kwoodard wrote:
I know this is from last week, but if you have the Lens Turbo II (or any of the speedboosters that have the same magnification) I made this chart that may be of use to some of you. If memory serves, when I was using a borrowed XH1, setting the lens data to the adjusted FL worked better. If using a dumb adapter (no glass) I used the FL as listed on the lens.
RIP to a good guy and a early pillar of this thread, Seven years ago we lost Ray to a heart attack, so quick. Reagan called a few minutes ago and we reminisced. I remember that lens in Reagans shot. It was at the Kiwi Swap meet.
Ray had an issue with his right eye Steve and I got him to switch to his left. He produced many fine shots that way.
Here's a couple of Ray taken during our trip to Bok Gardens, my recent posts were from that trip. We had a good time swapping lenses and he carried a large bag full of them.
Here, in typical Ray fashion, he is showing off his prized 85mm f.1,4 to a perfect stranger.
I hate testing good lenses. It is fun to test bad ones where you can easily point to the 'badness', or to look at the corners of a 16mm 3.5 compared to the poor 16mm 2.8 ais.
When it comes to good telephotos, focusing can make more of a difference than the lens themselves.
I believe that to be the case for the tests below, even with the high magnification finder of the Z6 focusing introduces more variability than the lenses. The old lens may have more chromatic aberration but the Z6 takes care of that.
Glass is 100% clean on these samples, not a spec of dust of haze. Test on tripod, no IBIS. processing is copy paste, all the same. Aperture is 4.5, with hoods and no filter,100% on Flickr.
Which one is best for this distance and light? don't know, can't tell. Maybe the top left OOF in the nai H is uglier.
rafaelcasd wrote:
I hate testing good lenses. It is fun to test bad ones where you can easily point to the 'badness', or to look at the corners of a 16mm 3.5 compared to the poor 16mm 2.8 ais.
When it comes to good telephotos, focusing can make more of a difference than the lens themselves.
I believe that to be the case for the tests below, even with the high magnification finder of the Z6 focusing introduces more variability than the lenses. The old lens may have more chromatic aberration but the Z6 takes care of that.
on tripod, no IBIS. processing is copy paste, all the same. Aperture is 4.5. 100% on Flickr.
Which one is best for thsi distance and light? don't know, can't tell. Maybe the top left OOF in the nai H is uglier.
The EDIF is my humble pic, just has a sharper output than the others, but its not over sharp like processing creates! Well done my friend! Thanks for taking the time to do this for us!
AM4L wrote:
The EDIF is my humble pic, just has a sharper output than the others, but its not over sharp like processing creates! Well done my friend! Thanks for taking the time to do this for us!
I think you are right, the 300mm edif is a tad sharper than the others in this set, but in a natural way. The focus plane is slightly different and that maybe the reason one or the other is better, just don't know. Maybe at 50Mp with great technique these differences become very noticeable, for my photography any one of them would do.
The EDIF has such a low resistance when focusing that it seems to be on ball bearings, I do not like that because it is hard to keep it at the same focus setting, the lightest touch moves it. The more traditional focusing action of the others makes them better for me.
Jose's EDIF does not seem as good as mine, but his ED K may be better than mine. 'Sample variation'!
I will venture to say that at $90 for a H, $300 for EDIF, $500 for ED K/ai, and $500 for the 50-300mm ED, the winner is the H!
Or maybe if you divide the $500 of the 50-300mm into 50-85-105-135-180-200 and 300mm focal lengths, at $500/7 focal lengths = $71, the 50-300mm is the winner. Of course the 300mm ED K/ai is so rare it is the collector's winner, so forget the EDIF being a little better, it matters not.
rafaelcasd wrote:
I think you are right, the 300mm edif is a tad sharper than the others in this set, but in a natural way. The focus plane is slightly different and that maybe the reason one or the other is better, just don't know. Maybe at 50Mp with great technique these differences become very noticeable, for my photography any one of them would do.
The EDIF has such a low resistance when focusing that it seems to be on ball bearings, I do not like that because it is hard to keep it at the same focus setting, the lightest touch moves it. The more traditional focusing action of the others makes them better for me.
Jose's EDIF does not seem as good as mine, but his ED K may be better than mine. 'Sample variation'!
I will venture to say that at $90 for a H, $300 for EDIF, $500 for ED K/ai, and $500 for the 50-300mm ED, the winner is the H!
Or maybe if you divide the $500 of the 50-300mm into 50-85-105-135-180-200 and 300mm focal lengths, at $500/7 focal lengths = $71, the 50-300mm is the winner. Of course the 300mm ED K/ai is so rare it is the collector's winner, so forget the EDIF being a little better, it matters not. ...Show more →
Thanks for that testing! I always thought my H was a decent lens and my 50-300 is one of my forever keep lenses. It is my go to for video projects.
I see more chromatic aberration on the EDIF. Look at the ends of the palm leaves. They turn bluer. But yeah, they are very close.
rafaelcasd wrote:
I hate testing good lenses. It is fun to test bad ones where you can easily point to the 'badness', or to look at the corners of a 16mm 3.5 compared to the poor 16mm 2.8 ais.
When it comes to good telephotos, focusing can make more of a difference than the lens themselves.
I believe that to be the case for the tests below, even with the high magnification finder of the Z6 focusing introduces more variability than the lenses. The old lens may have more chromatic aberration but the Z6 takes care of that.
Glass is 100% clean on these samples, not a spec of dust of haze. Test on tripod, no IBIS. processing is copy paste, all the same. Aperture is 4.5, with hoods and no filter,100% on Flickr.
Which one is best for this distance and light? don't know, can't tell. Maybe the top left OOF in the nai H is uglier.
