This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Another useless comparison - 100mm
p.2 #1Another useless comparison - 100mm
how about a shot from each lens of the same subject taken at minimum distance, and not adjusted to scale. so that the mfd of each is apparent.
I like them in order ABC, C seems a little mushy or missing contrast? B is a little richer in color, but A comes off as the 'cleanest' to me.
I like them in order ABC, C seems a little mushy or missing contrast? B is a little richer in color, but A comes off as the 'cleanest' to me.
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:01 AM
p.2 #2Another useless comparison - 100mm
In my opinion the lenses A and B are on the same level with comparable sharpness and contrast. Lens A has a better flare controll and lens B has a smoother bokeh.
Lens C has significantly less contrast/sharpness.
If I had to guess, I would say lens A could be a Zeiss lens. The result looks pretty similiar to my 50MP, although the 100MP normally has a slightly smoother bokeh.
Boris
Lens C has significantly less contrast/sharpness.
If I had to guess, I would say lens A could be a Zeiss lens. The result looks pretty similiar to my 50MP, although the 100MP normally has a slightly smoother bokeh.
Boris
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:14 AM
p.2 #3Another useless comparison - 100mm
gpop wrote:
how about a shot from each lens of the same subject taken at minimum distance, and not adjusted to scale. so that the mfd of each is apparent.
I like them in order ABC, C seems a little mushy or missing contrast? B is a little richer in color, but A comes off as the 'cleanest' to me.
I won't do that now, for obvious reasons
Later, once the lenses are revealed, I can add this, for interest.
how about a shot from each lens of the same subject taken at minimum distance, and not adjusted to scale. so that the mfd of each is apparent.
I like them in order ABC, C seems a little mushy or missing contrast? B is a little richer in color, but A comes off as the 'cleanest' to me.
I won't do that now, for obvious reasons
Later, once the lenses are revealed, I can add this, for interest.Oct 10, 2010 at 04:13 AM
p.2 #4Another useless comparison - 100mm
Here is a new set. Taken at about 1m, on tripod, with live view, focused on the tip of the white queen's "head". I tried to move the tripod back and forth and up and down to compensate, with limited success. Again, I might have under- or over-compensated, so don't read anything into angles and such.
Chess, depth of field falloff, highlight handling:
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/17A.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/17B.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/17C.jpg
Chess, depth of field falloff, highlight handling:
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/17A.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/17B.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/17C.jpg
Oct 10, 2010 at 04:17 AM
p.2 #5Another useless comparison - 100mm
gpop wrote:
how about a shot from each lens of the same subject taken at minimum distance, and not adjusted to scale. so that the mfd of each is apparent.
I like them in order ABC, C seems a little mushy or missing contrast? B is a little richer in color, but A comes off as the 'cleanest' to me.
Then we can see which one that is the macro lens
how about a shot from each lens of the same subject taken at minimum distance, and not adjusted to scale. so that the mfd of each is apparent.
I like them in order ABC, C seems a little mushy or missing contrast? B is a little richer in color, but A comes off as the 'cleanest' to me.
Then we can see which one that is the macro lens
Oct 10, 2010 at 04:24 AM
p.2 #6Another useless comparison - 100mm
I prefer B overall, in every shot except the first one and the flare test where A is best. All look like good lenses, but B has a little extra pop, and I love it's color handling with the rose.
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:15 AM
p.2 #7Another useless comparison - 100mm
Jordan, I have a very nice surprise for you at the end
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:28 AM
p.2 #8Another useless comparison - 100mm
The differences in the chess shots are so, SO minor that they are effectively insignificant. I overlaid them in Photoshop and after a full ten minutes of careful comparison, there just wasn't enough of a difference worth remarking. Anyone who can say they can pick out a clear winner from that single set, in my opinion, would be smoking the rock.
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:35 AM
p.2 #9Another useless comparison - 100mm
Yeah, as I look at all the pictures again, they really are very close to each other. In fact some comparisons, I wasn't sure if the same lens was used for all the shots. 
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:41 AM
p.2 #10Another useless comparison - 100mm
wickerprints wrote:
I prefer lens B, followed by A, followed by C.
