Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Exactly Uwe those lovely 36mpx non AA filter may just turn to mush
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!
What Lenses for the D800?
- Thread starter Mr.Gale
- Start date
ustein
Contributing Editor
Very, very likely
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
The D7000 has the same pixel pitch D800, so the same lens on the D800 will perform exactly the same within the same crop area.
Here's the center areaof the AF-D 70-210/4-5.6, on the D7000. 200mm at 2m, f/16.
I don't see it greatly degraded, do you? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not theory. When the model doesn't match reality the model is wrong.
At f/22 diffraction begins to set in.
And at f/32 it's overwhelming.
Here's the center areaof the AF-D 70-210/4-5.6, on the D7000. 200mm at 2m, f/16.
I don't see it greatly degraded, do you? The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not theory. When the model doesn't match reality the model is wrong.
At f/22 diffraction begins to set in.
And at f/32 it's overwhelming.
Jan Brittenson
Senior Subscriber Member
And, for good measure, here's a crop from 200mm @ 5m, f/16 since the print above is easily outresolved by the camera. Maybe it looks "diffraction limited" to you, but I'll take this any day of the week. It's good enough for me and my uses.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
diffraction - a digression
Compared to what, Jan ?
I don't see it "greatly degraded" because you do not show any wider aperture than f/16.
If you had shown us an f/8 illustration, I would definitely expect f/8 to render visibly sharper in the finest details in the focus plane.
My personal experience has always coincided quite well with the theory, and I have never been able to figure out why you (and others) declare the theory pure nonsense ?
Like e.g. in your post # 44 in this thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html#post401447
There's actually nothing really new about diffraction, it worked the same way in the old days with film (though it probably gets more attention today with the easy access to 100 % screen view).
In my opinion diffraction does not mean we should stop using small apertures like f/11, f/16 and f/22 when we want to gain a lot of DOF.
It just means we should be aware that at some point the increased DOF at the same time means decreased sharpness in the details in the focus plane.
And thus it's just a compromise.
All the above is just my 0.02 understanding of the subject so please correct me if I am totally wrong on this, and please explain why (maybe in a separate thread about diffraction).
And if you can point me to a better (but still understandable) explanation and a better diffraction calculator than provided by Cambridge In Colour, I'd be grateful.
I'm always prepared to learn more.
A specific diffraction discussion and tutorial thread would be most welcome, if anyone would dare start it.
Compared to what, Jan ?
I don't see it "greatly degraded" because you do not show any wider aperture than f/16.
If you had shown us an f/8 illustration, I would definitely expect f/8 to render visibly sharper in the finest details in the focus plane.
My personal experience has always coincided quite well with the theory, and I have never been able to figure out why you (and others) declare the theory pure nonsense ?
Like e.g. in your post # 44 in this thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/35804-nikon-d800-first-blush.html#post401447
There's actually nothing really new about diffraction, it worked the same way in the old days with film (though it probably gets more attention today with the easy access to 100 % screen view).
In my opinion diffraction does not mean we should stop using small apertures like f/11, f/16 and f/22 when we want to gain a lot of DOF.
It just means we should be aware that at some point the increased DOF at the same time means decreased sharpness in the details in the focus plane.
And thus it's just a compromise.
All the above is just my 0.02 understanding of the subject so please correct me if I am totally wrong on this, and please explain why (maybe in a separate thread about diffraction).
And if you can point me to a better (but still understandable) explanation and a better diffraction calculator than provided by Cambridge In Colour, I'd be grateful.
I'm always prepared to learn more.
A specific diffraction discussion and tutorial thread would be most welcome, if anyone would dare start it.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
what Lenses - Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II Aspherical
Here's a snap just so that we do not forget this little compact, cheap, ultrawide, manual focus optic, the Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II Aspherical (weight: ~200 g)
By this I do not mean to actually recommend the lens, I just thought I would mention it so that we do not forget it as an affordable, ultrawide manual focus option.
The original file shows some lateral chromatic aberration here, even at f/8 (see the downloadable RAW file), but it was nicely corrected in Lightroom 4 with a single tick in a check box.
I'm impressed by Lightroom's CA correction feature, it really does an amazing job.
In the post processing I also pulled some details out of the shadows.
Link to the RAW file
80A_0574_Voigtlander_20mm_SLII.NEF
Here's a snap just so that we do not forget this little compact, cheap, ultrawide, manual focus optic, the Voigtländer Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II Aspherical (weight: ~200 g)
By this I do not mean to actually recommend the lens, I just thought I would mention it so that we do not forget it as an affordable, ultrawide manual focus option.
The original file shows some lateral chromatic aberration here, even at f/8 (see the downloadable RAW file), but it was nicely corrected in Lightroom 4 with a single tick in a check box.
I'm impressed by Lightroom's CA correction feature, it really does an amazing job.
In the post processing I also pulled some details out of the shadows.
Link to the RAW file
80A_0574_Voigtlander_20mm_SLII.NEF
click for native sized jpeg (16.8 Mb)
Nikon D800 • Voigtländer 3.5/20mm SLII • 1/160 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4
Nikon D800 • Voigtländer 3.5/20mm SLII • 1/160 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4
Antonio Chagin
Member
Steen, thanks for the file. Looks like a pretty decent lens. What are your thoughts. Have compare it with other 20mm?? ACH
As a long time Canon user who is currently making the Nikon switch.. I have the following comments.
