This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012Some 100mm-ish comparisons
p.3 #1Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I took a few more sequences but I don't think they add much to what I've already posted.
The one that I shot specifically for colour, I messed up by forgetting to shoot the Zuiko, but here it is anyway for what it's worth! All F11
Sonnar 100/3.5 @11
Nikkor 105/2.5 @11
Tokina 100/2.8 @11
EDIT: Added
Tokina @F32 Now here I can see a degradation on the writing on the centre stone where I focussed, compared with F11 but I think it's still useable, how about you?
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 02:36 PM · View previous versions
The one that I shot specifically for colour, I messed up by forgetting to shoot the Zuiko, but here it is anyway for what it's worth! All F11
Sonnar 100/3.5 @11 Nikkor 105/2.5 @11 Tokina 100/2.8 @11EDIT: Added
Tokina @F32 Now here I can see a degradation on the writing on the centre stone where I focussed, compared with F11 but I think it's still useable, how about you?Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 02:36 PM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 09:14 AM
p.3 #2Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I'll try to reshoot the star sequence flagged, and into the sun through focussed distant branches, plus a sequence on colour fringing. Let me know if you have any requests. I do have the whole aperture sequence for each series.
Here another of the Tokina at F32 which still astounds me! (I have the full sequence of this with all lenses if anyone wants to see.) Focus on red roses in vase.
Tokina 100/2.8 @ F32
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 02:25 PM · View previous versions
Here another of the Tokina at F32 which still astounds me! (I have the full sequence of this with all lenses if anyone wants to see.) Focus on red roses in vase.
Tokina 100/2.8 @ F32Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 02:25 PM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 09:23 AM
p.3 #3Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Yeah, post'em up. We're following right along!
Mar 21, 2012 at 12:27 PM
p.3 #4Some 100mm-ish comparisons
OK Bif... As I posted before I'll do the sequence of this at each lenses widest then at F16
I realise that despite my best efforts with the in camera histograms, the exposures do vary, sorry!
Sonnar F3.5
Nikkor F2.5
Tokina F2.8
Zuiko 2
Sonnar F16
Nikkor F16
Tokina F16
Zuiko F16
That's it for now until I shoot some more.
Here is the Tokina at F32 again:
Tokina F32. Do you agree that this looks good for F32, I'd always avoided it because of what I've read about diffraction being really bad above F16!
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 02:48 PM · View previous versions
I realise that despite my best efforts with the in camera histograms, the exposures do vary, sorry!
Sonnar F3.5Nikkor F2.5 Tokina F2.8 Zuiko 2Sonnar F16 Nikkor F16 Tokina F16 Zuiko F16That's it for now until I shoot some more.
Here is the Tokina at F32 again:
Tokina F32. Do you agree that this looks good for F32, I'd always avoided it because of what I've read about diffraction being really bad above F16!Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 02:48 PM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 01:18 PM
p.3 #5Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Comparing the white flower heads in the vase where I focussed, I can see that at F32 the definition is not as good as in the F16 shot, however the extra dof is large.
Mar 21, 2012 at 02:48 PM
p.3 #6Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I've found that many prime lenses which have f/32 on the dial aren't all that bad. As I understand it parallel-ish light rays passing through a small hole diverge as they're "projected" in a conical shape onto the sensor. So the light rays passing to the outer perimeters of the cone's base are longer than the center rays - and this causes a phase interference between near frequencies which produces an interference pattern from the wave amplitudes canceling, adding, and etc.. And of course different wavelengths (colors) are affected differently - at different apertures. My theory is that since this phenomena is caused by a "projection curvature" of sorts then lenses which corrected for field curvature more-so (or just differently?) than another is affected less (or just differently?) by aperture diffraction. Plus it seems that a lens which is better color corrected also suffers less. And a third affecter seems to be the shape of the blades themselves - (thickness, edge sharpness, hole roundness, maybe color too...).
