Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Your best 28..and how you got there :)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Perhaps woodrim would enjoy seeing his favourite shot down my terraced street as test subject? (Just joking).
Just hope we get some good light one day.


Don't forget the pigeon on the chimney. If all are shot in the same light, then so what if it's not ideal. I actually find cloudy skies provide a nice even light. I don't know if you need to include any more lenses if no one is asking about them; it's a lot of work.

Ian: To be clear, I'm not offended that you don't like the CF lens, I'm just confused by your comments as they don't match my experience. Do my images reflect your experience? Perhaps your standards are higher.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Splendid samples Woodrim!


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, Pancolart, do you also like my summer home?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I haven't had that many 28s but I love my fist one, an OM 2/28. I bought a PC-Nikkor 3.5/28 four weeks ago, but I had no chance to test it, yet.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:





This looks great. Could not ask for more from a lens stopped down bright daylight. Wink

What lens was this?


BTW I agree with the comment about finding nice light in cloudy skies. I actually prefer that over heavy shadows that sunlight gives.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Perhaps woodrim would enjoy seeing his favourite shot down my terraced street as test subject? (Just joking).
Just hope we get some good light one day.


Don't forget the pigeon on the chimney. If all are shot in the same light, then so what if it's not ideal. I actually find cloudy skies provide a nice even light. I don't know if you need to include any more lenses if no one is asking about them; it's a lot of work.

Ian: To be clear, I'm not offended that you don't like the CF lens, I'm just confused by your comments as they don't match my experience. Do my images reflect your experience? Perhaps your standards are higher.



No, your images are much better than anything I got from mine which confuses me. I'm wondering if there was some internal reflection issue going on with mine as I got really flat images with lower contrast by far from what you're showing, I have had this happen once with an adapter, a chromed brass one. Your images are really good, makes me wonder if my copies aren't faulty, there is always scope for that in old lenses, the difference is huge though, like it's a different lens.

I don't like being confused so one day I will investigate with my remaining OM copy.

I was going to comment on your Porsche line-up shot earlier as it looks very nice indeed, but I fell asleep. I do notice there looks to be some distortion on the left as the wing of the building is leaning a bit, or is it the building?


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
This looks great. Could not ask for more from a lens stopped down bright daylight. Wink

What lens was this?


BTW I agree with the comment about finding nice light in cloudy skies. I actually prefer that over heavy shadows that sunlight gives.


This is the Vivitar 28/2.8 Close Focus model, Komine made. Shall we have a discusion about the obsession with wide open shooting?

BTW, your OM 28.2 images look outstanding. I can see the 3D that so many people seek in a lens. However, yours is a FF sensor and we're making comparisons with images from different size sensors and different pixel counts.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Perhaps woodrim would enjoy seeing his favourite shot down my terraced street as test subject? (Just joking).
Just hope we get some good light one day.


Don't forget the pigeon on the chimney. If all are shot in the same light, then so what if it's not ideal. I actually find cloudy skies provide a nice even light. I don't know if you need to include any more lenses if no one is asking about them; it's a lot of work.

Ian: To be clear, I'm not offended that you don't like the CF lens, I'm just confused by your comments as they don't match my experience. Do my images reflect your experience? Perhaps your standards are higher.



No, your images are much better than anything I got from mine which confuses me. I'm wondering if there was some internal reflection issue going on with mine as I got really flat images with lower contrast by far from what you're showing, I have had this happen once with an adapter, a chromed brass one. Your images are really good, makes me wonder if my copies aren't faulty, there is always scope for that in old lenses, the difference is huge though, like it's a different lens.

I don't like being confused so one day I will investigate with my remaining OM copy.

I was going to comment on your Porsche line-up shot earlier as it looks very nice indeed, but I fell asleep. I do notice there looks to be some distortion on the left as the wing of the building is leaning a bit, or is it the building?


Now we're on the same page. We weren't talking about subtle differences, so I thought there had to be something wrong. What I still don't know... did you ever try the CF with the NEX? I'm asking because you had poor results from several lenses, if not all, with your Canon.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Orio: I'm uploading three images that are original size.


Impressive samples. Clear, well defined. Especially the suitcase one is stunning Shocked

woodrim wrote:
Since I only have had the two lenses, I'm interested in how the Konica and maybe the Tokina might compare. I'll never buy one of the expensive Zeiss lenses, so a comparison there isn't as useful to me, although would still be information for others.


I don't think you need any other 28mm lens than this one. For what I can see, the Vivitar can hold up with the best.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
rawhead wrote:
Hmm, going back to the image, I realize I'd increased saturation in Aperture. Here's another 100% crop, straight from the RAW Master Image.


