeiss seams to have more contrast and darker blacks.

The described '3D pop', contrasty and saturated colors are hallmarks of Zeiss lenses. But as mentioned before, there's variance. Some of the ZA lenses, designed for Sony (and probably made by them too) bear more similarities to Minolta rendering than other Zeiss lenses. Recall that Minolta cooperated with Leica in the 1970's and 80's.

Dec 21, 2013 at 09:06 AM

tjny
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Lens Rendering Question

Alan321 wrote:
You can't imitate the "Zeiss look" in post processing simply because the look is based on what is and is not at the focus plane, whereas in post processing your computer is working with a flat image that has no focus plane. Put another way, the lens has the freedom to see a 3D scene and convert that into a 2D image in its own way, whereas your computer can only ever see a 2D scene and at best guess how far one part of that image is meant to be in front of another part.

Personally, I think the Zeiss...Show more →

Hey Alan: from my limited experience this has been my observation as well. My two zeiss lenses 28 f2 & 85 f 1.4 were no sharper than my 16-85 vr zoom but zeiss had better bokeh and a narrower DOF at comparable f stops which is not suitable for general photography.

Dec 22, 2013 at 01:49 AM

Photofreund66
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Lens Rendering Question

Hi

my name is Daniel and this is my first post in this forum. Come from Switzerland and have good experience in Photography and all about. But there is always something to learn and sharing experiences in a serious way is what I like most in this forum.

I am the owner of the 1st hour of Nikon Df and no other cam was in the league to hit my attention. My concern is the rendering of lenses. I am a big fan of all about 50mm lenses. It comes closest to how our eyes see. I like real rendering.
I have experience with most brands of almost all formats. I like Leica for its almost perfect rendering and simple operation. But they don't have the machine to operate their lenses in the way I like it. So the Nikon Df came just in the right time.
For now I own the basic 50/1.8G plus the old manual 50/1.2 Ais which I ordered used from Japan 2months ago.
They have a very different rendering. 50/1.8G is more clinical, not far from technically balanced but without big character. Unlike the old 50/1.2AiS, which draws dramatically different. Some real big shortcomings in quality when opened till 2.0, after that it is very very good quality wise with still very special rendering. More lively, rounder. It is not easy to operate fully open, the hit and miss rate is about 50%.
Steve Huff reports that Df-owners can trust the focus point in the viewfinder for 100% accuracy. Will see and do my own tests.

Some years ago had the wonderful Zeiss 50 Macro with Nikon D700. A nice team, very well in color and character. Just a little heavy and sometimes I missed some more resolution because I was really feeling that this lens can show more. I like the advantage to use autofocus, so I am thinking about the new 58/1.4G. Could be a top companion to the Df for everyday shooting, preferably for human portraiture in urban places.
Otus 55mm is a monster, sizewise and also for its price, so nothing for me. Or going back to the nice Zeiss 50 Macro. But no AF.
In this way I am also looking for a wide prime of 24-25mm and a longer portrait lens of 105 to 135mm with perfect picture results and character. Looking for brilliance, no complain about unsharp corners or distortion and compatible in size with the Df.

I ask top quality, smallest compromise, not to big or heavy. What I like to read here is some real world practice with such lenses.

Thank you!

Dec 22, 2013 at 06:11 AM

leighton w
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Lens Rendering Question

williamkazak wrote:
I have tried to make Micro Nikors work like an all around lens but I have given up on that idea since it did never worked very well for me.

Have you ever tried the 55/2.8 Micro AIS? Wonderfully sharp and contrasty at distance.

Dec 22, 2013 at 06:31 AM

freddy_hayek
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Lens Rendering Question

Daniel--

Your experience manual focusing lenses on the Df isn't surprising, especially with an f/1.2 lens where the depth of field is measured in millimeters. Until Nikon and Canon make focusing screens interchangeable again or actually produce a DSLR engineered specifically for use with MF lenses, stick to AF. Sigma is reportedly releasing a redesigned fast 50 this coming year. I would bet that it will be superior in most ways to the new Nikkor 58/1.4 at 1/3 the price. In the meantime, the 50/1.8 G is a great lens, even if not all that exciting.

The 50/1.2 needs some shooting to be understood well. Its spherical design results in considerable haze at f/1.2-1.4. However, this does not affect the underlying sharpness when correct focus is achieved. Look closely at 50-100% crops and you will see. It provides a unique lower contrast "atmosphere" to images that are useful for portraiture of a certain style.

As for 135 (and 24) same advice as with the 50; wait a few months to see what the new Sigma offerings will look like. At present, the "perfect" 135 has to be the ZF.2 APO. But again, its manual focus.

Dec 22, 2013 at 09:03 AM

BrianVS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Lens Rendering Question

Hi Daniel! I picked up the Nikon Df the second day out, "Small Business Saturday". I'd rather have the rendering of a Sonnar than "clinical" sharpness. Tend to be "old school" with the lenses that I like. For work, it is "clinical sharpness", the "Micro-Nikkor" lenses. The 60/2.8, 105/2.8, 200/4 and 70~180 zoom. Personal use, more likely to be the 55/1.2, 24/2.8, 105/2.5 (both versions). Myself: I've used Nikon "B" and "E" screens for 35 years in my F and F2, and put them in most of my Nikons. It's what you are used to. No problems using the 55/1.2, 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 (best $60 lens I've bought), and 300/4.5.