So, if my theory is correct then the Tokina is probably very well color corrected and is very flat-field - (and/or possibly has really thin blades which form a very round hole). Correct or not some lenses are definitely affected more than others by aperture diffraction.
Edited on Mar 31, 2012 at 05:29 PM · View previous versions
So, if my theory is correct then the Tokina is probably very well color corrected and is very flat-field - (and/or possibly has really thin blades which form a very round hole). Correct or not some lenses are definitely affected more than others by aperture diffraction.
Edited on Mar 31, 2012 at 05:29 PM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 03:38 PM
p.3 #7Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I agree it looks good for F32. Its technically good but not so subjectively impressive. The DOF sure is!
Perhaps you could show a F16-F22-F32 sequence.
Interesting how Zuiko and Nikkor are more similar in bokeh than Nikkor and Tokina despite the bigger F difference for the first pair. Tokina really looks great from comparison to comparison. How bad is manual focusing in comparison to others?
Perhaps you could show a F16-F22-F32 sequence.
Interesting how Zuiko and Nikkor are more similar in bokeh than Nikkor and Tokina despite the bigger F difference for the first pair. Tokina really looks great from comparison to comparison. How bad is manual focusing in comparison to others?
Mar 21, 2012 at 04:01 PM
p.3 #8Some 100mm-ish comparisons
mirkoc, I'll do a sequence with F11, 16, 22 and 32 with the Tokina showing some fine detail.
Not sure what you mean, "Its technically good but not so subjectively impressive", can you explain?
Yes, the Bokeh of the Tokina, whilst nice and smooth isn't as diffuse as you'd expect for 2.8, closer to the 3.5 of the Sonnar than the 2.5 of the Nikkor, probably made worse by the Tokina being closer to a 95mm than the stated 100mm, and the Nikkor being 105mm.
Concerning the Tokina manual focus, it's a 1:1 macro and has a focus "turn" of only about 240º from 0.29m - ∞, of which 0.29 - 3m is taken up by about 230º of turn, meaning that the final 3m - ∞ is covered by about 10º. The result is that focussing anywhere closer than 1m is very good and even, but closer to ∞ it gets increasingly "coarse", ie just a touch moves it a lot. By comparison the Zuiko turns 340º evenly from 0.7m - ∞ (I believe the Canon 100/2.8 macro's are even worse having only about 150º of turn, which is why I didn't consider them, as manual focus with them at distances is even harder, and I prefer to manual focus.)
Not sure what you mean, "Its technically good but not so subjectively impressive", can you explain?
Yes, the Bokeh of the Tokina, whilst nice and smooth isn't as diffuse as you'd expect for 2.8, closer to the 3.5 of the Sonnar than the 2.5 of the Nikkor, probably made worse by the Tokina being closer to a 95mm than the stated 100mm, and the Nikkor being 105mm.
Concerning the Tokina manual focus, it's a 1:1 macro and has a focus "turn" of only about 240º from 0.29m - ∞, of which 0.29 - 3m is taken up by about 230º of turn, meaning that the final 3m - ∞ is covered by about 10º. The result is that focussing anywhere closer than 1m is very good and even, but closer to ∞ it gets increasingly "coarse", ie just a touch moves it a lot. By comparison the Zuiko turns 340º evenly from 0.7m - ∞ (I believe the Canon 100/2.8 macro's are even worse having only about 150º of turn, which is why I didn't consider them, as manual focus with them at distances is even harder, and I prefer to manual focus.)
Mar 22, 2012 at 04:07 AM
p.3 #9Some 100mm-ish comparisons
timballic wrote:
Yes, the Bokeh of the Tokina, whilst nice and smooth isn't as diffuse as you'd expect for 2.8, closer to the 3.5 of the Sonnar than the 2.5 of the Nikkor, probably made worse by the Tokina being closer to a 95mm than the stated 100mm, and the Nikkor being 105mm.