Speaking openly, I have to say that I'm not much impressed by this crop. Detail seems to be missing from everywhere, and overall image quality looks a bit "muddy". Maybe it's because of the dull light.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't honestly remember if I did. The issue with the 10D I had wast lack of sharpness, so why it had other issues is beyond me, Hoya 28mm and Ensinor 28mm worked fined on EOS:

Hoya:



Ensinor:



PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:


This is the Vivitar 28/2.8 Close Focus model, Komine made. Shall we have a discusion about the obsession with wide open shooting?

BTW, your OM 28.2 images look outstanding. I can see the 3D that so many people seek in a lens. However, yours is a FF sensor and we're making comparisons with images from different size sensors and different pixel counts.


No, no need for wide open shooting discussion. There are plenty of threads dedicated that way.

I agree with Orio. You don't need a Zeiss, Zuiko, or Hexanon to replace this lens. I would be quite settled on this lens with these results if I were you.
Komine did some very nice work on this one. At least on a a cropped sensor as you mention.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, that's what I was after. Often times the hunt for the best isn't warranted and only results in a horde of lenses all much alike. I've resisted pretty well collecting too many of any particular focal length, except the 135mm which somehow I ended up with... well, I know it's over 15. Got to do something about that. However, I'll admit those OM shots look awfully good.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Speaking openly, I have to say that I'm not much impressed by this crop. Detail seems to be missing from everywhere, and overall image quality looks a bit "muddy". Maybe it's because of the dull light.


You do have to remember that my image is a 100% crop from a 21.2MP Full-Frame RAW file, not a 10MP APS-C JPEG. In comparison, I'd have to zoom out and give a 45% crop and apply some unsharp masks to make them roughly comparable.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to agree with Orio, it does look muddy.

Why would sensor size matter? I realise we are look at a corner you can't see on an APS-C sensor but I don't see why the sensor would be different to APS-C, just different size.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have to agree with Orio, it does look muddy.

Why would sensor size matter? I realise we are look at a corner you can't see on an APS-C sensor but I don't see why the sensor would be different to APS-C, just different size.




Because when you do a 100% crop of a 20MP image, you are zooming in twice as much as a 100% crop of a 10MP image. Quite simple, really.

Think of it this way. Imagine you put a lens on a 1.3MP camera. The entier image is going to be 1280 x 1024px at 100%. Do you think comparing the full image of the entire scene to my 100% crop, which is just a fraction of the whole, fair?


If you go here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/your-best-28-and-how-you-got-there-t45236,start,30.html

you'll see what portion of the original image is my 100% crop.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, no, I don't see the difference, you are still looking at the native resolution of the sensor.

What you're saying is akin to looking at a 35mm slide and a 6x6 slide with a loupe, if they are the same film type then the comparison to judge sharpness, contrast etc would be valid.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Also, with all things equal, the smaller the MP, the bigger pixel pitch you have, and hence better IQ you will have per megapixel.

So, just for argument's sake, if the sensor "quality" was equal, a 10MP sensor is going to give you better IQ than a 20MP sensor at 100% of the 10MP sensor or less. So even if we "cropped" the images at the same size, as long as that size is equal to or less than the 100% of a 10MP sensor, the 10MP image is going to be better than the 20MP image. Obviously, the 20MP sensor is going to give you a better image beyond that size, as the 10MP image is going to pixelate Smile


Since we're talking about lenses here, really the only fair way to make comparisons is to mount all these lenses on the same camera.

Last edited by rawhead on Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:17 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, no, I don't see the difference, you are still looking at the native resolution of the sensor.

What you're saying is akin to looking at a 35mm slide and a 6x6 slide with a loupe, if they are the same film type then the comparison to judge sharpness, contrast etc would be valid.


You seem to forget, we're comparing lenses here.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The EOS 5D MkII has a pixel pitch of 6.4, so lenses should look sharper than on a high MP APS-C camera such as the NEX-3 which has a pixel pitch of 4.77. The 5D's sensor has a pixel density 17% lower than that of the NEX, in raw numbers, it has 24340 pixels in every square mm, whereas the NEX-3 has 38275 pixels per square mm. This means the 5D has a sizeable advantage when it comes to sharpness. A lens would have to have 17% higher resolution to produce the same apparent sharpness on a NEX-3 as another lens on a 5DMkII. So if a lens lacks sharpness on a 5DMkII it's gonna look a fair bit softer on a NEX or other APS-C camera with 14 or more megapixels. This is a large part of why full frame sensors are better, they don't have to pack so many pixels into a small space. Simply put, if a lens sucks on a 5DMkII it is gonna suck much more on a NEX-3 or other APS-C 14MP+ camera. The smaller the sensor, the higher the needed resolution of the lens to maintain the same apparent sharpness in the produced image.

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:39 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's a simple simulation. It won't be exactly the same, since I'm just using crops from my original 5D Mk2 file, but you should get the idea.



