Nikon E 2.5/35 and the Wall of Shame

sichko · Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK

Ken Rockwell says that people who take pictures of walls and examine the pictures in detail should be ashamed of themselves. Well - I didn't intend this as a pixel peeping exercise but I wonder what you think.

The wall, D60, lens at f/8 (I think), RAW capture, square crop and moderate PP - fullsize ~2500x2500 reduced to ~600x600

100% crop of 3x enlargement

Bjorn Rorslett (sorry, I don't know how to access the correct alphabet) says that this lens exhibits negligible CA. What do you think ?

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I am pretty blind about lens problems usually. I think this is fine to me.

Wormhandler · Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 106 Location: Sweden

Something must be wrong with your lens or camera.

Here is a 100% crop at F2.5

And that is through a 3 layer window.

Looks ok by me.
Most of the E-series are better than people thinks.

/Jan

PaulC · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318

The birds are out of focus, which increases the CA risk and they create a sharp backlit edge against a pure white sky, which is just perfect for CA. You've then taken the problem area and enlarged it three times, if I follow your comment, so this is what you would see enlarging the image to 30MP and viewing at 72dpi. Also, the birds are off centre so it is possible that your sensor is adding to the problems.

In short, this is the most extreme set of conditions possible so it is hardly surprising you can see some problems. If I shrink that crop to one third of its size and then switch from 72 to 300 dpi the problem is invisible. If I misunderstood you and you have not enlarged it 300% than looking at the same crop viewed at 300dpi does show a little fringing when viewed close up, but would you look at a 16 inch x 10 inch print that closely?

For ordinary purposes the lens is probably fine. Try shooting the wall again with sharp focus on the pigeons and see what that does to the CA, I bet most of it will disappear.

Unfortunately, there is no such thing as a lens without some aberration, so the assessment "negligible CA" should not be taken to mean none at all. Just not enough to matter in the real world.

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

PaulC · Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318

It is CA, Chris. Look how one side of the top pigeon is blue and the other side reddish because the wavelengths of light are refracting differently. If it was the "remains of the sky" it would be evenly distributed all round the pigeon.

sichko · Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK

I normally shoot RAW+JPEG. However on the bottom end cameras (D40x/D60) this only permits a "basic" JPEG where artefacts are often seen clearly. In the picture shown here the coloured fringing was clearly seen in the JPEG. I had to "work" a little (i.e. enlargement and then cropping as described) to reveal it in RAW. I was just wondering what others felt about this level of fringing. Many thanks for all your comments.

patrickh · Expire: 2011-11-18

John
You just described another very good reason for shooting raw. Smile

I think that even if that is CA, given the cost of the lens the performance is remarkable. Personally I only really like the 100/2.8 E from nikon, but the whole series is great value.

patrickh

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

sichko · Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK

Patrick - thanks for your comments. I know there are better 35s but I'm wondering if this one is "good enough" for the moment at least. I'd rather like to stop buying (and selling !) for a few months and just spend the spring and summer taking pictures. There are a couple of 2/35s which I have my eye on. If I get one fine - if not I will stay with the 35 E for s few months.

Chris - sorry for the confusion. For a long time I was confused even by the term "100% crop" - different people use it in different ways - so I hesitate to use the term 300%. In the sample each linear dimension has been increased by a factor of 3. I don't know if that's 300% or 900%.