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 | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2009 · So different and yet the same

davidearls
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · So different and yet the same

Shot and edited over two days. Three different lenses, two different manufacturers, two different focal lengths.

One each from the following:

- Olympus 135 f4.5 macro bellows
- Leica 135 Elmarit
- Leica 100 Elmar macro bellows

All taken at f22, ISO100, tungsten light (2993K), no color adjustments to any of them, no sharpening in RAW, exported as 16-bit TIFF, downsized to 900x600 in PS; converted to Lab colorspace Gaussian blur on a and b channels, sharpening on L channel, same for all; converted back to 8-bit sRGB.

For myself, if I didn't know which was which I couldn't tell them apart. Any guessers out there? Would love to hear what the guesses are based on.

EXIF won't help. Even the two sequentially numbered files were taken 18 minutes apart, more than enough time to swap out all necessary gear and set the next shot up.

Nov 29, 2009 at 06:49 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · So different and yet the same

all taken at f22?? All are going to be suffering significantly from diffraction. All of these lenses are far from showing their best. I don't expect a lot of differences in a shot like this between lenses at f22, except for maybe color rendition. Not really a useful comparison, other than to say that all lenses are compromised at f22. Re-do this at wide open aperture, and/or an optimal aperture like f5.6, and show 100% crops, and then we might have something to talk about.

Nov 29, 2009 at 08:27 PM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · So different and yet the same

I too wonder about the aperture issue. Why not 5.6 or 8?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:22 AM

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · So different and yet the same

f22 ... max DOF is assumed ... maybe 11 or 13 to balance DOF & DIFF.

Thanks for the work, would loved to see a re-shoot.

Not only would a re-shoot better show the differences between the intended lenses ... it would nicely show how much the issue of diffraction comes in to play.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:34 AM

erichard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · So different and yet the same

Number two is the most contrasty and detailed, and I think the best (though contrast is a matter of taste), but I don't know which it is. The 100 is the best of the lot, IMHO, but at a similar crop, it will be at a slight disadvantage due to being at a slightly lower resolution.

I've never heard of gaussian blur for the a and b channels. So that lowers the contrast of the color channels? What's the theory or advantage?

People are asking why f/22, but why not? The contest basically shows off what the lens can do in the realm of diffraction. Which lens has the least, maybe #2. If you can get away with f/22, it is an advantage.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:45 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · So different and yet the same

erichard wrote:
People are asking why f/22, but why not? The contest basically shows off what the lens can do in the realm of diffraction.

People are wondering why not elude this problem in the first place.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:51 AM

erichard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · So different and yet the same

Yakim Peled wrote:
People are wondering why not elude this problem in the first place.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Well, we'd all be shooting f/22 for landscapes, etc. if the diffraction wasn't a problem, right? People basically go for as much DOF as possible in many situations, with diffraction being the limiting factor. In a flower shot, DOF is minimal at f/8, even f/11. If your intent is to get the whole subject in focus, f/22 does it, at least for #2 here. So maybe the test isn't, which lens is best, but rather which lens stands up to f/22.

Nov 30, 2009 at 09:58 AM

Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · So different and yet the same

erichard wrote:
So maybe the test isn't, which lens is best, but rather which lens stands up to f/22.

Logical. I didn't think about that. David?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:02 AM

gasrocks
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · So different and yet the same

I'd like to see something in the background. Would give some more clues to lens characteristics.

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:09 AM

Navyblue
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · So different and yet the same

Let's see how my luck hold up.

The last one is 100 mm. Difference in perpective is larger than the other 2. Wall details are more obvious, yet having less stalk details, indicating it is not focused further back but it has less isolation.

I have no experience with any of the lenses, so the other 2 would be at best a wild guess. But the middle one looks more contrasty and saturated to me so I guess it costs more.

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:37 AM

pdmphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · So different and yet the same

When I had the Oly 135 Macro I found it to hold up better at f22 than any other macro lens I have used. Based on that, I'd say the Oly 135 shot would have to be #1 or #2, as #3 looks the softest. I can't reliably judge critical sharpness on a jpg downsized to 900x600, but if I had to choose I would say the Oly is #2.

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Anden
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · So different and yet the same

The Zuiko 135 works very well stopped down. My guess is also no 2.

A

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · So different and yet the same

The lens that is most likely to hold up best at f22 is, generally, the lens with the smallest maximum aperture. (Yes, there are other things going on, but this is the an important one). So, as someone already suggested, the Oly with a max aperture of only F4.5 can be expected to hold up the best from at f22 (sensor issues aside).

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM

AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · So different and yet the same

I also remember from the Leica 180/2.8 (non-apo) vs Zuiko 135 macro thread that the Leica had higher contrast/saturation (which not really an advantage for flowers imho), so #2 might be the 135/2.8 Leica.

#3 Would be the 100mm bellows Leica than, which shows similar color saturation. That means #1 is the Zuiko with it's lower contrast/saturation.

I don't really get why #3 has less DoF, if it's a 100mm. Apparently the shorter FL doesn't make up for the decrease in DoF due to shorter focus distance?

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:57 AM

davidearls
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · So different and yet the same

Interesting discussion. Thx for looks and comments.

Lenses were: #1, Leica 135 Elmarit; #2, Leica 100 Elmar; #3, Zuiko 135 f4.5.