Here' a 100% crop of my original image. I.e., a simulation (reality) of a 100% crop from a 21.1MP camera:


#3



Here's a simulation of a 100% crop from a 10MP (full frame) camera:


#2



And finally, a simulation of a 1.3MP (full frame) camera:

#1




Now tell me the differences in "resolution" you see here has anything to do with the lens Smile


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The EOS 5D MkII has a pixel pitch of 6.4, so lenses should look sharper than on a high MP APS-C camera such as the NEX-3 which has a pixel pitch of 4.77. The 5D's sensor has a pixel density 17% lower than that of the NEX, in raw numbers, it has 24340 pixels in every square mm, whereas the NEX-3 has 38275 pixels per square mm. This means the 5D has a sizeable advantage when it comes to sharpness. A lens would have to have 17% higher resolution to produce the same apparent sharpness on a NEX-3 as another lens on a 5DMkII. So if a lens lacks sharpness on a 5DMkII it's gonna look a fair bit softer on a NEX or other APS-C camera with 14 or more megapixels. This is a large part of why full frame sensors are better, they don't have to pack so many pixels into a small space. Simply put, if a lens sucks on a 5DMkII it is gonna suck much more on a NEX-3 or other APS-C 14MP+ camera. The smaller the sensor, the higher the needed resolution of the lens to maintain the same apparent sharpness in the produced image.



OK, so you're forgetting we're talking about 100% crops. Whatever it is, you're forgetting something very vital to the discussion.


But seriously, is it so hard?? Imagine you have a full frame camera that is 100MP and think what a 100% crop of that is going to look like.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's all about the density of pixels on the sensor - the spatial resolution. It's not about the size of the sensor or the megapixel count per se, it's about how many pixels are squeezed into each square mm, the 5DMkII with it's 36x24mm sensor has 864 square mm of real estate to fit it's 21.03MP onto. To compare 5DMkII shots with an APS-C camera you would need to use one with the same pixel density (24340 pixels per square mm). APS-C as used by Nikon, Sony, Pentax and others (not Canon) has only 370.52 square mm or sensor real estate so APS-C with the same pixel density as a 5DMkII would be a 9.02MP camera.

There is a really good explanation here, it has a list of camera sensors and their pixel densities, the lower the better:

http://warrenmars.com/photography/technical/resolution/resolution_roundup.htm


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It's all about the density of pixels on the sensor - the spatial resolution. It's not about the size of the sensor or the megapixel count per se, it's about how many pixels are squeezed into each square mm, the 5DMkII with it's 36x24mm sensor has 864 square mm of real estate to fit it's 21.03MP onto. To compare 5DMkII shots with an APS-C camera you would need to use one with the same pixel density (24340 pixels per square mm). APS-C as used by Nikon, Sony, Pentax and others (not Canon) has only 370.52 square mm or sensor real estate so APS-C with the same pixel density as a 5DMkII would be a 9.02MP camera.

There is a really good explanation here, it has a list of camera sensors and their pixel densities, the lower the better:

http://warrenmars.com/photography/technical/resolution/resolution_roundup.htm



OK, maybe my use of APS-C vs. FF. has gotten to your head. Forget about that for just a second, since, sensor size is not so important here.


Just focus your mind on what a "100% crop" means. Here is one of the images that was uploaded earlier that was shot using a 10MP camera:


#1



The red bounding box represents where the following 100% crop is from:


#2




Now imagine I were here with a 20MP APS-C camera and took the EXACT same shot with the exact same lens. The 100% crop is going to be a 2x zoomed up portion of that red rectangle. Do you follow?

Now, of course, with a full-frame camera, I'm going to have a wider FOV and hence it won't be as drastic, but a 100% crop is still going to be about a 1.5x zoom of that red rectangle. In comparison, here is my original shot, indicating exactly what portion of it represents my "100% crop"


#1


the 100% crop:


#1




Comparing these two "100% crops", therefore, is like comparing an MTF chart that is shot at 10m away with an MTF chart that is shot at 15m away: it's not a fair comparison, period.



Now, getting back to the APS-C vs. FF; I guess you're right, my calculations were wrong; a 10MP APS-C is going to have a slightly tighter pixel pitch than a 21.1MP Full Frame. But again, that doesn't have too much to do with the point I wanted to make.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am following you now, but I'm still not sure of you're point, sorry if I'm being dense!

For me, it boils down to the resolution of the sensor vs the resolution of the lens, lines per inch is a good measure. Supposing the sensor has 100lpi resolution, the lens would need to have at least that resolution to produce images with the maximum sharpness the sensor is capable of. The higher the resolution of the sensor, the better the lens you need, using my comparison of 5DMkII to NEX-3, the lens would have to be 17% sharper to max out the sensor's resolution. In short, if a lens isn't really sharp on a 5DMkII, it will look even less sharp on a NEX-3.

In real world terms, this means that if someone tests a lens on a 5DMkII and it lack's sharpness to some degree, it will suck on a higher resolution sensor that packs a high MP count into a much smaller sensor area.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 3 of 9