To leave Hasselblad H4D 50?

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

Hi,

ACR and LR are the same.

Yes, raw converters may do apply sharpening, even if it is set to zero, Capture one was know to that. Hasselblad raw files work well with Camera Raw and LR, AFAIK. So using same raw converter gives like bananas to bananas comaprison.

I'll convert the Hasselblad file in ACR tomorrow and see.

Thanks,
Ed

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

The D800 is not even close...

Well, this week I will try a center and corner comparisons and see how that compares to the edge comparison.

Regards,
Ed

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

Simon,

Your work with the D800 is always stellar. What lenses to find to work well for you with the D800?

Thanks,
Ed

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I checked out the samples. Exposures differ a lot. My main issue is that the images don't have the same field of view. So any detail on Nikon needs something like 50 procent more enlargement compared with the others. Things could be made more similar by moving in closer with the Zeiss  or using a more equivalent focal length. It should be noted that it is very much more difficult to build a 14 mm lens than a 19 or 21 mm lens. Another observation is the the MFD images contain a lot of Moiré and the Nikon doesn't have. Tablecloth, shoestrings for instance.

If you process the images in LR4.4 with no lens corrections both lenses show color fringing (lateral chroma). Nikon is OLP filtered, so it needs more sharpening. Comparing detail is not possible because of different scales.

Enclosed, actual pixel views with and without lens corrections.

I would expect that a larger format camera would come out on top in any such comparison. Having a larger format gives just so many advantages.

Best regards
Erik

[FredBGG]

Here are the results:











Ed

PS - Please, please don't convert to animated gifs, anyone, if I had wanted to, I could've done that myself.

Nicely done test, but a test between Full Frame Zoom lenses that offer a wide focal length range compared to a
prime lens that is being used on a crop sensor so not really showing edge performance of the MF lens.
I would also add that the difference I see between the Zeiss 21mm and the Hasselblad is more about the contrast as well as exposure
and that is more of a raw converter difference. Also the Nikon shots are all about one stop brighter than the Hasselblad shot.
With a light subject (the statue) the more correct exposure will have more mid tones and hence shot more detail. 
I did a quick of the jpeg through ACR with sharpening lens correction etc off and made the exposure adjustment and it shows the same level of detail as the Hasselblad. The visual appearance of detail has a lot to do with exposure and tone too.

I think it's worth looking at the difference between a zoom on a Nikon and a prime on a Nikon.
Also testing rental gear is not a very reliable method.... I've seen all sorts of lens cleaning "methods"
used by pro's assistants and enthusiasts. Here are controlled tests with new gear and no lens corrections.

Nikon 17-35mm @ 5.6



Zeiss 21mm @ 5.6


The difference is huge.

This also indicates that lens correction software can be very effective.

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

Thanks, Fred.

First off, the comparisons are to evaluate potential lens candidates for my D800. I didn't feel as though my 10-year-old 17-35mm was up to par. Thus, I rented the Nikkor 14-24mm and Zeiss 21mm to begin evaluation against my 17-35mm. And, yes, your point is well taken with respect to rental equipment. Once I narrow my selection, I will only purchase where I can try multiple copies, either through an in person purchase or a no quibble 14 to 30 day return policy. As we know, not all lenses are equal.

I thought I may as well include the Hasselblad in the comparison as a benchmark as to what I hope to achieve with the D800 and not as a comparision to the Hasselblad. I don't call this a test, as I'm not trying to evaluate lenses in a controlled scientific manner but, under more real world conditions using the same workflow that I use near daily. After all, that's the way we work.

I think I've seen the chart slices you have posted before, which gave rise to my including the Zeiss (and my respect for Zeiss) in the comparisons. But,at the moment, I am not seeing this profound difference between my copy of the 17-35 and the Zeiss 21. But, then again I'm just beginning the comparison of these three lenses and, hey, maybe I have a great 17-35 and the Zeiss is a poor copy.

We'll see as I move along with this during the week.

Regards,
Ed

[Lust4Life]

Ed,

I am keenly interested in your "non-scientific" test results and await your "opinions".
My main focus is in primes as I've rarely seen a zoom I liked compared to a prime.