I see people expressing this thought quite often, but IMO lens design plays a much greater role than the slight variations in actual focal length. Different designs can have very different amounts of background blur (for instance Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 vs Makro-Planar 50/2 at the same aperture). In this case you're comparing a macro design to non-macro lenses too.
Yes, the Bokeh of the Tokina, whilst nice and smooth isn't as diffuse as you'd expect for 2.8, closer to the 3.5 of the Sonnar than the 2.5 of the Nikkor, probably made worse by the Tokina being closer to a 95mm than the stated 100mm, and the Nikkor being 105mm.
I see people expressing this thought quite often, but IMO lens design plays a much greater role than the slight variations in actual focal length. Different designs can have very different amounts of background blur (for instance Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 vs Makro-Planar 50/2 at the same aperture). In this case you're comparing a macro design to non-macro lenses too.
Mar 22, 2012 at 05:23 AM
p.3 #10Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Aham, many assumptions I've picked up over the years are put to the test on this forum! Always learning.
I found I already had a sequence showing F11, 16, 22 and 32 with the Tokina and depth of field behind plane of focus.
Focussed on "HENRY SHARP" appropriately! (I think I'll also post a 100% crop.)
Tokina F11
Tokina F16
Tokina F22
Tokina F32
I've also got F16 and 22 for the other lenses
Sonnar F16
Sonnar F22
Zuiko F16
Zuiko F22
Nikkor F16
Nikkor F22
I found I already had a sequence showing F11, 16, 22 and 32 with the Tokina and depth of field behind plane of focus.
Focussed on "HENRY SHARP" appropriately! (I think I'll also post a 100% crop.)
Tokina F11 Tokina F16 Tokina F22 Tokina F32I've also got F16 and 22 for the other lenses
Sonnar F16 Sonnar F22 Zuiko F16 Zuiko F22 Nikkor F16 Nikkor F22Mar 22, 2012 at 05:52 AM
p.3 #11Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Here are the 100% crops (approx), I've started each sequence with F5.6 so that the lens at its sharpest can be seen, (and also that I haven't misfocussed), then F16, 22 and for the Tokina F32.
Tokina 5.6
Tokina F16
Tokina F22
Tokina F32
Zuiko F5.6
Zuiko F16
Zuiko F22
Nikkor F5.6
Nikkor F16
Nikkor F22
Sonnar F5.6
Sonnar F16
Sonnar F22
The Tokina at F22 and 32 doesn't look so good this close! (The Nikkor and Sonnar do.)
Tokina 5.6 Tokina F16 Tokina F22 Tokina F32 Zuiko F5.6 Zuiko F16 Zuiko F22 Nikkor F5.6 Nikkor F16 Nikkor F22 Sonnar F5.6 Sonnar F16 Sonnar F22The Tokina at F22 and 32 doesn't look so good this close! (The Nikkor and Sonnar do.)
Mar 22, 2012 at 06:45 AM
p.3 #12Some 100mm-ish comparisons
timballic wrote:
Not sure what you mean, "Its technically good but not so subjectively impressive", can you explain?
I mean it is quite good and handy if you need the dof, but it lacks the wow factor of f16.
Not sure what you mean, "Its technically good but not so subjectively impressive", can you explain?
I mean it is quite good and handy if you need the dof, but it lacks the wow factor of f16.
Mar 22, 2012 at 06:53 AM
p.3 #13Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Mirkoc, yes, I agree. The last post really shows what I first expected to see at F32, but none are that bad at F22.
The Nikkor is especially impressive for sharpness.
The Nikkor is especially impressive for sharpness.
Mar 22, 2012 at 07:57 AM
p.3 #14Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Is the Contax full of dust or haze, or something? I owned that lens for a while and I don't recall it being particularly prone to veilling. Perhaps the coatings have been "cleaned" off...?
Mar 22, 2012 at 09:01 AM
p.3 #15Some 100mm-ish comparisons
cogitech, the Contax is near pristine, no signs of over cleaning on the elements and only very minor internal dust.
