freaklikeme wrote:
It's an amazing 2x TC. My non-APO 180/2.8 is sharper with the 2x wide open that it is without..
+1
Hardly any loss in sharpness when using my 2X TC with my 180 APO 2.8. Much better than Canon 2xTC and Canon teles where sharpness goes down quite a bit.
I don't know about the 2X APO making any lens sharper, but it is a great extender. I agree that any loss of resolution is negligible. On full-frame, it does introduce some vignetting. In addition, it may worsen out-of-focus CA on some lenses.
Not a great image from a composition/lighting standpoint, but the angle at which it was shot is conducive to looking at the sharpness of the lens and its smooth transition to blur with definition.
Shot was 1:2 magnification, hand held (so tripod and mirror lock would generally produce a yet sharper image).
F_ _ _ Me! These are awesome examples! Very nice! Now see, if all these posted samples came with a 100 percenter or two then jerks like me couldn't say s _ _ _ !
We should make it a rule or something! Hint, hint.
Really nice lenses here! burningheart's Leica 100mm by far seems to tickle me the most - assuming that's a 100 persenter there at bottom... I couldn't really tell what he meant from his text.
So, I'm officially jealous now... See how you guys ARE?!?!
Bifurcator wrote:
Really nice lenses here! burningheart's Leica 100mm by far seems to tickle me the most - assuming that's a 100 persenter there at bottom... I couldn't really tell what he meant from his text.
The burning heart selected a center crop measuring 2000x1331 pixels, and downsampled it to 800x532 pixels.
thrice wrote:
I did post an un-processed 100% file on page one, but ok...
Ah, the first one I noticed was zombii's on page 2. I had already created my silly comparison but when I saw it I pretty much scratched my head even more - as to why anyone would think this was an "excellent" lens like all the posts were saying. I know I'm kinda picking only on this lens in this thread but It's kinda coming from this whole Alt sub-forum. I hate to seem so dark and gloomy but almost all I see here are people posting little 12% to 25% scales and then ooing and aweing over them when typically even a really crappy lens will look great that way. I dunno, maybe disingenuous is the wrong word and the wrong way for me to be looking at it but I really am trying to figure out the relative qualities of these alt lenses compared to the newer maker glass - often about the same price.
Anyway I certainly do appreciate all the kewl pics and I thank you for the 100 percenters you guys posted for me.
Bifurcator wrote:
Really nice lenses here! burningheart's Leica 100mm by far seems to tickle me the most - assuming that's a 100 persenter there at bottom... I couldn't really tell what he meant from his text.
Toothwalker wrote:
The burning heart selected a center crop measuring 2000x1331 pixels, and downsampled it to 800x532 pixels.
Ah, that was for the bottom image then? Oh, Hmmm... Oh well. :-/
Thanks for saying so! Appreciated.
In the spirit of trying to understand what I'm seeing and etc. I've replaced Jim's images with my own and left the text as is for the appropriate images:
Not a great image from a composition/lighting standpoint, but the angle at which it was shot is conducive to looking at the sharpness of the lens and its smooth transition to blur with definition.
Shot was 1:2 magnification, hand held (so tripod and mirror lock would generally produce a yet sharper image).
100% crop, no sharpening in camera or post:
Note the rapid but smooth transition to OOF...this to me is where many other lenses - macro or otherwise - fall short...they go from fairly sharp to chuny, clunky OOF areas unless you have huge subject-background separation. This lens drops to butter <1mm from the focal plane and just smooths more thereafter. http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/_Equipment_n_Tutorials/_DOF_Samples/PICT7320_100.jpg
Does the text fit the images? Can anyone tell the difference between the DOF in Jim's original images and the DOF in these? (Bokeh, etc. any terms acceptable!) I mean besides my rather drab room-lighting.
Bifurcator,
I am not sure where you think the sharpness of bokeh is in your 100% crop. The entire image haze a haze about it that is not something that can be cleaned up well in post...this is something that different lenses will either have or lack.