To me, B is the sharpest and most aberration-free, at least in the center, with the most pleasing bokeh overall. C tends to exhibit some very minor axial color but the largest blur circles, whereas A tends to exhibit more DOF and the smallest blur circles. B also shows the most contrast, and C the least.
A is most resistant to flare, followed by B, then C.
In some shots, A shows more vignetting than B. I am going to guess that lens A is about a half-stop slower than B or C....Show more →
Agreed on all points, except that I'm a bit undecided between A and B. The faucet shot looks much better to me with lens A, for instance.
I would further add that on the shots with longer focus distance, lens B has the most uniform blur discs, A has a discs with a slightly dark centre, and C much more so (dark centre). In one series (repeating bright subjects) B has a bright spot in the centre though.
I also get the feeling that C may be the Nikkor 105/1.8...
Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 05:59 AM · View previous versions
I prefer lens B, followed by A, followed by C.
To me, B is the sharpest and most aberration-free, at least in the center, with the most pleasing bokeh overall. C tends to exhibit some very minor axial color but the largest blur circles, whereas A tends to exhibit more DOF and the smallest blur circles. B also shows the most contrast, and C the least.
A is most resistant to flare, followed by B, then C.
In some shots, A shows more vignetting than B. I am going to guess that lens A is about a half-stop slower than B or C....Show more →
Agreed on all points, except that I'm a bit undecided between A and B. The faucet shot looks much better to me with lens A, for instance.
I would further add that on the shots with longer focus distance, lens B has the most uniform blur discs, A has a discs with a slightly dark centre, and C much more so (dark centre). In one series (repeating bright subjects) B has a bright spot in the centre though.
I also get the feeling that C may be the Nikkor 105/1.8...
Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 05:59 AM · View previous versions
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:44 AM
p.2 #11Another useless comparison - 100mm
Yeah, it is pretty hard. I should probably post a crop, to allow some more examination. One sec...
Chess board, crop, CA, blur radius:
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/18A.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/18B.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/18C.jpg
So, here some very real differences start to become visible, but at such a small scale. These were all focused directly on the texture of the wood on the top knobbie of the queen's head, so focus differences do not exist. All differences are attributable to rendering. Check out the differences in CA, edge fidelity, edge effects and sharpness. I will not say any more right now, but there is something really interesting going on in this crop.
Chess board, crop, CA, blur radius:
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/18A.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/18B.jpg
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/100mm/18C.jpg
So, here some very real differences start to become visible, but at such a small scale. These were all focused directly on the texture of the wood on the top knobbie of the queen's head, so focus differences do not exist. All differences are attributable to rendering. Check out the differences in CA, edge fidelity, edge effects and sharpness. I will not say any more right now, but there is something really interesting going on in this crop.
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:52 AM
p.2 #12Another useless comparison - 100mm
The crops of the chess shots largely confirm what I said previously: lens B is the sharpest and shows the most detail in the wood grain, and lens C has slightly more chromatic aberration. But it also shows that the differences are still very minor. There also appears to be the slightest variation in color reproduction from lens to lens. I don't have an opinion on which one I prefer--they are merely different.
You keep saying there's a "twist" and "something interesting," and I kind of wish you hadn't. It is vaguely reminiscent of a little child's teasing in a sing-song voice, "I know a secret and I'm not tellllllllinnnnng...." Don't hold it over people's heads. If you want to keep something a surprise that's fine--don't say anything about it at all, until you are ready to explain in full.
For what it's worth, I don't shoot with the Nikon system so none of this really matters to me. I am merely making observations based on what I see. The fact that you keep referring to some mysterious surprise seems to suggest that we're not seeing something you think we ought to.
You keep saying there's a "twist" and "something interesting," and I kind of wish you hadn't. It is vaguely reminiscent of a little child's teasing in a sing-song voice, "I know a secret and I'm not tellllllllinnnnng...." Don't hold it over people's heads. If you want to keep something a surprise that's fine--don't say anything about it at all, until you are ready to explain in full.
For what it's worth, I don't shoot with the Nikon system so none of this really matters to me. I am merely making observations based on what I see. The fact that you keep referring to some mysterious surprise seems to suggest that we're not seeing something you think we ought to.
