p.1 #1 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
Has anyone found the newer E-Series ("FL") primes to have a lot less contrast in the images compared to the older G-Series ("ED VR") ones?
I used to have the AF-S 500mm f/4E FL ED VR (2014 release). Loved the reduced weight, but always found myself bumping up the contrast in Lightroom quite significantly.
The same was true when using the AF-S 600mm f/4E FL ED VR (2014 release) last week. The images were really lacking in contrast and had to be fixed in post.
---------
More recently, I downgraded to the older AF-S 500mm f/4G ED VR (2007 release) and the images have more contrast coming out of the camera / no need to add much in Lightroom.
I also used the AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR (2007 release) and found the same to be true with that one...the images have more contrast out of camera.
---------
What has your experience been with the newer gen. "FL" lenses? Are they known to produce flatter / less contrasty images?
p.1 #2 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
jmreese wrote:
Has anyone found the newer E-Series ("FL") primes to have a lot less contrast in the images compared to the older G-Series ("ED VR") ones?
I used to have the AF-S 500mm f/4E FL ED VR (2014 release). Loved the reduced weight, but always found myself bumping up the contrast in Lightroom quite significantly.
The same was true when using the AF-S 600mm f/4E FL ED VR (2014 release) last week. The images were really lacking in contrast and had to be fixed in post.
---------
More recently, I downgraded to the older AF-S 500mm f/4G ED VR (2007 release) and the images have more contrast coming out of the camera / no need to add much in Lightroom.
I also used the AF-S 400mm f/2.8G ED VR (2007 release) and found the same to be true with that one...the images have more contrast out of camera.
---------
What has your experience been with the newer gen. "FL" lenses? Are they known to produce flatter / less contrasty images?...Show more →
In my opinion the Nikon superteles get flatter every generation. I've owned them all even both Z 400 and 600 (supaflat!). I'm sure shaving weight and adding elements has something to do with it. I look back at my shots from the 600g VR and they look very good, almost real. Sadly that lens is not easy to lug around and was almost impossible for me to handhold. It was so front heavy. I welcomed the 600 FL simply because I was able to use it more. I absolutely agree with what you are seeing.
p.1 #3 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
Maybe some untouched RAW images converted to jpegs comparison shots? Do the RAW images fit within the exposure 0-255 range more so with the modern lenses than the older lenses? Is it more to do with the modern sensors compared to older sensors rather than the lens?
I have not really noticed a lack of contrast in the more modern lenses, but I have not done back-to-back comparisons either. I did have the 400 f2.8E FL VR but I didn't have the 400 f2.8G so couldn't compare the E to the G version. However, I did have the 500 f4G and then got the 400 f2.8ER FL VR and I certainly do not think the 500 f4G was more contrasty than the 400 f2.8E FL VR, if anything on the contrary. However, I sold the 500 f4G not long after I got the 400 f2.8E FL VR so no direct comparisons were ever made. I also do not think my 600 f4TC is less contrasty than the 400 f2.8E FL VR, but again, I have no way to compare directly other than to pull up old 400mm f2.8E RAW images and compare them to the 600 TC RAW images if there are similar scenes and lighting but that would not be a real comparison.
p.1 #4 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
I went from 300mm f2.8 VR to 400mm f2.8 E FL and now Z 400mm f2.8 S TC and saw constant improvements of image quality from generation to generation. No lack of contrast in my samples.
p.1 #5 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
@Kasper6188 - Glad I'm not the only one seeing things
@Lance B - Haven't been able to do comparison shots since I've either sold off certain lenses or no longer have the RAW files. Thanks for sharing your experience with the lenses mentioned!
@bernardl - Good to know it's been a constant improvement going up!
p.1 #7 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
After using many different lenses over the years, I have a gut opinion that the aberrations in some older lenses can produce more pleasing images in certain situations. But those aberrations can also cause issues in other situations.
For example when I compare my Zeiss 35mm f2 ZF2 against my Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO. In the right conditions I prefer the rendering from the Zeiss lens. But if the conditions get rough there is no denying that the Voigtlander lens is significantly sharper and has fewer aberrations.
p.1 #8 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
Modern lens designs tend to be optimized for higher resolution into the corners, with more correction of abberations, which means more lens elements and groups, which reduces contrast.
Depending on your subject and conditions you may want that resolution, or prefer higher contrast, or more "characterful" rendering, or more bokeh, etc etc.
p.1 #9 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
I just purchased a new to me 500 FL so I have no basis for comparison of different generations. Is it possible that the lens profiles evolved differently over time?
In any case, I always shoot raw with the NL (neutral) profile because flat raw images are, IMO, preferable. You can always add contrast in PP, but it is very difficult to take away contrast - particularly if the image is near the full dynamic range, or clips even slightly.
2 lbs of weight savings are well worth a small loss of contrast, if it is even present. When I first bought the 500/4 Amazon sent me the G version by mistake. Even if it is an amazing lens the size and weight were unwieldy for how I tend to use long teles.
p.1 #10 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
DWOfPaul wrote:
After using many different lenses over the years, I have a gut opinion that the aberrations in some older lenses can produce more pleasing images in certain situations. But those aberrations can also cause issues in other situations.
