gdsf2 wrote:
I never heard of Adobe Super Resolution. Glad you mentioned it. New tool in the kit. Thanks.
It's pretty amazing really. I did a job a few months ago and with up rezzed Z7II files filled a 10' foot wall for the client with no issues using this method. From MF digital output, it is simply insane what you can end up with.
There is an interesting comment on Nikon rumors site, someone who received this lens reported, the lens seems to be parfocal.
This wasn't advertised by Nikon, but if it's true, it's gonna be a nice surprise.
cvrle59 wrote:
There is an interesting comment on Nikon rumors site, someone who received this lens reported, the lens seems to be parfocal.
This wasn't advertised by Nikon, but if it's true, it's gonna be a nice surprise.
No it’s not actually parfocal. I just tested mine. Whether I focus first at 24mm or 120mm, the result is that while zooming it goes out of focus shortly below 120mm and continues to be out of focus until about 70mm, at which point it roughly returns to focus from 70mm down to 24mm.
YAY
My 24-120 lens arrived today. I couldn't help but try some quick tests comparing it to the 24-200. Let me preface by saying that I am NOT a lens expert of any technical ability. I can only describe what I saw. Please keep that in mind. Now, I took 3 different scenes. One being on a tripod. The first on a tripod was of my back yard and some of my neighbors with bushes, a pool screen (white molding against black screen) power lines, ect. So many things to look at.
I found the 24-120 better in contrast at the 24, 50, 70 and 120mm shots. I shot 24mm at F4 and all the others at F6.3 to really compare the two equally. All were at ISO 64 on a Z7II and looking on the screen at 100%.
The corners at 24MM were slightly better on the 24-120 as expected. Enough to upgrade, depends on how picky you are. Me just for that. No.
The corners to me at 50MM were better on the 24-200. I know but every corner seemed to be better at 50MM on the 24-200 but the contrast still better on the 24-120. Center of image I think the 24-200 was ever so slightly better, but really hard to see unless super picky.
At 70Mm and 120MM the 24-120 was the better lens. Better contrast, sharper across the image. Drastic, no, but noticeable. Would I upgrade based on that... maybe. To me there was a difference.
2nd image
image of a large outdoor generator with lots of writing on the side.
The 24-120 was the better lens at each 24, 70 and 120. I still think the 24-200 was maybe better at 50mm for some odd reason. ever so slight. better contrast on the 24-120 across the board.
3rd image was of small leaves on a hedge. Not on a tripod and windy conditions so maybe not terribly fair.
The 24-120 was the better lens at 24, 70 and 120. 50mm was a draw.
It was a VERY fast test and I'll do more after the holidays. However, i did want to post something. I'll do more tests at F8 and F11 later.
Is the 24-120 the better lens. Yes. You can see the difference. Is it a big jump? No. Not at all but you can see it's a sharper lens with better contrast in most cases. Slight but it's there.
The colors look the same to me. It was really hard to tell the difference in color science. The 24-120 is the brighter lens ever so slightly as well IMHO.
if I owned neither lens, and didnt need the extra reach, I would get the 24-120. If I was tight for money and already owned the 24-200 for landscapes and travel, I'd still be happy with that lens. It's a good lens. However, the 24-120 is a slightly better lens. But it's a tad larger and heavier than the 24-200 but not enough for me to sweat the extra size or weight.
I do like the FN ring on the 24-120 lens to change the F stops on the lens. Thats nice to have.
That's my quick down and dirty look at the 2 lenses. You can't really go wrong with either lens for landscapes. I think the 24-120 is better but by a hair even for landscapes. However, for lower light and the constant F4, the 24-120 is the obvious choice.
Mike
Oh, I'm in South Florida and did take a couple shots directly into the sun at F22. Nice sunstars, limited flare but it was there on both lenses, The 24-120 had more defined sun stars for sure. Also, on the white border edge of the pool screen the 24-120 had minor chr. abberation at 24Mm. The 24-200 had far more but in both correctable, At 120MM it was gone. I didnt see any in the phone lines in the first image or in the tree branches with the 24-120 at all. That was impressive.
Ai_Print wrote:
It's pretty amazing really. I did a job a few months ago and with up rezzed Z7II files filled a 10' foot wall for the client with no issues using this method. From MF digital output, it is simply insane what you can end up with.
Have you ever tried it on a film image? The uprez programs I've tried previously have not worked well on film. I think the grain structure perhaps does not lend itself well to it.
I took it out for another try today. Yes, it's an impressive lens. I took a couple more images directly into the sun again and this time no lens flare. I haven't done any serious landscape images yet, but for a walk around lens, this will be hard to beat. I agree with the comment above. The IBIS worked well.