Jack

[FredBGG]

Hi Ed

Another thing to keep in mind when making such "HiFi" lens choices in a methodical manner as you are is the effect of distortion correction.

With most lens correction software one can choose what aspects to use in the correction. When correcting a landscape of rolling irregular hills for example it's not very important to correct for lens distortion thus not losing both composition and resolution.
It's important to remember that any movement of pixels results in interpolation and as a result of that a loss of resolution.

When looking to the very best IQ it's worth using ones lenses with different levels of lens correction.

Using or not using lens distortion correction will make a bigger difference with zooms that tend to have more distortion.

Another interesting point that was pointed out to me by a leading Hollywood DP who is also an excellent
stills photographer is that with equipment with very high IQ the difference in IQ is nearly always masked by other
factors such as haze, thermal distortion through the air, dust in the air etc. That said there are many locations where the air is so rediculously
crisp such as Arizona that even small high end differences can be seen, however the type of images that are taken in such super crisp
conditions start to get creepy sharp.

Then there's are a few images in my portfolio that has been repeatedly pointed out by my clients as the one's that tipped their choice in  my favor...
One is a studio shot where I shot with one strobe and one tungsten light because it was all I had and I accidently touched the stand durring the exposure moving it a bit, the other is a rather unsteady hand held shot with that giant brick of a Fuji gx680.

But I still think the quest for high IQ is of importance.

[FredBGG]

Thanks, Fred.
....
But, then again I'm just beginning the comparison of these three lenses and, hey, maybe I have a great 17-35 and the Zeiss is a poor copy.
....

Regards,
Ed

No... the 17-35mm is like a fine wine... it needs to age a bit.

However I think you are right that if one is looking for the very highest in quality with these sensors with such high pixel density
for the tougher lenses to make testing several copies can show a difference that would be seen with the largest enlargements.

I think it's safe to say that this is more the case for standard to wide angle lenses that medium tele.
I've always found medium tele lenses to be the best and most consistent even between brands.
Makes life easier for portrait/fashion photographers I guess.

[RVB]

Hi,

I checked out the samples. Exposures differ a lot. My main issue is that the images don't have the same field of view. So any detail on Nikon needs something like 50 procent more enlargement compared with the others. Things could be made more similar by moving in closer with the Zeiss  or using a more equivalent focal length. It should be noted that it is very much more difficult to build a 14 mm lens than a 19 or 21 mm lens. Another observation is the the MFD images contain a lot of Moiré and the Nikon doesn't have. Tablecloth, shoestrings for instance.

If you process the images in LR4.4 with no lens corrections both lenses show color fringing (lateral chroma). Nikon is OLP filtered, so it needs more sharpening. Comparing detail is not possible because of different scales.

Enclosed, actual pixel views with and without lens corrections.

I would expect that a larger format camera would come out on top in any such comparison. Having a larger format gives just so many advantages.

Best regards
Erik

Exposure does differ but it was natural light in the evening and the light was falling fast,what I did hope to achieve was to illustrate the different look of MF images,and also the better color correction and corner performance..

Rob

[RVB]

Nicely done test, but a test between Full Frame Zoom lenses that offer a wide focal length range compared to a
prime lens that is being used on a crop sensor so not really showing edge performance of the MF lens.
I would also add that the difference I see between the Zeiss 21mm and the Hasselblad is more about the contrast as well as exposure
and that is more of a raw converter difference. Also the Nikon shots are all about one stop brighter than the Hasselblad shot.
With a light subject (the statue) the more correct exposure will have more mid tones and hence shot more detail. 
I did a quick of the jpeg through ACR with sharpening lens correction etc off and made the exposure adjustment and it shows the same level of detail as the Hasselblad. The visual appearance of detail has a lot to do with exposure and tone too.

I think it's worth looking at the difference between a zoom on a Nikon and a prime on a Nikon.
Also testing rental gear is not a very reliable method.... I've seen all sorts of lens cleaning "methods"
used by pro's assistants and enthusiasts. Here are controlled tests with new gear and no lens corrections.

Nikon 17-35mm @ 5.6



Zeiss 21mm @ 5.6


The difference is huge.

This also indicates that lens correction software can be very effective.