As for sharpness, partly the haze and ghosting and partly just a lack of sharpness, there is not much going on here. This could be a product of lighting being sub par, because without shadow there can be no sharpness. I am just gusessing here, but were that taken with a dedicated macro lens or even a sharp lens on tubes, you would not only see crisp dust and fuzz flecks but also the crisp texture of the A/V component.
Compare your 100% to the sand shot...that one is all about sharpness.
Bokeh...there is good dissolve for distant objects, but those near the focal plane but just off of it look abruptly/chunkily blurred somewhat.
I can not rule out that part of the issue here is missing the focus and being front-focused slightly. That could give rise to some of this too. It is hard for me to find the most crisp part of the image.
Just my pennies.
Jim
P.S. The reason in part why you see small images posted here is that many of us earn income from our photography and we have no desire to be ripped off. Although small images and good post processing can hide some sins of lenses, the tonal quality of the images - of you know what to look for - is a character of the lens that does not easily get scuttled. Could be the lighting, but I see limited tonal detail in your shot. Most of the scene looks quite flat.
[I put that one guy on hide. 300+ messages and all snide remarks. But if anyone normal thinks this is too annoying please do speak up. It's not my intention to annoy - only to learn.]
--
Thanks PSquared63 - Those are very topical and very helpful.
Grenache wrote:
Bifurcator,
I am not sure where you think the sharpness of bokeh is in your 100% crop. The entire image haze a haze about it that is not something that can be cleaned up well in post...this is something that different lenses will either have or lack.
As for sharpness, partly the haze and ghosting and partly just a lack of sharpness, there is not much going on here. This could be a product of lighting being sub par, because without shadow there can be no sharpness. I am just gusessing here, but were that taken with a dedicated macro lens or even a sharp lens on tubes, you would not only see crisp dust and fuzz flecks but also the crisp texture of the A/V component.
Compare your 100% to the sand shot...that one is all about sharpness....Show more →
I see what you mean. I guess sitting right in from of the scene I photographed my own mind was filling in the "bokeh sharpness" but yeah, I get that haze a lot in low light low contrast environments (scenes). OK, here's a sand comparison. First a size reference:
In Centimeters
Here's a scaled version with no sharpening other than that added by the PS scaling type:
Shoe sand from my Mt. Fuji climb last year.
Yeah, I kept it.
And here's another with very light sharpening added prior to scaling. 0.4 pixels at 60%.
Wow! I think I zoomed a little too far in. . I thought he said " 1:1 Elpro + APO 2X" so I went to 200mm too. Isn't the Elpro a 100mm like the Leica 100mm APO macro in the title?
Keep in mind that the noise is a product of the sensor and lighting - the sharpening (0.4 pixels at 60%) I did brought that out a tiny bit more tho. I didn't apply any NR though because I didn't want to affect the lens blur. The sharpening wasn't enough to cause any edge lines that I could see on my monitors at 800% just a very slight amount of micro-contrast enhancement.
How about now? Are you seeing much of a difference between these shots and the shots from the other lens samples posted?
But maybe I should clarify for Wayne; I'm not at all saying that my point and shoot is better. No not at all. I'm saying one thing and asking one thing. I'm saying that at 12% or 25% scale of the "good lens" images posted here and in other threads: I can not tell the difference between them and a good P&S shot. And I'm asking (in order to learn) what attributes make these "good" lenses good and wanting to see the differences by example. And if I can get people to be aware that 12% scales show nothing meaningful and to regularly add 100% crops in the process then that I'll be a very happy camper. This isn't just my opinion though. Every lens review I read always expresses the absolute necessity for 100% samples.
Grenache wrote:
P.S. The reason in part why you see small images posted here is that many of us earn income from our photography and we have no desire to be ripped off. Although small images and good post processing can hide some sins of lenses, the tonal quality of the images - of you know what to look for - is a character of the lens that does not easily get scuttled. Could be the lighting, but I see limited tonal detail in your shot. Most of the scene looks quite flat.