Oct 10, 2010 at 06:34 AM
p.2 #13Another useless comparison - 100mm
Okay, I'll skip the "something interesting" comments, but the twist was meant to qualify a statement I made which wouldn't otherwise have been entirely truthful. I don't think anyone "ought" to see anything, that must be coming from you. I am interested to see which lenses people like.
There have been surprises here for me too, even though I know which lens is which! I think all these three lenses are interesting to Canon shooters, or other adapters. Some people here, including Canon shooters, have one or another of them already. Not all are Nikon lenses, nor even Nikon-mount lenses.
There have been surprises here for me too, even though I know which lens is which! I think all these three lenses are interesting to Canon shooters, or other adapters. Some people here, including Canon shooters, have one or another of them already. Not all are Nikon lenses, nor even Nikon-mount lenses.
Oct 10, 2010 at 07:03 AM
p.2 #14Another useless comparison - 100mm
I like 1/a. the best personally but all 3 are fine. on many of the shots it looks very slightly darker though.
if one is actually the zeiss 100mm, I would say it's probably not the third one.
if one is actually the zeiss 100mm, I would say it's probably not the third one.
Oct 10, 2010 at 07:20 AM
p.2 #15Another useless comparison - 100mm
My girlfriend told me it's one life-size macro 1:1 lens, one 1:2 macro lens and one "normal" lens.
And I always thrust her
And I always thrust her
Oct 10, 2010 at 07:37 AM
p.2 #16Another useless comparison - 100mm
ok. A different approach
Lens A -- larger aperture lens. Looks like Nikon color to me. 105/2.5 AI ?
Lens B -- smaller apeture. Zoom lens?
Lens C -- larger glass. medium format lens? FE 110/2 ?
Lens A -- larger aperture lens. Looks like Nikon color to me. 105/2.5 AI ?
Lens B -- smaller apeture. Zoom lens?
Lens C -- larger glass. medium format lens? FE 110/2 ?
Oct 10, 2010 at 07:49 AM
p.2 #17Another useless comparison - 100mm
Lars, your girlfriend is wrong The answer is coming soon, I feel this is dragging out, and want to post it for you all to see.
Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 08:59 AM · View previous versions
The answer is coming soon, I feel this is dragging out, and want to post it for you all to see.Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 08:59 AM · View previous versions
Oct 10, 2010 at 08:36 AM
p.2 #18Another useless comparison - 100mm
Here is an answer to a post by denoir (Luka) in the Leica M8/M9/X1 thread, which is more relevant to this thread:
denoir wrote:
I looked at the pictures and I'm not sure what to do with them, so I don't know if there is any point. My resize & sharpen script is for 21 megapixel images. It works rather poorly on the 16 megapixel Leica X1 images and I don't want to think what it will look like applied on a 12 megapixel shot. I don't have the time to write and test new scripts optimized for the lower resolution. I can run my scripts on the images, or try a quick manual job but I'm not sure what the point would be.
Well, I would think that if you skip one intermediate resize and sharpen step, that would come close enough to see if there is any 3D anywhere. Don't waste any time on it, if you don't want to. I have a download link and will PM it to you, so you can take a closer look.
Although I understand and appreciate what you are trying to do, I thoroughly disapprove of such tests. You have to control for exactly all the variables, use a tripod + live view focusing, mirror lockup, manual white balance, exactly the same focus point etc etc And even with such controls the only point of such a test is to highlight a difference in a specific situation. Different lenses are good at different things and you need to get to know them through hundreds if not thousands of photos. Do you really think that looking at a couple of web sized photos...Show more →
Well, that presumes that I am actually trying to do what you think I am trying to do. I don't think *I* know what I am trying to do
If we really had to "use a tripod + live view focusing, mirror lockup, manual white balance, exactly the same focus point etc etc" to see the differences between these lenses, then most of us will never see those differences! Surely some of the lenses with stronger character will show something without being that rigorous? The three lenses I have chosen are all famous.
A few recent tests opened my eyes to how close classics can be to modern lenses, to the point where most people can't see the difference. If you read through various lens-centric threads around here, someone will post a shot by a famous lens, like the C/Y 35mm f/1.4, and everyone will ooh and aah and say how unique that signature is, how they recognized it right away. I used to get carried away in this too. However, when an actual comparison gets going, hardly anyone is able to spot the lenses, and of the few that get it right, most are guessing, and admit this.