Mar 22, 2012 at 09:10 AM
p.3 #17Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Whoops, I've just found that it is possible to partly mis attach the adapter mounted Zuiko 100/2 in the wrong bayonet "gap" on the 5DII and in the process corrupt the newly purchased Dandelion chip I put on it. I've managed to slice the chip off and will replace with another. I didn't force it either. Not tooo expensive (£15) but annoying. I must be more careful! (It's been on and off so much recently.)
[EDIT: Just found that neither of my Elfoto (Japanese) Zuiko-EF adapters have the stop screw in place to prevent this from happening, Ill have to fit them, and give the camera a shake, open throat down, just in case they've come off in there! (Dreadful thought!)]
I was trying to shoot a sequence to show colour fringing but not finding it easy to show clearly. In the past it's one of those things that suddenly strikes me as I set up a shot, like those backlit raindrops in the woodland I posted a while back, to make it happen to order is another matter. I'd lined up a set of white candles on a dark background in the sun, but it isn't effective, here: ( Any advice welcome as this obviously hasn't worked.)
Zuiko 100/2 @2
And this is the lens that produced the following shot at the same setting!
[EDIT: Just found that neither of my Elfoto (Japanese) Zuiko-EF adapters have the stop screw in place to prevent this from happening, Ill have to fit them, and give the camera a shake, open throat down, just in case they've come off in there! (Dreadful thought!)]
I was trying to shoot a sequence to show colour fringing but not finding it easy to show clearly. In the past it's one of those things that suddenly strikes me as I set up a shot, like those backlit raindrops in the woodland I posted a while back, to make it happen to order is another matter. I'd lined up a set of white candles on a dark background in the sun, but it isn't effective, here: ( Any advice welcome as this obviously hasn't worked.)
Zuiko 100/2 @2And this is the lens that produced the following shot at the same setting!
Mar 22, 2012 at 09:44 AM
p.3 #18Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Any advice (please!) on what to shoot to show out of focus colour fringing?
Mar 24, 2012 at 02:16 AM
p.3 #19Some 100mm-ish comparisons
For the raindrops, what makes the effect especially noticeable is the specular highlights, which are small but blown out by many stops, unlike the candles which are "correctly" exposed to white. Hence the purple fringle halos are also boosted to higher visibility. Take advantage of harsh sunlight to find a scene with lots of bright blown-out specular highlight spots. For the green/magenta fringing on the background branches bokeh, you just have to find the "wrong" subject/focus distances to bring this out. This type of problem is usually more noticeable at closer-to-focus smaller blur, unlike the larger amounts of defocus that most of your candles picture shows.
Mar 24, 2012 at 10:45 AM
p.3 #20Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Michael thanks. I have been out again this afternoon doing some more sequences. I think that one or two of them do illustrate colour fringing.
We're having a lovely, unusually warm, sunny start to Spring, though it's a very hazy sun unlike the other day when I shot the first sequences, so, much harder to produce the very high contrast and stars.
I've redone the closest focus sequence on the same gravestone, much more carefully and the Nikkor now much more presentable (even if still 4th at this distance). Also shot directly into the sun through branches, as mirkoc requested which is interesting, (and I actually remembered not to use live view to focus these!)
Will post when I've had time to sort and evaluate what I've actually got that shows anything worthwhile sharing.
We're having a lovely, unusually warm, sunny start to Spring, though it's a very hazy sun unlike the other day when I shot the first sequences, so, much harder to produce the very high contrast and stars.
I've redone the closest focus sequence on the same gravestone, much more carefully and the Nikkor now much more presentable (even if still 4th at this distance). Also shot directly into the sun through branches, as mirkoc requested which is interesting, (and I actually remembered not to use live view to focus these!)
Will post when I've had time to sort and evaluate what I've actually got that shows anything worthwhile sharing.
Mar 24, 2012 at 12:32 PM