For example when I compare my Zeiss 35mm f2 ZF2 against my Voigtlander 35mm f2 APO. In the right conditions I prefer the rendering from the Zeiss lens. But if the conditions get rough there is no denying that the Voigtlander lens is significantly sharper and has fewer aberrations.
This is exactly my experience. I sold my Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 and bought the 35/2 Apo. For sure, on my Z6 the Apo Lanthar is more comfortable (smaller and lightweight) than the Zeiss + FTZ. The Apo Lanthar is sharper, and shows negligible LoCA. However, sometimes I miss the rendering of the Zeiss, but I can't carry two 35/2 lenses with me every time and then decide which one to use depending on the scene in front of me.
p.1 #11 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
Ripolini wrote:
This is exactly my experience. I sold my Zeiss ZF.2 35/2 and bought the 35/2 Apo. For sure, on my Z6 the Apo Lanthar is more comfortable (smaller and lightweight) than the Zeiss + FTZ. The Apo Lanthar is sharper, and shows negligible LoCA. However, sometimes I miss the rendering of the Zeiss, but I can't carry two 35/2 lenses with me every time and then decide which one to use depending on the scene in front of me.
Yep, now it’s mostly my Voigtlander lenses making it in my bag. It’s hard to pass up a smaller, lighter, and sharper lens. I have kept my ZF2 lenses though as there some of my favorites lenses to use and when everything lines up right there is just something special to the photos they produce. I am actually trying to think up an idea for a project to use them more again.
p.1 #12 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
asdfghreturns wrote:
Modern lens designs tend to be optimized for higher resolution into the corners, with more correction of abberations, which means more lens elements and groups, which reduces contrast.
Depending on your subject and conditions you may want that resolution, or prefer higher contrast, or more "characterful" rendering, or more bokeh, etc etc.
Technically speaking, MTF measures how well a lens reproduces contrast. So a sharper lens with a higher MTF technically renders contrast better. So IDK if what we notice is actually a loss of contrast, or lenses with more aberrations just make things appear more contrasty than they really are.
A bit of a side note but modern lenses usually have a flatter plane of focus, which is great for photos at infinity, but can appear to give less seperation when trying to blur out the background.
p.1 #13 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
DWOfPaul wrote:
Technically speaking, MTF measures how well a lens reproduces contrast. So a sharper lens with a higher MTF technically renders contrast better.
Technically speaking, MTF is specified at a frequency per distance, such as 10 line pairs per millimeter or 30 line pairs per millimeter. Newer lenses tend to perform better at the higher frequency MTF at the cost of lower frequency MTF. The data isn't widely published but Zeiss and LensRentals does, and some of Zeiss's well regarded classics have a 10 lp/mm MTF in the high 90's, which gives them the more dramatic high global contrast look, even if they don't hold up as well to pixel peeping on modern high res sensors (e.g. lower 40 lp/mm scores). Conversely, the more modern Zeiss lenses with complex optical formulas have the opposite pattern and have been criticized for losing the old microcontrast magic.
p.1 #14 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
asdfghreturns wrote:
Technically speaking, MTF is specified at a frequency per distance, such as 10 line pairs per millimeter or 30 line pairs per millimeter. Newer lenses tend to perform better at the higher frequency MTF at the cost of lower frequency MTF. The data isn't widely published but Zeiss and LensRentals does, and some of Zeiss's well regarded classics have a 10 lp/mm MTF in the high 90's, which gives them the more dramatic high global contrast look, even if they don't hold up as well to pixel peeping on modern high res sensors (e.g. lower 40 lp/mm scores). Conversely, the more modern Zeiss lenses with complex optical formulas have the opposite pattern and have been criticized for losing the old microcontrast magic. ...Show more →
I may be wrong, but my understanding of looking at MTF charts, usually when higher frequencies perform better, lower frequencies perform better too.
Both the high frequency and low frequency responses improved. So IDK if we can say the lower frequencies get worse when the higher frequencies improve.
p.1 #15 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
DWOfPaul wrote:
Both the high frequency and low frequency responses improved. So IDK if we can say the lower frequencies get worse when the higher frequencies improve.
And don't forget that those curves move (up or down) when you change focus distance ...
See, for example, what happens to the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar (f/4) @ 1:2 and 1:10 magnifications, i.e., at 0.44 m and 1.18 m, respectively:
p.1 #16 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
A more fair comparison is the Loxia 85/2.4 vs the new Otus ML 85/1.4, a 7/7 design versus a 15/11 (!) design. Compare the stopped down MTFs (though still not quite the same, F4 vs F5.6).
p.1 #18 · Contrast Problems? Nikon G ("ED") vs. E ("FL")
asdfghreturns wrote:
In fact, check out how the 10 lp/mm actually falls when the Otus ML 85 is stopped down to f/4!
That is an interesting observation. When I overlay the two MTF charts the differences are quite small though. I wonder when more images from the ML 85 start coming out if the contrast difference between f1.4 and f4 would be noticeable.
