Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate  (Read 9036 times)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2011, 08:44:38 pm »

Hi,

Lloyd Chambers, AKA Diglloyd, makes a lot of semiscientific comparisons of lenses, mostly Nkon and Zeiss using real pictures. I'm no longer subscribing to his Zeiss site, but at least some of the Zeiss lenses perform really better than corresponding Nikon lenses. Than some lenses can have better bookeh.

Most large aperture lenses suffer from axial chromatic aberration, something that is quite visible if you know what to look for, but Zeiss lenses do not really perform that much better.

These differences may be small. At around f/8 most lenses perform pretty well, but many lenses can still have weak corners. Some lenses are very good, the Zeiss 21/2.8 is such a lens, but so is the Nikon 14-24/2.8.

Best regards
Erik

In a blind test? Same subject, same everything (but the lens), two sets of pictures labeled only on the back? And no peeking? After a bottle of pinot noir (of your choice)?
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2011, 12:02:19 am »

Very good remark indeed.

And then, once you really have experience, you can better describe what you feel in your palais (or in your eyes)... just as I'd like to have some illustrations of the praised qualities of a given lens.
As we say, "ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement" (Boileau) - what you clearly think of, you can clearly describe.
I may not fit that well in your statistics... I generally can't tell lenses, but it may only be that I've been more educated to wine than to lenses.

Lenses, as wine, exhibit a certain personality...it's been my experience over the years that German lenses tend to show better sharpness and contrast but don't do well being pointed at a light source because of flare due to the design of the lens.

In my experience, Japanese lenses tend to mitigate flare and a variety of other lens defects at the expense of the sharpness and contrast of the lens.

Even within the range of Germain lenses there are slight variations...I've always tended towards Zeiss lenses...basically because of using Blads for many years (and avoiding aiming at light sources).

For view camera lenses, I tended towards Rodenstock for certain focal lengths but Schneider for others...this compares with preferring certain wine varietals vs others (or certain vintage years vs others).

The differences between lenses (like wine) can be subtle...some bottles (and lenses) can be better than others...

The bottom line is can a certain lens (or bottle of wine) enhance your life (or images)? The answer is potentially yes...if, the lens (or wine) might make a difference...

Personally, I'm not sure which is more fun, testing wine or lenses...
Logged

DaveCurtis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 508
    • http://www.magiclight.co.nz
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2011, 01:25:06 am »

Personally, I'm not sure which is more fun, testing wine or lenses...

Try both,  the wine then the lens. :)
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2011, 02:01:59 am »

Try both,  the wine then the lens. :)

The wine then the lens, the lens then the wine...vicious circle. Not sure where to stop!

:~)
Logged

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1471
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2011, 02:53:50 am »

Why not add to the analogy… wine and cheese tasting or lens and post-processing tasting. ACR, DxO, et al. certainly add their bit to the final image.

Cheers,

Logged
Tom Brown

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2011, 03:47:31 am »

Shoot the same subject at the same time with two lenses, strip exif and compare images. Have someone else help number/label the images so you don't know which ones are which. Or even if it's not a double blind comparison, shoot the same image with two lenses and see what the differences truly are.

Too often a person will go out with their favored lens, shoot a bunch of images and come back and see "the magic properties". Then they'll look at a whole series of other images shot with another lens under totally different circumstances and conclude that they lack those same "magic" properties.  Once you start comparing truly similar images side by side, the differences tend to be much smaller or nonexistent.

I'm not saying there's no difference between lenses, because there definitely is. It just helps to remove the "magic, 3D, ethereal, perceptual" mystique and just look at plain old A vs B.

I think I have to apologize.
My comment was meant as a sort of joke / play with the language.
With a medical background I am fairly knowledgeable with double blind tests and the like.
Sorry.
 :P

kaelaria

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2223
    • http://www.bgpictures.com
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2011, 04:32:42 am »

I would love to see two shots in the same setup with that lens and another, showing one as '3D' and one as not to illustrate because I'm not clear on what that is meant to explain, image wise.
Logged

Craig Arnold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 219
    • Craig Arnold's Photography
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2011, 05:43:12 am »

I am extremely cynical about peoples' performance in double-blind tests where any kind of connoisseurship is claimed.

The human brain is not generally designed that way. Experts in hifi-audio, wine, lenses, etc. can often perform slightly better than chance though the general public cannot.

An awful lot of effort goes into producing very marginal results, and then somehow those people who can perform ever-so-slightly better than the rest of us claim a degree of superiority which is vastly disproportional to their actual performance under test conditions.

Michael's comparison between the G10 and MFDB shows this very clearly.

Quote
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

I'd happily take bets on wine tasting, audio comparison and the like.

The emperor is usually naked.