We need to empty a healthy level of caution with test charts when wide angles are used,field curvature will play a hand in most cases.. Having said that most people who have used the zeiss 21mm have good things to report,I used one with a D3X a few years ago and it was pretty good although it does have the tricky mustache distortion ,but even that can be dealt with by PT lens...

Rob

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

Ed,
I am keenly interested in your "non-scientific" test results and await your "opinions".
My main focus is in primes as I've rarely seen a zoom I liked compared to a prime.

This week I'll be continuing with the two I've rented. When I was doing more photojournalism, the zooms were a bonus, but now that type of work is more documentary where I have time and space and am not needing to lug two or three bodies, so I can utilize primes, which I have always believed to be superior. Plus, weight is a factor. I thought my 17-35 was a beast, but that 14-24 feels like a bazooka, especially compared to the diminutive Zeiss.

Regards,
Ed

[HarperPhotos]

Hi Ed,

Yes I use Nikon lenses on my Nikon D800 and Nikon D800E. I've tried the Zeiss primes and I found them not that good personally I think its all marketing bs when it comes to Zeiss.

My Nikon lenses I use are:

Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fisheye lens
Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 G lens
Nikon 16-35mm F4.0 VRII G lens
Nikon 70-210mm F2.8 VRII G lens
Nikon 24-85mm  F3.5-4.5 VRII G lens
Nikon 24mm F3.5 PC-E lens
Nikon 28mm F1.8 G lens
Nikon 35mm F1.4 G lens
Nikon 35mm F2.8 shift lens
Nikon 45mm F2.8 PC-E lens
Nikon 50mm F1.4 G lens
Nikon 60mm F2.8 G lens
Nikon 85mm F1.4 G lens
Nikon 85mm F2.8 PC-E lens
Nikon 300mm F4.0 D lens
Nikon TC-14E Teleconverter
Nikon TC-17E II Teleconverter

And some old Nikon manual primes.

There are only two other lenses I would like but Nikon haven't made them yet which would be a Nikon 28mm F1.4 lens and my dream lens would be a Nikon 17mm PC-E lens.

The new G lenses from Nikon are simply superb in resolution with there new Nano coatings.

I also use a Horseman VVC adaptor for my table top work, art reproduction and some car shots. This adaptor for me is indispensable the lenses I use on it are,

Rodenstock 60mm, 135mm, 150mm Rodagon lenses
Rodenstock 75mm, 80mm, 105mm, 120mm Apo Rodagon lenses

All these lenses I bought second hand on EBay and are fantastic.

Cheers

Simon

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Simon,

Lens Rentals have done a lot of tests, and they seem to have found that the Zeiss lenses have some benefits. It depends on much how you shoot. Most good lenses are pretty good at f/5.6 or so, past that diffraction may come into play. For instance the new Apo Sonnar 135/2 is very sharp at full aperture but at f/5.6 the Canon 135/2 is as good as the Zeiss, according to some testing at lens renatl.

I have tested four Zeiss lenses of my own, two ZA-zooms for Sony and two Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. All those lenses are good, but I don't see the magic.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Ed,

Yes I use Nikon lenses on my Nikon D800 and Nikon D800E. I've tried the Zeiss primes and I found them not that good personally I think its all marketing bs when it comes to Zeiss.

My Nikon lenses I use are:

Sigma 15mm F2.8 Fisheye lens
Nikon 14-24mm F2.8 G lens
Nikon 16-35mm F4.0 VRII G lens
Nikon 70-210mm F2.8 VRII G lens
Nikon 24-85mm  F3.5-4.5 VRII G lens
Nikon 24mm F3.5 PC-E lens
Nikon 28mm F1.8 G lens
Nikon 35mm F1.4 G lens
Nikon 35mm F2.8 shift lens
Nikon 45mm F2.8 PC-E lens
Nikon 50mm F1.4 G lens
Nikon 60mm F2.8 G lens
Nikon 85mm F1.4 G lens
Nikon 85mm F2.8 PC-E lens
Nikon 300mm F4.0 D lens
Nikon TC-14E Teleconverter
Nikon TC-17E II Teleconverter

And some old Nikon manual primes.