All the lenses were bellows-mounted and all shots are full frame, which is why it took so long to set everything up. The Zuiko requires either an extension tube or bellows to use at all - it doesn't mount directly on a camera. The Leica 100 Elmar doesn't have a focusing ring, so without bellows, you would be extremely limited in what you could shoot.

I wasn't expecting the three images to come out this close. I thought the Leica 100 shot would be the strongest, followed by the Zuiko and then the Leica 135. These three are pretty much a dead heat.

Obviously, I wish I'd said that all three images were taken at f8 to avoid the diffraction issue. I'm never sure if diffraction is something you see in an image unless you know the aperture. In these images, part of the goal was to bring out petal veining on all surfaces, and max-DOF is the only way to get it.

Incidentally, blurring on the a and b channels doesn't affect color, it simply reduces color noise - which is a sharpening technique.

I was very surprised that the images produced by the three lenses were so close to each other. As I said, to me, they're barely discernible from each other, and part of me thinks I could have passed them all off as images from a single lens. Even though I use them all the time myself, I'd have bought the story if I didn't know otherwise.

What did I learn from the exercise? I still like the Leica 100, in part because it's a close-distance lens that pulls incredible detail. I wanted to see if the Leica 135 compared favorably with the Zuiko, and I think it does. So now I can go out on a flower shoot with either the Leica kit or the Zuiko kit and have multiple lens choices - no more lugging both.

Nov 30, 2009 at 02:05 PM

erichard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · So different and yet the same

Personally, I don't think they are that similar. IMHO, on my screen, #2 dominates the other two, although the other two are very pleasing (probably pleasing enough, unless you see #2). The veins that you are seeking to capture are much more detailed in #2.

It's interesting about the blur of a and b. I suppose that's what Lightroom and PS4 actually do when you reduce color noise via the slider in the camera raw section. I wouldn't say it doesn't affect color, since if that were the case, we'd all do it without hesitation, but I'd say that if done judiciously, you don't notice color issues. I would think if you are at ISO 100 or 200 (as might be the case for a still life), you wouldn't really need that step (?). I generally don't toy with the color noise slider unless I'm high up in ISO, like 1600 and above. But maybe I'm not up to snuff on this one.

After hearing the winner, I'm now realizing that you probably didn't crop the 100mm photo to match the others, but rather moved the camera up closer to match the crop, at the initial photo session.

Nov 30, 2009 at 02:34 PM

justruss
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · So different and yet the same

I prefer #1 from an aesthetic standpoint.

Nov 30, 2009 at 02:44 PM

davidearls
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · So different and yet the same

erichard wrote:
Personally, I don't think they are that similar. IMHO, on my screen, #2 dominates the other two, although the other two are very pleasing (probably pleasing enough, unless you see #2). The veins that you are seeking to capture are much more detailed in #2.

It's interesting about the blur of a and b. I suppose that's what Lightroom and PS4 actually do when you reduce color noise via the slider in the camera raw section. I wouldn't say it doesn't affect color, since if that were the case, we'd all do it without hesitation, but I'd say that if done...Show more →

Richard, I'm not using CS4 or LR, still using BibblePro for RAW and CS3. So I can't comment on the noise sliders in CS4. The noise sliders in BibblePro are Noise Ninja, and they will happily remove any and or all detail to "clean up the noise." When I take the image to Lab space, it's a simple enough extra step to do the blur. I wouldn't take an image there and back for the blurring unless it were very noisy, but I like doing color contrast work in Lab, and it's a snap to sharpen there if you've taken the image into that colorspace.

While I agree the veining is more prominent from the 100, I find it "pleasingly present" in both the first and third images. To me there's a much bigger difference between there and not there than there is to more prominent/less prominent.

Nov 30, 2009 at 04:19 PM

erichard
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · So different and yet the same

David, on LAB, I like it as well. I've read some "experts" who are saying that basically when they designed PS4, they took the best of many techniques and made them upfront part of the Camera Raw flow. So what we do by sharpening the lightness channel, or by using high pass techniques, etc. are now somewhat renamed in PS4 but essentially what we did back in PS2 or whatever you were using then. The nice thing is, however, it's all in RAW, so it's nondestructive, reversible, and at the highest resolution, all adding up to less compounding of artifact. I don't know for sure about the method for color noise reduction in Camera RAW, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet they basically co-opted the LAB method you use and put it in the form of a slider. So I'm now a convert from LAB to the new RAW, though I'll use LAB when necessary.

On the 100, I agree that part of it is taste as to which photo is preferable, but I think it's possible to start with number 2 and get to either 1 or 3 in PP, while the reverse is not likely possible. So I like a nice crisp image to start out with, and then go from there.

Nov 30, 2009 at 08:38 PM

davidearls
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · So different and yet the same

Richard, I think an easy way to tell about whether new CS4 RAW processor was using the a and b channels would be pretty simple: in RGB colorspace most of the noise ends up on the blue channel. If the new RAW process is getting rid of blue channel noise while retaining sharpness on the luminosity channel, then i'd say you were right.

The problems I've experienced with noise reduction products is that they only work on the RGB channels, and it appears the luminosity channel is divided up across them. So when you reduce noise you're also taking it out the luminosity channel - which is just, duh, all your fine detail.

You're making me rethink my decision not to upgrade to CS4; in all honesty, I've stayed with CS3 because I had become disenchanted with ACR, and Bibble does a great job.

Agree with you on your assessment of the image from the 100, it could lead you to either 1 or 3 in PP. The non-focusing 100 is turning out to have been a steal.

Nov 30, 2009 at 10:05 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

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