 
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2011, 04:23:57 pm »

I am extremely cynical about peoples' performance in double-blind tests where any kind of connoisseurship is claimed.

The human brain is not generally designed that way. Experts in hifi-audio, wine, lenses, etc. can often perform slightly better than chance though the general public cannot.

An awful lot of effort goes into producing very marginal results, and then somehow those people who can perform ever-so-slightly better than the rest of us claim a degree of superiority which is vastly disproportional to their actual performance under test conditions.

Michael's comparison between the G10 and MFDB shows this very clearly.

I'd happily take bets on wine tasting, audio comparison and the like.

The emperor is usually naked.


That's just another of the sad parts of life - should be the Empress; then you'd never hear anyone complain, not even the Republican Tendency. Will they never learn?

Rob C

Vivec

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
    • http://www.daanvisuals.com
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2011, 04:36:58 pm »

Even though I am an avid Zeiss lens user, I also believed that it was a bit of lens 'snobbery' and that there would be little difference between high-end lenses. Then, I stumbled on this excellent blind test of Zeiss versus Canon L lenses:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0

To my own surprise, I identified 100% of the Zeiss images! And I was not the only one, I think it was about 88% of the respondents. Interestingly, both the L and Zeiss lenses are of the highest quality and there is little difference in MTF values and sharpness. So what is it what allows people to see the difference? I guess we can measure it, but it is somewhat unclear what it is that we should be measuring -- much like the chemistry in the wine I guess :-)

Then there are lenses like the Sony/Minolta 135mm STF whose bokeh is immediately recognisable in any comparison.
Logged

Ben Rubinstein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1822
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2011, 06:26:12 pm »

What would interests me is how much these often miniscule differences have ever resulted in revenue....
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2011, 07:43:31 pm »

Hi,

A major difference is that the some lenses vignette more than the others. Very clearly A1 vignettes much less than A2. But some folks like vignetting. If the images are converted by LR and LR has lens profiles it may eliminate vignetting. C1 and C2 has also an obvious difference in vignetting. C1 has none and C2 a lot. The vignetting issue very obvious in the A1/A2 and C1/C2 pair.

Comparing small images has more to do with rendition than detail. Now rendering is said to be identical, but that's never that easy

I'd also suggest that some of the images are oversharpened. Not saying that it gives unfair advantage to any lens, as long as oversharpening is same.

Some lenses are truly excellent. The Zeiss 21/2.8 is for instance known for it's excellence while Canon's 16-35/2.8 is know to be quite weak in some areas. Now, comparing a prime with a zoom is like comparing apples and oranges. Another lens in the test that is known for it's excellence is the Zeiss 100/2.0 macro.

My preferences

A1,C1,D1,E1

So it's two times Canon and two times Zeiss, and my guess is that A1 and C1 had automatic optical correction for vignetting applied.

Best regards
Erik


Even though I am an avid Zeiss lens user, I also believed that it was a bit of lens 'snobbery' and that there would be little difference between high-end lenses. Then, I stumbled on this excellent blind test of Zeiss versus Canon L lenses:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/983404/0

To my own surprise, I identified 100% of the Zeiss images! And I was not the only one, I think it was about 88% of the respondents. Interestingly, both the L and Zeiss lenses are of the highest quality and there is little difference in MTF values and sharpness. So what is it what allows people to see the difference? I guess we can measure it, but it is somewhat unclear what it is that we should be measuring -- much like the chemistry in the wine I guess :-)

Then there are lenses like the Sony/Minolta 135mm STF whose bokeh is immediately recognisable in any comparison.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2011, 07:55:00 pm by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Vivec

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
    • http://www.daanvisuals.com
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2011, 08:43:56 pm »

Hi Erik,
Perhaps you over-analysed the photos by looking at specific traits like the vignetting difference. I just picked what I found most appealing after looking at it for 3 seconds  ;)

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on the validity of the test I linked to.
The reason I brought it up is to say that I do think there is more to a lens than just MTF numbers, and yes, I do think that in a blind test many people can see the difference (as evidenced by the linked test). That we lack a well-defined measure for it doesn't necessarily make it 'a phantom of the mind'.

I often use an older Minolta 35mm lens that often gives a really nice ummm, 'dreamy' look to an image that I have not seen from my modern zooms at 35mm. What is it? Perhaps uncompensated abberrations, perhaps lead in the glass, who knows -- but the images do have a subtle quality to it that I do not see on some more modern lenses.
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2011, 12:13:35 am »

Hi,

The point is that in two cases there was a very obvious difference, namely dark corners.

The other point is that it should not be possible to discern differences in sharpness on images reduced by about a factor five. You can see about each fifth pixel.

On the A and C pair of images the difference was very obvious and it was very obvious that there was vignetting. The D and E pairs were much harder to tell apart, at least for me.