Todd's tests were partly so interesting because they showed that for head-and-shoulders studio shots, there were no compelling reasons to buy the very expensive Zeiss 100MP over the very cheap Nikkor 105/2.5. They were equally good, for this purpose.
Something is not quite right in this situation, and I am trying to explore it a bit, and see what comes out. I am not trying to trick anyone, just to post some shots, and ask people which they like best, and why. At the end I will say which lens was which, post my personal conclusions, and let people post theirs. Nothing more. No agenda.
I found it eye-opening how close Bernie got that one shot with the 5D2 and D3. It is only one shot, so more testing is needed, but I feel that somewhere here we have several Kaisers with no clothes. Ultimately, I don't feel that there are any valid IQ reasons to choose one over the other, apart from the Nikon's better high ISO or the Canon's higher resolution. There are several valid workflow reasons, however, as well as pure personal preference. My workflow is much simpler with the D3, and I prefer the camera too, so that is the one for me. You chose the 5D2. Both are valid.
To be honest, I invest a lot of money in photography equipment over time, and I would like to make educated choices, to buy lenses and cameras for the right reasons, and not just the reasons commonly repeated, here and in other places. There are some very common reasons for buying an M9, for example, but I don't think that they are necessarily the best reasons to do so. The whole street photography thing is repeated far too much for my taste. The M9 is very good at certain things, and if your style fits within that, then it is a great camera for you. And so on.
There are clearly others here who are similarly interested in discovering the truth about various lenses compared with each other. Anyone who is willing to post his/her guess/preference is someone whose interest in the truth is greater than their interest in stroking their ego. That doesn't say anything about those who don't post their opinions, to be sure, but I respect anyone who is willing to risk it all like that.
Yes, we normally need thousands of shots to get really familiar with a lens, but in the end, the discovery about its characteristics could be expressed in far less. Of those characteristics, we care only about a minority, so I think that a few carefully chosen sample photos, along with a few specific crops, can still give a good idea about a lens. There is no shortcut to the thousands of photos to really know, but a few well-chosen ones can go far.
I don't think that at the end of my test, or any similar test, I will have fully expressed the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses I used. However, I have touched on several of the biggies, and there is some insight to be had.
Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 09:13 AM · View previous versions
denoir wrote:
I looked at the pictures and I'm not sure what to do with them, so I don't know if there is any point. My resize & sharpen script is for 21 megapixel images. It works rather poorly on the 16 megapixel Leica X1 images and I don't want to think what it will look like applied on a 12 megapixel shot. I don't have the time to write and test new scripts optimized for the lower resolution. I can run my scripts on the images, or try a quick manual job but I'm not sure what the point would be.
Well, I would think that if you skip one intermediate resize and sharpen step, that would come close enough to see if there is any 3D anywhere. Don't waste any time on it, if you don't want to. I have a download link and will PM it to you, so you can take a closer look.
Although I understand and appreciate what you are trying to do, I thoroughly disapprove of such tests. You have to control for exactly all the variables, use a tripod + live view focusing, mirror lockup, manual white balance, exactly the same focus point etc etc And even with such controls the only point of such a test is to highlight a difference in a specific situation. Different lenses are good at different things and you need to get to know them through hundreds if not thousands of photos. Do you really think that looking at a couple of web sized photos...Show more →
Well, that presumes that I am actually trying to do what you think I am trying to do. I don't think *I* know what I am trying to do
If we really had to "use a tripod + live view focusing, mirror lockup, manual white balance, exactly the same focus point etc etc" to see the differences between these lenses, then most of us will never see those differences! Surely some of the lenses with stronger character will show something without being that rigorous? The three lenses I have chosen are all famous.
A few recent tests opened my eyes to how close classics can be to modern lenses, to the point where most people can't see the difference. If you read through various lens-centric threads around here, someone will post a shot by a famous lens, like the C/Y 35mm f/1.4, and everyone will ooh and aah and say how unique that signature is, how they recognized it right away. I used to get carried away in this too. However, when an actual comparison gets going, hardly anyone is able to spot the lenses, and of the few that get it right, most are guessing, and admit this.