I love the zeiss 50mm Makro. I think the 100mm is also a great lens but it is not as useful as the Nikon 105mm VR because of the VR. The Nikon macro is so much better in terms of bokeh and colors compared to the canon 100mm macro that I do not miss the 100mm zeiss with my D800. . I got a Zeiss 50mm makro for NIkon and was originally quite disappointed. The edges and corners were soft. I had not observed that with my canon lens on the 1dsmkIII or 5dII. I have a friend who has a Zeiss 50mm for Nikon and compared his lens to mine. Clearly mine is defective or a bad copy. So i returned it awaiting another copy. Both copies were super sharp in the center. I did some comparisons with the Nikon 24-70 at 50mm F2.8 to 8. The Zeiss was sharper and gave a bit more detail in the center portion of the image but the difference was not as great as I might have imagined. The 24-70 is actually quite impressive. I just love the 50mm because it is small and easy to travel with. Sometimes having the ability to shoot close up comes in handy. I consider this the best all around 50mm lens I have ever used.
I love the zeiss 50mm Makro. I think the 100mm is also a great lens but it is not as useful as the Nikon 105mm VR because of the VR. The Nikon macro is so much better in terms of bokeh and colors compared to the canon 100mm macro that I do not miss the 100mm zeiss with my D800. . I got a Zeiss 50mm makro for NIkon and was originally quite disappointed. The edges and corners were soft. I had not observed that with my canon lens on the 1dsmkIII or 5dII. I have a friend who has a Zeiss 50mm for Nikon and compared his lens to mine. Clearly mine is defective or a bad copy. So i returned it awaiting another copy. Both copies were super sharp in the center. I did some comparisons with the Nikon 24-70 at 50mm F2.8 to 8. The Zeiss was sharper and gave a bit more detail in the center portion of the image but the difference was not as great as I might have imagined. The 24-70 is actually quite impressive. I just love the 50mm because it is small and easy to travel with. Sometimes having the ability to shoot close up comes in handy. I consider this the best all around 50mm lens I have ever used.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
My 24mm 1.4 G comes today hope to have some images up before I leave town.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
I also have the AI-S Nikkor 2.8/20mm, Antonio, and I once quickly compared them on my APS-C sensor based D300, where they were very close.
I'll see if I can make a new side by side comparison this time on the 35mm sensor, perhaps this coming weekend.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
What Lenses - ultra-wides
Antonio, here's a city-landscape comparison of the two 20mm ultra-wide lenses at f/8. Both lenses show quite a bit lateral chromatic aberrations.
I left all the aberrations untouched in the converted jpeg files so that you can immediately see it for yourself, but it is easily corrected in Lightroom 4.
First the old AI-S Nikkor 20mm from the film days:
Link to the RAW file
80A_0590_AIS_Nikkor_20mm.NEF
And now the modern Voigtländer Color-Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II Aspherical:
It's pretty obvious that the modern Voigtländer lens is better optimized for digital sensors.
Link to the RAW file
80A_0592_Voigtlander_20mm_SLII.NEF
Antonio, here's a city-landscape comparison of the two 20mm ultra-wide lenses at f/8. Both lenses show quite a bit lateral chromatic aberrations.
I left all the aberrations untouched in the converted jpeg files so that you can immediately see it for yourself, but it is easily corrected in Lightroom 4.
First the old AI-S Nikkor 20mm from the film days:
Link to the RAW file
80A_0590_AIS_Nikkor_20mm.NEF
click for native sized jpeg (18.7 Mb)
Nikon D800 • AI-S Nikkor 2.8/20mm • 1/250 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4
Nikon D800 • AI-S Nikkor 2.8/20mm • 1/250 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4
And now the modern Voigtländer Color-Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II Aspherical:
It's pretty obvious that the modern Voigtländer lens is better optimized for digital sensors.
Link to the RAW file
80A_0592_Voigtlander_20mm_SLII.NEF
click for native sized jpeg (18.1 Mb)
Nikon D800 • Voigtländer Color-Skopar 3.5/20mm SLII Aspherical • 1/200 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4
Nikon D800 • Voigtländer Color-Skopar 3.5/20mm SLII Aspherical • 1/200 sec. at f/8 ISO 100 • Lightroom 4
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Antonio, I reprocessed the two above linked full size jpeg files.
They were over-processed when I first posted them because I tried a sharpening formula suggested elsewhere, but it made the files fall apart.
You may need to refresh your browser to see the new versions.
ustein
Contributing Editor
Checked out today my old Nikon 85mm PC f/2.8 Macro lens. Looks fine:
A full sized version can be found here:
http://outbackphoto.smugmug.com/DOPFieldTests/Nikon-D800-Field-Tests/
A full sized version can be found here:
http://outbackphoto.smugmug.com/DOPFieldTests/Nikon-D800-Field-Tests/
Antonio Chagin
Member
Antonio Chagin
Member
Well Steen, after comparing both files, taking care of chromatic aberrations and doing a basic sharpening, is clear that the Voightlander has the advantage. Not a bad performer for the price. The center is very good and borders are ok, extremes are noticeable blur.
The Nikon not as good and seems like the right side is better than the left side.
I was looking the Voightlander up in B&H and there's seems to be two versions, being the version II now for sale. Which version is yours?? Are there any known difference between these two?
Thank you.!
The Nikon not as good and seems like the right side is better than the left side.
I was looking the Voightlander up in B&H and there's seems to be two versions, being the version II now for sale. Which version is yours?? Are there any known difference between these two?
Thank you.!