Yeah I think it's the lighting and contrast of the natural scene - mostly. Hopefully these samples will be better. But on the 100% thing I of course am not asking for larger frames nor full frame 100% versions. But a small 800x600 (or similar) 100% crop that shows some desirable or undesirable qualities would make these kinds of threads actually useful to folks like me trying to figure out exactly what the lens is actually like. If the images are just being posted as celebrations of ownership and not lens samples then that's cool and I wouldn't expect 100% crops. I guess I could figure out which are which - especially if the text reflects the case.
Grenache wrote:
P.S. The reason in part why you see small images posted here is that many of us earn income from our photography and we have no desire to be ripped off. Although small images and good post processing can hide some sins of lenses, the tonal quality of the images - of you know what to look for - is a character of the lens that does not easily get scuttled. Could be the lighting, but I see limited tonal detail in your shot. Most of the scene looks quite flat.
That's it, and the fact that it's hard to appreciate the photo if it's bigger than your screen, not to mention it's hard to get hosting for files so big. I think half the postings here are gear related to prove the pixel peeping capabilities of the lenses, and half are to show the end gestalt result, taking into account microcontrast, detail, edge to edge sharpness, 3D, color, bokeh, etc. albeit at 600X1000 resolution. It's perfectly true you can't tell the big differences between many P&S photos and the Alt's without higher resolution, but I think many on the forum already know what is there in the original file without having seen it already, because we know the capability of the lens in question (that being said, we get numerous photos reaffirming the capabilities everyday in 100% crops, but photography isn't just about 100% pixel peeping.) It's also just interesting what people are doing with Alt lenses. What I notice is that they are generally doing more methodical photo shooting than let's say, sports shots, with some exceptions (Contax N lenses are basically the Alt AF equivalents of Canon AF lenses, so are quicker to use.)
thrice wrote:
I think if you haven't got it by now, you should sell anything you have aside from that P&S and be happy.
You're assuming I'm happy (completely satisfied) with the P&S?
But yeah, I think this round (in combination with all previous) have shown me the strengths of both systems. Especially the two 100% sand shots next to each other. Huge differences! Really demonstrates the necessity for 100% crops when appropriate and possible. For the macro DOF samples I've concluded that there just isn't much difference - unless someone can direct my attention to something I'm missing. Smooth transitions between IF and OOF containing good definition is contained in both to about the same degree. What differences there are are 90% sensor based. Which additionally is the reason that there's almost no DOF at all in longer shots. As most people here already know a 2/3 sensor camera with a 200mm f/3.5 when focused to around 10 meters or so contains such a small amount of DOF blur on objects at one kilometer or more that it might as well just not have any at all. On a FF or with film with the same, the DOF can be aesthetically dramatic. I will say that to get the same or similar properties of my A2's lens but on a FF sensor with those advantages too I guess the list price for such a lens would be very high. >$2k! >$3K?
Thanks Jim and Erichard for the mission guidance & explanation. It's appreciated!
And which guy did you hide? Ulrik? He is a consistent and level headed contributor, which can't be said for many people with far higher post counts.
I tracked his past 40 messages before I clicked the hide button and like, 70% of them where meaningless snide or name calling remarks telling people to shut up and calling them idiots, whiners, trolls, and etc. Doesn't sound too level headed to me. <shrug> But I dunno maybe he is - I'm not his mommy.
Bifurcator wrote:
I tracked his past 40 messages before I clicked the hide button and like, 70% of them where meaningless snide or name calling remarks telling people to shut up and calling them idiots, whiners, trolls, and etc. Doesn't sound too level headed to me. <shrug> But I dunno maybe he is - I'm not his mommy.
If you'd looked closely, I suspect those posts were mostly in response to ISO1600's posts. The latter is something of a troll and has been jumping all over threads recently.
Ulrik is generally one of the most positive contributors here. Hell, he's a lot less likely to get into pissing matches than I am, that's for certain.
ROFLMAO !!! 