There are only two other lenses I would like but Nikon haven't made them yet which would be a Nikon 28mm F1.4 lens and my dream lens would be a Nikon 17mm PC-E lens.

The new G lenses from Nikon are simply superb in resolution with there new Nano coatings.

I also use a Horseman VVC adaptor for my table top work, art reproduction and some car shots. This adaptor for me is indispensable the lenses I use on it are,

Rodenstock 60mm, 135mm, 150mm Rodagon lenses
Rodenstock 75mm, 80mm, 105mm, 120mm Apo Rodagon lenses

All these lenses I bought second hand on EBay and are fantastic.

Cheers

Simon

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

Simon,

Thanks for the list. I am trying the 14-24 at the moment. The Horseman VVC Adaptor looks interesting especially for tabletop work.

Regards,
Ed

[RVB]

Please define what you have seen as a "good price" for the S2?

Jack

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/gear-fs-wtb/45377-fs-eu-germany-leica-s2-body.html

[Gigi]

A different recommendation, as it seems weight issue is really key.

Leica M
Sony RX1 (fixed lens)
and if you really want quality above all else, Alpa TC with a back.

One goal is to shoot with a single lens, if possible. If not, Leica is your friend.
Alternatives for the RX-1 include the Fuji and Sigma.

[RVB]

Hi Ed,

 I've tried the Zeiss primes and I found them not that good personally I think its all marketing bs when it comes to Zeiss.

Cheers

Simon

I was curious about Zeiss compared to Nikkor..  here is a link with an aperture series from the Zeiss 15mm compared to the Nikkor 14-24.. the Zeiss benefits from less CA in general and better flare control as well as no focus shift and the Nikkor has AF and covers a Zoom range....

https://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJnZUNqVEhWRDlwdmNUQw

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

I was curious about Zeiss compared to Nikkor..  here is a link with an aperture series from the Zeiss 15mm compared to the Nikkor 14-24.. the Zeiss benefits from less CA in general and better flare control as well as no focus shift and the Nikkor has AF and covers a Zoom range....

https://www.yousendit.com/download/UVJnZUNqVEhWRDlwdmNUQw

Thanks for the files, they make for a good comparison. The Nikkor does have more aberration but both clean up rather well with the lens profile in ACR. The Zeiss does appear to have a touch more inherent contrast and a touch better detail in the fabric of the sofa, but from what I'm seeing, there is not really an appreciable difference. From what I'm seeing here I would tend to opt for the Nikkor 14-24mm - for my needs - considering the AF advantage. I really thought I would see a notable difference between a prime and a zoom.

At the moment, I am seeing about the same thing comparing a Zeiss 21mm against a Nikkor 14-24mm, however, the Zeiss 21mm has a nasty handlebar moustache distortion (though it mostly is corrected with the lens profile). I am continuing to shoot with those two and comparing them to my 10-year-old AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1:2.8D ED, and the 28mm on a Hasselblad H4D-31 for reference.

Thanks again for the files,
Ed
 

[RVB]

Thanks for the files, they make for a good comparison. The Nikkor does have more aberration but both clean up rather well with the lens profile in ACR. The Zeiss does appear to have a touch more inherent contrast and a touch better detail in the fabric of the sofa, but from what I'm seeing, there is not really an appreciable difference. From what I'm seeing here I would tend to opt for the Nikkor 14-24mm - for my needs - considering the AF advantage. I really thought I would see a notable difference between a prime and a zoom.

At the moment, I am seeing about the same thing comparing a Zeiss 21mm against a Nikkor 14-24mm, however, the Zeiss 21mm has a nasty handlebar moustache distortion (though it mostly is corrected with the lens profile). I am continuing to shoot with those two and comparing them to my 10-year-old AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1:2.8D ED, and the 28mm on a Hasselblad H4D-31 for reference.

Thanks again for the files,
Ed
 
Hi Ed

I think the advantages of the Zeiss are better flare control when shooting into the sun,backlighting etc,slightly higher resolution in the center of the frame and the ability to use a filter,it also transmits more light,at the same aperture's the Zeiss is a little brighter,But the Nikkor zoom is a great lens and very versatile as well as a lot cheaper ...

Rob