Dec 22, 2013 at 10:55 AM

DWOfPaul
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Lens Rendering Question

freddy_hayek wrote
As for 135 (and 24) same advice as with the 50; wait a few months to see what the new Sigma offerings will look like. At present, the "perfect" 135 has to be the ZF.2 APO. But again, its manual focus.

Part of me is definitely thinking of holding out on any new lenses purchase until we see what sigma releases this year. I don't think Sigmas look is equal to the Zeiss look, but the new sigma look definitely has some character, and AF is always a plus .

This topic I fond has an interesting comparison:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/953190

The subtle difference in looks seams to be close to what I have noticed looking at groups of images taken with Zeiss vs Nikon lenses. The Zeiss lenses seams to hold darker colors and some more defined detail, where the Nikon lenses seam to be better at bringing out shadows.

Which is better is probably very subjective and depends on the seen your trying to capture.

Dec 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM

LeifG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Lens Rendering Question

DWOfPaul wrote:
The more I uses my Sigma 35mm f1.4 the more I notice the images seam to render close to Zeiss lenses then Nikon lenses. Besides for bokeh is it possible to get images from Nikon lenses look more Zeiss like in colors, contrast and micro contrast in post processing? Or do I just need to give into my want for some Zeiss lenses to get the Zeiss look?

There is certainly a look to images from a given manufacturers lenses. Part of the reason is the choice of glass available to the designer and the coatings. That will determine the transmission curve of the lens. And it will influence contrast, micro and otherwise. And of course the optical design and the shape of the aperture blades play an important role. Resolution is not everything although Imatest has made most people think it is.

To my eyes Nikon optics have superb contrast which provides a natural image. I've seen this with binoculars and scopes as well as photographic optics.

If you prefer the Zeiss look, buy Zeiss lenses. I prefer Nikon with one exception, and that lens is out of my price range.

Dec 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

MaxBerlin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Lens Rendering Question

CA is my # 1 concern. I'll give up resolution to get better CA but thankfully they go hand in hand. A well corrected lens will score better on Imatest (like the Zeiss Apo 55 and 135) because they don't have as much CA wide open and nothing noticeable 1 stop up.

Contrast doesn't mean much in the digital world IMHO - it can be fixed in seconds as well as saturation and other color issues.

Bokeh and avoidance of bad bokeh (old c/y Zeiss chainsaw bokeh at + 1 and 2 f from WO) nisen bokeh are also big issues for me.

Sagittal coma flare ( huge in the Hollywood Distagon ) cause by off axis light sources is also a problem (film and video guys love it and even animation fakes its)

Here's a point that I hope the lens OEMs never figure out. Whether you're a pro or an amateur tourist a single image has $1000s of dollars hinging upon it.

If there's something dodgy about the image that could have been 'perfect' it might cost you more than the price of an Otus to go back to Paris or Nepal or Sydney to retake the shot (and you still better have the better lens when you get there)

I learned early on that you won't lose money on good lenses and if you do it's probably less than a dime a shot.

There are no or few secrets out there. If a lens performs well, it's known to the masses and it's priced right and worth it.

3 lenses I can rec without hesitation - the Zeiss 55 Apo, the Contax 85mm 1.2 and the Zeiss 135 Apo - worth the size, the cost and the weight.

And 1 lens that seems to be on the fringe of those - the very cheap and very available 55 Sonnar for the A7 and r. This lens is making fun of those listed above with an IQ that is way above it's price, size and weight.

Dec 22, 2013 at 02:12 PM

form
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Lens Rendering Question

CA is one of the most correctable optical flaws now. Not purple fringing, not LoCA, but regular CA.

I haven't really found a Nikon lens that I enjoyed the bokeh from. 35g hasn't impressed me from the start, the 85 f/1.8g didn't either. 85 f/1.4g I haven't tried yet but the limited viewing I have had of sample images tells me I probably won't love its bokeh either.

The transition from in-focus to out-of-focus, IMO, looks really bad when you see clearly defined objects in the slightly OOF areas with only a massive LoCA fringe around them. That looks ugly to me. Happens all the time with Nikon lenses from my limited experience. The transition isn't abrupt enough, and areas/edges near the focal plane still seem sharply defined.

To-date, I prefer Canon's bokeh over Nikon's. If Canon makes a high dynamic range sensor and removes the crappy AF delays of the 5d3, I'll probably let go of my D800 for good.

Dec 22, 2013 at 04:16 PM

BrianVS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Lens Rendering Question

Out of curiousity- what are opinions of the Bokeh in this shot?

Dec 22, 2013 at 05:37 PM

BrianVS
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Lens Rendering Question

Or this,

Both examples are Sonnar formula short telephoto lenses, available in Nikon F-Mount.

Dec 22, 2013 at 05:43 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.