rafaelcasd
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Manual Focus Nikon Glass | |
asiostygius wrote:
rafaelcasd wrote:
AM4L wrote:
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.
 nikkor 300mm 4.5 K ED Z6 test_01_08 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
Lens identified in the file name
 nikkor 300mm 4.5 ED K z6 test 00 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
 nikkor 300mm 4.5 H NAI z6 test 00 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
 nikkor 300mm 4.5 edif z6 test 00 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
 nikkor 50-300mm 4.5 ed z6 test 00 by Rafael Batlle, on Flickr
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. 
Definetively copy variation plays a role here: my ED non-IF is visibly better (sharpness, CA) than both my EDIF and H 4.5 models (not made a comparison yet with the 50-300/4.5).
Rafael, if you have the time or patience do a test for something with a flat plane and very contrasty to see at same time sharpness and CA.
Jose, I will repeat tests with this 300mm 4.5 lens set in different conditions, the palm test was a good test for central sharpness, contrast, and central edge acuity.
Certainly a flat plane test would give more complete results, also and infinity test and one against the sun would be meaningful.
Testing lenses is a rat hole, I only dare go there in this company.
|
