[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't really care that much about that last little bit of sharpness unless I'm shooting landscapes.

When you are shooting daylight landscapes, odds are you are stopped down to get a wide range of focus. In that case, there's absolutely no difference between a halfway decent zoom and a prime because they both will be outresolving the sensor. The Nyquist curve is a hard and fast limitation on the sharpness. Stop down a bit and you hit the line. Above that, nothing matters any more.

For landscapes, if that fine a degree of sharpness matters to you, you should be shooting 35mm film or better yet medium format. That will make a difference you can actually see.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif The bigger question is, why doesn't Nikon make split focusing screens anymore.

yes. Split focusing screen, 50mm 1.1, and a 35mm 1.2

I'll be begging for mercy though when they do make those lenses and I have to sell my kidneys

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif But why would MF be harder on wider angle lenses?

It isn't. It's easier. A wide angle lens has more depth of field, making it much more forgiving of misfocusing. My fisheye is MF, but I don't even have to touch the focus unless I'm right on top of something. Even wide open, the depth of field extends from a yard to infinity. The hardest lenses to focus manually are super fast short teles wide open. With the 85 1.4 wide open in a portrait situation, your depth of field might be measured in centimeters.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It isn't. It's easier. A wide angle lens has more depth of field, making it much more forgiving of misfocusing. My fisheye is MF, but I don't even have to touch the focus unless I'm right on top of something. Even wide open, the depth of field extends from a yard to infinity. The hardest lenses to focus manually are super fast short teles wide open. With the 85 1.4 wide open in a portrait situation, your depth of field might be measured in centimeters.

In practice, it is easy for me to focus with a 85/1.4. Yes, the DOF is centimeters, but I can very accurately tell from the viewfinder WHAT IS in focus. I can't do that on a wide angle. Like I said, I have bad eyes. Of course I can cheat and say always stop down to f/8 and everything is in focus like you do (then of course, you need to allow me to stop down the 85 to f8 as well and placing my subject a mile away). Try opening up to f1.4 on your wide angle and see what happens... oh sorry, your wide angle doesn't open that wide.


On the myth of more DOF on wide angles, your fisheye does not have DOF from a yard to infinity wide open. Well, may be you think you do, cause that lens doesn't have enough resolution for you to tell if it is actually in focus.

Here's some science for you. Cold, hard, FACTS.
Depth of field

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif On the myth of more DOF on wide angles, your fisheye does not have DOF from a yard to infinity wide open. Well, may be you think you do, cause that lens doesn't have enough resolution for you to tell if it is actually in focus.

If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

I guess nothing would make a difference to anyone because they always view the pictures zoomed out to fit a tiny 10 inch computer screen on a netbook.

 

[bigshot]

What difference does it make if you have to zoom in further than the resolution of the sensor that is capturing the image will allow? Sharpness always stops at Nyquist, no matter how sophisticated the optics are.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yup, it's true. Nikon makes some phenomenal pro zoom lenses that are sharp as a tack (my old 35-70mm F/2.8 for example) and just as good as their prime equivalents at the same F numbers. But to think a modern 18-55mm at 35mm and F/3.5 is going to be as good as a 35mm prime at F/3.5 is just crazy talk.

The 18-55mm doesn't open up to f/3.5 at 35mm. Compare the 18-55mm to the 35mm f/1.8, both at 35mm, both at the first comparable aperture of f/5.6 and the only area the 35mm beats out the 18-55mm is in terms of vignetting. Distortion is near as makes no difference, the same (I say near as makes no difference since they weren't shot at the same apertures), resolution is about the same, and CA resistance is the same or better. Compare apples to apples.


Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX II - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 18-55mm doesn't open up to f/3.5 at 35mm. Compare the 18-55mm to the 35mm f/1.8, both at 35mm, both at the first comparable aperture of f/5.6 and the only area the 35mm beats out the 18-55mm is in terms of vignetting. Distortion is near as makes no difference, the same (I say near as makes no difference since they weren't shot at the same apertures), resolution is about the same, and CA resistance is the same or better. Compare apples to apples. Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED DX II - Review / Test Report - Analysis Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 G - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Just out of my own curiosity, I'm going to try a comparison shot this weekend. I have both the kit 18-55 and a 35mm. I'll stop them both down to the first possible setting and see.
I'm curious myself, since I've never done this.
I'll laugh if there isn't much difference!

 

[choka]

Kudos for the findings. I haven't been reading reviews for these kit lenses for a long long time. Not disputing your findings, but I had a 18-70 kit lens, after I bought my 50/1.8 and shot some tests, I never looked back.

More food for thought... Not as good reviews on the 18-55:
Nikon AF-S DX 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 G EDII
18-55mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan <- this is for the 1st iteration of the lens

now look at this:
18-55 Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
35/1.8 Nikon Lens: Primes - Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

The main thing to look at is, the 35 is sharp almost from wide open. The 18-55 wide open? not so much. Stopping down to 5.6 makes it tack sharp though. (more food for thought. how much cherry picking do you think there is for lens tests out there?)

Now read the verdits for the 18-55 on photozone, I quote "The contrast level at large apertures (primarily wide-end) leaves something to be desired though." and "the build quality which is clearly sub-standard. This is probably a sufficient reason alone for some to think about the AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX or AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX as alternative investments."


Let's put it this way, most lenses doesn't make much difference once you stop down enough. I bet at f/11 most lenses give you similar result on sharpness alone. Distortion/CA/Color rendition, perhaps not so much. One more thing to be aware of is the fact that Nikon is now trailing in the megapixel race. I am perfectly fine with 10mp, but I would expect them to double the resolution pretty soon just because Canon has more pixels, may be even within this year. By then, the consumer zooms will lose the "advantage" of out resolving a "low resolution" sensor.

And then, think about what apertures you usually shoot at. For landscapes, usually f/8 and up. You are fine with any lens. But for portraits? I don't remember the last time I stopped down to f/4.5. I am using apertures I cannot find on those consumer zoom lenses, and I am getting tack sharp images, with great bokeh, great color, little distortion. If you hand me a 18-55 and ask me to shoot portraits, I will be shooting it wide open to throw as much of the background out and I won't have good optical quality at all. When you buy that 35/1.8 (disclaimer: I don't own that one) you are paying for the large aperture.

As I said before, take everything with a grain of salt.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Let's put it this way, most lenses doesn't make much difference once you stop down enough. I bet at f/11 most lenses give you similar result on sharpness alone. Distortion/CA/Color rendition, perhaps not so much. One more thing to be aware of is the fact that Nikon is now trailing in the megapixel race. I am perfectly fine with 10mp, but I would expect them to double the resolution pretty soon just because Canon has more pixels, may be even within this year. By then, the consumer zooms will lose the "advantage" of out resolving a "low resolution" sensor.

Other people here know more than I do, so correct me if I'm wrong guys, but I thought the theoretical limit for an APS-C sensor was something around 16mp, at which point anything more is useless (and possibly detrimental). At that point, you want to move to larger sensor sizes.

Also, Nikon has made it a point not to get to heavily involved in the MP war with their pro cameras, and instead focuses on better noise performance. There are quite a few pros out there who prefer nikon's viewpoint vs. canon's. I don't want to see more MP for MP's sake, I'd much rather have been noise performance. This is why cameras like the D300, D3, etc were so highly acclaimed, they pushed the boundaries on what people thought could be achieved with high ISO noise performance. I remember the first day they announced the D300. The High ISO test photos left me speechless.

I so badly wish I had a D300!!!

 

[choka]

I found this. I don't have time to read this in detail yet. If you believe this, then you are right about the limit.

Do Sensors &ldquo;Outresolve&rdquo; Lenses?

