View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:26 pm Post subject: Nikon E 2.5/35 and the Wall of Shame |
|
|
sichko wrote:
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 ? _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I am pretty blind about lens problems usually. I think this is fine to me. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wormhandler
Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 106 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wormhandler wrote:
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 _________________
Those which I use:
Carl Zeiss Jena:Tessar 5cm 3,5 Tessar 2,8 50mm (3 versions), Sonnar 135mm 3,5, Tessar 135mm 4,5 (Compur), Flektogon 35mm 2,4, Sonnar 180mm 2,8, Sonnar 300mm 4
Cosina Voigtländer:125mm 2,5 Macro APO Lanthar.
Enna Werk Munchen:Tele-zoom 85-250mm
Ernst Leitz Wetzlar:Voort 90mm 4, Hektor 135mm 4,5
Helios:Helios 44-4 (& 44-2) 58mm 2
Industar:Industar 5cm 3,5, Industar-22 5cm 3,5-rangefinder
Isco Göttingen:Tele Westanar 180mm 4
Meyer Optik Görlitz:Lydith 30mm 3,5, Domiplan 50mm 2,8, Primotar 50 3,5, Orestor 135mm 2,8, Telemegor 150 5,5, Telemegor 180mm 5,5, Orestegor 200mm 4 Telemegor 400mm 5,6.
Mir:Mir 1B 37mm 2,8
Nikon:
Nikkor 35 1.4, Nikkor 85 2, Series E 35mm 2,5, Nikkor 35mm 2, Micro Nikkor 55mm 2,8, Series E 100mm 2,8, Nikkor 135m 2,8, Zoom-Nikkor 35-105mm.
Olympus:F-Zuiko Auto-S 50mm 1.8 (m42), E-zuiko Auto-T 135mm 2,5 (m42), Zuiko 85mm 2 MC (OM)
Panagor (Same as vivitar i Guess):28mm 2,5, 200mm 3,5
Pentacon29mm 2,8, 50mm 1,8, 135mm 2,8
Pentax:Auto takumar 35mm 3.5
SMC-takumar 28 3.5, SMC-Takumar 50mm 1.4, SMC-takumar 135mm 3.5, Takumar (bayonet) 135mm 2.5,Takumar 500mm 4
SMC M 35mm 3.5, SMC M 40 2.8, SMC M 50mm 2, SMC M 50mm 1.7, SMC A 50mm 2, SMC M 100 2.8, SMC M 100mm 4 Macro, SMC M 135mm 3,5 SMC M 200mm 4, SMC M 80-200mm 4,5
Shacht af Ulm:Edixa travenar 50mm 2,8, Edixa Travenar 135mm 3,5
Schneider KreuznachXenar 50mm 3,5, Xenar 50mm 2,8, Radionar 80mm 2,9 (Folder), Radionar 10,5cm 4,5 (Folder), Tele-Xenar 135mm 3,5, Symmar 150mm 5,6, Tele-Xenar 200mm 5,5.
Soligor:100-300mm 5 C/D.
Steinheil:Actinar 10,5cm 4,5 (Prontor)
Tamron:Adaptall2 28mm 2.5, Adaptall2 35-70 3.5, Auto Tamron 28 2.8, Auto.tamron 105 2.5, Auto-tamron 135 2.8, Auto Tamron 200 3.5, Auto Tamron 300 5.6 Tamron SP 70-210 3.5-4
Tokyo Koki:Tele-Tokina 135mm 2.8, Tele-Tokina 135mm 3.5 (brand kennex), Tele-Tokina 300 5.5.
Vivitar:Series 1 70-210 (Kiron)
Yashica:
Auto Yashinon-DX 50mm 1.7, Auto Yashinon-DX 50mm 2, Yashica ML 50mm 1.7, Yashica ML 50mm 2 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
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. _________________ View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:38 pm Post subject: Re: Nikon E 2.5/35 and the Wall of Shame |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
sichko wrote: |
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 ? |
Bjørn Rørslett (you could copy and paste from that ) is correct. That's not CA. Its the remains of the blown-out sky, which retains some cyan colouring close to the edges of the building. _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
PaulC
Joined: 23 Dec 2008 Posts: 2318
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PaulC wrote:
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. _________________ View or buy my photos at:
http://shutterstock.com/g/paulcowan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
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. _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
John
You just described another very good reason for shooting raw.
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 _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ChrisLilley
Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ChrisLilley wrote:
PaulC wrote: |
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. |
Actually yes, you are right.
I had recently been working on some photos with blown-out sky and areas of reduced intensity (eg sky through branches) showed this effect under hilight recovery. I thought this was the same.
But yes, there is a thin reddish line on the right side of one pigeon. Its CA.
John, the "3x" confused me, is this 100%, or 300%, or ? and what does moderate PP mean? Was the image processed in NX2 or another program? _________________ Camera (ˈkæ mə rə), n. Device for taking pictures in bright light
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t. Key: Ai-P, Ai, Ai'ed, AiS
Camera: Nikon D90, D40, DK-21M eyepiece, ML-3 remote MF lenses: Nikkor 20mm f/4 K, AI'ed | N.K. Nikkor-N 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor-N.C 24mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AiS late model | Арсенал (Arsenal) Мир-24Н (Mir-24N) 35mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer Ultron SL II 40mm f/2.0 | Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AiS | Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 Ai | ЛЗОС (LZOS) Юпитер-9 (Jupiter-9) 85mm f/2 | Cosina Voigtländer APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 SL | Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai, Ai'ed | Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 | Schneider Kreuznach Componon 105mm f/5.6 | Nikkor 135mm f/2.8, Ai'ed 1976 model | Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AiS | Арсенал (Arsenal) ТЕЛЕАР-Н (Telear-n) 200mm f/3.5 | Nikkor 300 mm f/4.5 Ai (full equipment list) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sichko
Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK
|
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sichko wrote:
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%. _________________ John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|