The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

A7r vs D800 vs M9 with top primes tested

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
A point about lens testing: The 24-120 Nikon zoom is arguably the worst lens I own and I use it on a cam with a challenging sensor, the D800. When I bought the lens, I almost returned it because of it's relatively lame "actual pixel" performance on the D800 outside the central 1/2 of the lens IC. But reality is the prints it produces still look great even when printed larger, like to 24 inches, and viewed up close. If I had relied on my reaction after initially testing it, I would not own it. But it's range was just so darn useful for travel, I decided to keep it for whenever I wanted an all-around lens on the camera. And so in the end I've made a lot of great images with a lens I nearly tossed as unworthy.
 

weinschela

Subscriber Member
A point about lens testing: The 24-120 Nikon zoom is arguably the worst lens I own and I use it on a cam with a challenging sensor, the D800. When I bought the lens, I almost returned it because of it's relatively lame "actual pixel" performance on the D800 outside the central 1/2 of the lens IC. But reality is the prints it produces still look great even when printed larger, like to 24 inches, and viewed up close. If I had relied on my reaction after initially testing it, I would not own it. But it's range was just so darn useful for travel, I decided to keep it for whenever I wanted an all-around lens on the camera. And so in the end I've made a lot of great images with a lens I nearly tossed as unworthy.
I have the same thing to say about the Nikon 28-300. It was the lens I used about 95% of the time in the Galapagos. The results were very much to my liking and that's more important to me than mtf charts.
 

ohnri

New member
I have the same thing to say about the Nikon 28-300. It was the lens I used about 95% of the time in the Galapagos. The results were very much to my liking and that's more important to me than mtf charts.
I just sold my 28-300

Not because I did not like it. On the contrary, it is a fine travel lens.

I sold it because I no longer travel with my Nikon gear. I either take M4/3's equipment or, more likely in the future, my Sony A7.

If Sony made a decent sports camera it's possible that I would sell all my Nikon gear.

In passing, I tried the 55mm FE in the Sony store a few days ago. That is one heck of a lens.

-Bill
 

nostatic

New member
In passing, I tried the 55mm FE in the Sony store a few days ago. That is one heck of a lens.

-Bill
As is the 35/2.8. First day I shot it pixel peeping left me on the fence. Second day actually using it was thrilled. Hopefully the 24-70/4 Zeiss will be stellar, then just need a few additions to fill it out, at least for my needs. A 100mm macro and a good 70-200 would cover it but I'm a cheap date...
 

Bob

Administrator
Staff member
Reality is it's the same as my current Nikon look lens list. (28/1.4 AF-D, 50/1.2 AIS, 85/1.4G, 105DC, and the 85mm Lomo Petzval.) But I'd probably have to add Guy's 19R or Woody's 18 SEM to the list -- both a little different from each other, but really nice. Woody won't like to hear this, but I think his 18 SEM blew his 21 SEM out of the water in look. The 19R gets the nod but only because I could get it adapted for use on my Nikon bodies. Finally, I'd add Bob's new 58/1.4G lens to the list -- his copy renders very nicely, a more subtle look than the 50/1.2 AIS -- I could (and am) making a case for owning both.
That 58 1.4 ultimately surprised me and is now one of my favorites.
I am glad I held on to it although my initial response was a bit negative.
-bob
 

D&A

Well-known member
Nowadays to test, all I do is shoot real images, usually a cityscape with the camera on a tripod and run the lens at each aperture from wide open to f11. With subject depth I can easily evaluate whether it has poor corner performance or just extreme field curvature, how it's signature changes -- or doesn't -- with aperture, and assuming some relatively straight vertical lines and a horizon, what kind of distortions it has -- in short, just about everything I need to know to determine whether I'll like the lens.

But that's me...
Jack, your protocol as it's applied in terms of testing lenses is amazingly close to what I have ascribed to for many years. I additionally repeat your described test at three different distances if at all possible.....namely close range, mid-distance and infinity. Not only are most lenses optimized for one of these focusing ranges, but it also reveals a intricate look at the changing field curvature (when it exsits) at all three distances.

Lens testing is a necessary evil but getting to know the optical properties of each lenses one owns, is invaluable.

Dave (D&A)
 

nugat

New member
Jack, your protocol as it's applied in terms of testing lenses is amazingly close to what I have ascribed to for many years. I additionally repeat your described test at three different distances if at all possible.....namely close range, mid-distance and infinity. Not only are most lenses optimized for one of these focusing ranges, but it also reveals a intricate look at the changing field curvature (when it exsits) at all three distances.

Lens testing is a necessary evil but getting to know the optical properties of each lenses one owns, is invaluable.

Dave (D&A)
Aren't those methods good for landscape shooting mostly?
I have little need for good corners in a human photo story shot with 35mm.
Here I'd prefer a good wide-open, central to 2/3s, performance--where my subjects are.
Or portraits. Good drawing, capability for natural softening, bokeh quality...
Hexanon 60mm is nicely soft at f1.2 and becomes a different lens at f1.4 and another yet at f2.8. I use it on M8, so effectively it's 85mm.
Or photojournalism. A dependable 24-70/2.8 with reliable focus is the staple.
Or wildlife/birds. Long telephoto, yet the amazing Sigma 50-500mm comes very handy.
etc etc
Obviously every type of photography calls for different ways of appraising lenses. I agree that it is best done in the field.
 

ZoranC

New member
I completely disagree. It is useful and interesting to me. If people want to 'prove' their findings with pictures so be it, but it generally leads to other people questioning their methodology. So if someone wants to share some observations that they have made, that is fine by me with or without images. You can always ask politely to see some examples.

Very, very few of us here have access to the sorts of equipment that give definitive test results - and even those are limited in scope. Yet we rely on a community of opinions to form our own.

Frankly I think it is rude to use that Smilie unless it is really warranted. Sorry, but I said it.
I respectfully disagree. Posting pictures when commenting on lens performance is not about "providing proof", it is about providing reference point. Observations are very subjective, one man's sharp is other man's not so much and so on, pictures are helping avoid sometimes very costly misinvesting based on opinion from random 'net person.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Reality is it's the same as my current Nikon look lens list. (28/1.4 AF-D, 50/1.2 AIS, 85/1.4G, 105DC, and the 85mm Lomo Petzval.) But I'd probably have to add Guy's 19R or Woody's 18 SEM to the list -- both a little different from each other, but really nice. Woody won't like to hear this, but I think his 18 SEM blew his 21 SEM out of the water in look. The 19R gets the nod but only because I could get it adapted for use on my Nikon bodies. Finally, I'd add Bob's new 58/1.4G lens to the list -- his copy renders very nicely, a more subtle look than the 50/1.2 AIS -- I could (and am) making a case for owning both.
Nothing more exotic Jack? :)
 
Top