Personally, instead of more pixels, I hope for much more dynamic range instead. That way I don't need Cokin grad filters or the need to do HDR.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by choka /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kudos for the findings. I haven't been reading reviews for these kit lenses for a long long time. Not disputing your findings, but I had a 18-70 kit lens, after I bought my 50/1.8 and shot some tests, I never looked back. More food for thought... Not as good reviews on the 18-55: Nikon AF-S DX 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 G EDII 18-55mm AF-S DX Lens Review by Thom Hogan <- this is for the 1st iteration of the lens now look at this: 18-55 Nikon Lens: Zooms - Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com! 35/1.8 Nikon Lens: Primes - Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Nikkor (Tested) - SLRgear.com! The main thing to look at is, the 35 is sharp almost from wide open. The 18-55 wide open? not so much. Stopping down to 5.6 makes it tack sharp though. (more food for thought. how much cherry picking do you think there is for lens tests out there?) Now read the verdits for the 18-55 on photozone, I quote "The contrast level at large apertures (primarily wide-end) leaves something to be desired though." and "the build quality which is clearly sub-standard. This is probably a sufficient reason alone for some to think about the AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G DX or AF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G DX as alternative investments."

Vignetting and speed are almost always areas where the prime excels over the zoom, this is true. Contrast and color rendition are arguable, it varies from lens to lens. What I have been merely stating though is that, in practice, as Bigshot also stated, zooms have often caught up to the general performance of primes. Yes, we can stare at graphs and charts all day long and argue the validity of each's findings but the fact of the matter is that either produce stunning images when used properly. Gone are the atrocities like the 43-86mm that gave zooms a bad name (Yes, this one was that bad, I still own one). Today, for the bulk of what non-pro shooters do, there's just not as significant a performance gap between zooms and primes as purists argue, and comments like the Joe Wilson style, "LIES!!!" are rather unfounded.

Looking at the cutting edge zooms like the 14-24mm and the 24-70mm, zooms have actually begun to eclipse, not underwhelm, their prime counterparts. For absolutists or for very specific tasks like macros or portraits, yes primes will of course outperform zooms for the most part. However, will they do it in a significant enough manner to justify the price and flexibility trade-offs for the majority of casual shooters? I'd venture to say no. I picked up my 18-55mm VR for just $91 and it suits my personal needs better than the $600 20mm f/2.8 I was considering beforehand. I respect primes, I own a bunch actually (My all time favorite is still my 35mm f/1.4), but I also don't scoff at the performance and versatility that zooms have to offer.

 

[bigshot]

Let's put it this way, most lenses doesn't make much difference once you stop down enough.

Gosh, that sounds familiar. You might find that some of my earlier comments in this thread are more reasonable than you might have thought before.

 

[bigshot]

Gone are the atrocities like the 43-86mm that gave zooms a bad name (Yes, this one was that bad, I still own one).

I own one too. I know exactly how zooms got a bad name- but it wasn't really sharpness as much as it was flat contrast and hideous distortion. When I went digital, my preconceptions got an arsekicking. In addition to learning that zooms could be great, I also learned that third party lenses were often as good or better for some purposes as Nikon branded lenses. That revelation saved me a bundle and got me to where I wanted to be with my kit faster than I would have otherwise.

The nice thing about Ken Rockwell is that he doesn't buy into dogma or engage in theoretical analysis that doesn't apply to the real world. He takes the equipment out and uses it in practical applications, then he shows you the results. Knowing how he shoots and what he ends up with tells me MUCH more about whether a lens will suit my needs than some non-contextual chart or diagram. It doesn't matter if I shoot differently than him. I can figure out the "why" from his no nonsense approach and know if it applies to me.

For instance, I won't be going back to film anytime soon, but I understand what he is talking about when he extolls the virtues of getting scans off his slides from the lab. That is a LOT more convenient than it used to be, and it's capable of a lot better image quality than they typical DSLR. For me, I value immediacy over image quality. I'm a street shooter, not a landscape guy. That doesn't apply to me the same way it does to him.