Todd's tests were partly so interesting because they showed that for head-and-shoulders studio shots, there were no compelling reasons to buy the very expensive Zeiss 100MP over the very cheap Nikkor 105/2.5. They were equally good, for this purpose.
Something is not quite right in this situation, and I am trying to explore it a bit, and see what comes out. I am not trying to trick anyone, just to post some shots, and ask people which they like best, and why. At the end I will say which lens was which, post my personal conclusions, and let people post theirs. Nothing more. No agenda.
I found it eye-opening how close Bernie got that one shot with the 5D2 and D3. It is only one shot, so more testing is needed, but I feel that somewhere here we have several Kaisers with no clothes. Ultimately, I don't feel that there are any valid IQ reasons to choose one over the other, apart from the Nikon's better high ISO or the Canon's higher resolution. There are several valid workflow reasons, however, as well as pure personal preference. My workflow is much simpler with the D3, and I prefer the camera too, so that is the one for me. You chose the 5D2. Both are valid.
To be honest, I invest a lot of money in photography equipment over time, and I would like to make educated choices, to buy lenses and cameras for the right reasons, and not just the reasons commonly repeated, here and in other places. There are some very common reasons for buying an M9, for example, but I don't think that they are necessarily the best reasons to do so. The whole street photography thing is repeated far too much for my taste. The M9 is very good at certain things, and if your style fits within that, then it is a great camera for you. And so on.
There are clearly others here who are similarly interested in discovering the truth about various lenses compared with each other. Anyone who is willing to post his/her guess/preference is someone whose interest in the truth is greater than their interest in stroking their ego. That doesn't say anything about those who don't post their opinions, to be sure, but I respect anyone who is willing to risk it all like that.
Yes, we normally need thousands of shots to get really familiar with a lens, but in the end, the discovery about its characteristics could be expressed in far less. Of those characteristics, we care only about a minority, so I think that a few carefully chosen sample photos, along with a few specific crops, can still give a good idea about a lens. There is no shortcut to the thousands of photos to really know, but a few well-chosen ones can go far.
I don't think that at the end of my test, or any similar test, I will have fully expressed the strengths and weaknesses of the lenses I used. However, I have touched on several of the biggies, and there is some insight to be had.
Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 09:13 AM · View previous versions
Oct 10, 2010 at 08:37 AM
p.2 #19Another useless comparison - 100mm
Another reason to do this kind of test is to save some people money.
Several people prefer the cheapest lens in this test, for example. And if I post (for example, and purely hypothetically) a close-up shot of an object with strong shape, good texture and side-lighting with a C/Y 35mm f/1.4, and don't get any 3D effect, then maybe it will stop someone from buying that lens at great cost and being terribly disappointed when it shows no 3D.
I think that some of the most famous lenses in this forum are really more of a great lens+photographer combination. Without that specific PP, no love.
I am not maliciously picking on this lens, btw, I would love to own one, and barring a total pan in reviews I am planning to buy the ZF.2 35/1.4 when it comes out.
Several people prefer the cheapest lens in this test, for example. And if I post (for example, and purely hypothetically) a close-up shot of an object with strong shape, good texture and side-lighting with a C/Y 35mm f/1.4, and don't get any 3D effect, then maybe it will stop someone from buying that lens at great cost and being terribly disappointed when it shows no 3D.
I think that some of the most famous lenses in this forum are really more of a great lens+photographer combination. Without that specific PP, no love.
I am not maliciously picking on this lens, btw, I would love to own one, and barring a total pan in reviews I am planning to buy the ZF.2 35/1.4 when it comes out.
Oct 10, 2010 at 08:59 AM
p.2 #20Another useless comparison - 100mm
s23chang wrote:
ok. A different approach
Lens A -- larger aperture lens. Looks like Nikon color to me. 105/2.5 AI ?
Lens B -- smaller apeture. Zoom lens?
Lens C -- larger glass. medium format lens? FE 110/2 ?
I am curious what you see which makes you guess a medium format lens?
ok. A different approach
Lens A -- larger aperture lens. Looks like Nikon color to me. 105/2.5 AI ?
Lens B -- smaller apeture. Zoom lens?
Lens C -- larger glass. medium format lens? FE 110/2 ?
I am curious what you see which makes you guess a medium format lens?
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:05 AM