On wide angles there is always some darkening in the corners. The corners sort of "light upp" when you apply correction in software. The A1 and C1 samples certainly looked like corrected in software.

Best regards
Erik


Hi Erik,
Perhaps you over-analysed the photos by looking at specific traits like the vignetting difference. I just picked what I found most appealing after looking at it for 3 seconds  ;)

Anyway, I don't want to derail this thread into a discussion on the validity of the test I linked to.
The reason I brought it up is to say that I do think there is more to a lens than just MTF numbers, and yes, I do think that in a blind test many people can see the difference (as evidenced by the linked test). That we lack a well-defined measure for it doesn't necessarily make it 'a phantom of the mind'.

I often use an older Minolta 35mm lens that often gives a really nice ummm, 'dreamy' look to an image that I have not seen from my modern zooms at 35mm. What is it? Perhaps uncompensated abberrations, perhaps lead in the glass, who knows -- but the images do have a subtle quality to it that I do not see on some more modern lenses.
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

schrodingerscat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 374
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2011, 12:50:14 pm »

Hi,

The point is that in two cases there was a very obvious difference, namely dark corners.

The other point is that it should not be possible to discern differences in sharpness on images reduced by about a factor five. You can see about each fifth pixel.

On the A and C pair of images the difference was very obvious and it was very obvious that there was vignetting. The D and E pairs were much harder to tell apart, at least for me.

On wide angles there is always some darkening in the corners. The corners sort of "light upp" when you apply correction in software. The A1 and C1 samples certainly looked like corrected in software.

Best regards
Erik



I have a 28mm Elmarit(2.8) M that shows no discernable vignetting at f8. I have a friend with high end Canon gear who adds vignetting in post on many of his images. We both use full frame and have about the same investment value in our systems. It is a bit funny that he actually adds an effect that is often described as a defect in optical design.

Like wine and the rest of the universe, it's all subjective. There usually seems to be two distinct camps in these discussions. Those who approach a photograph like any other work of art, taking it in it's entirety, and those who press their nose against it, primarily considering the technical aspects. Our perceptions can change from moment to moment, depending on our mental and physical condition and the environment. Add to this mix the tendency to manipulate images(data), and often you have to question whether you can trust your own eyes/brain.

In the end, gear is just a tool. It either produces the desired result or it doesn't. And my desired result may be quite different from that of other's.
Logged

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1715
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2011, 02:46:41 pm »

Some things lend themselves to technical analysis. Some things don't. Lenses and sensors fall between these camps.

I don't think that what people are looking for here is technical analysis of photos (a la DxO) but rather something to illustrate the qualities that are mentioned. Count me in the group that read this article and have no clue about what it is that this lens may or may not look like when performing various tasks.

Although there was perhaps one aspect that I may have been able to gain some insight into - the ascribed "3D-ness" of photos: in the second photo where the flag behind the girl sitting at the computer is clearly out of focus but not obscured by really large bokeh. At least I think that's the right conclusion to draw (I'm looking past the digital noise of the camera itself.)

When I look at the first photo, I'm really confused ... it has a certain look to it, but I don't know if the look is because of the lens, camera, the combination or something else. I can see that it is a bit different but I don't know why...

I suppose it may be that this review doesn't really have much of anything for those that don't already own some of the other products mentioned in it?
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Short comment re: The Lens People Love to Hate
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2011, 04:02:43 am »

Hi,

My point is more about telling apart lenses from small JPEG images. In the samples we discussed there was an obvious difference, and that was very clearly the amount of vignetting.

All wide angles vignette, according to something called cosinus four. Probably one of the images had vignetting removed in processing. I'm very much seeing a similar difference in Lightroom switching "lens corrections" on and off.

Some vendors supply Adobe with calculated data for all their lenses, I think Canon and Sigma does that.

Best regards
Erik

I have a 28mm Elmarit(2.8) M that shows no discernable vignetting at f8. I have a friend with high end Canon gear who adds vignetting in post on many of his images. We both use full frame and have about the same investment value in our systems. It is a bit funny that he actually adds an effect that is often described as a defect in optical design.

Like wine and the rest of the universe, it's all subjective. There usually seems to be two distinct camps in these discussions. Those who approach a photograph like any other work of art, taking it in it's entirety, and those who press their nose against it, primarily considering the technical aspects. Our perceptions can change from moment to moment, depending on our mental and physical condition and the environment. Add to this mix the tendency to manipulate images(data), and often you have to question whether you can trust your own eyes/brain.

In the end, gear is just a tool. It either produces the desired result or it doesn't. And my desired result may be quite different from that of other's.

« Last Edit: July 22, 2011, 05:15:16 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up