Newer lenses compared to old? (flare, CA, fringing)

I know the new 50mm 1.4 isn't shipping yet. and nothing else new has been announced yet, But I'm wondering if

anyone would have an idea of what to expect.

 

There aren't any medium wide AFS primes yet, which is what I am interested in, Since the 24-70 seems to have

stellar image quality I could only assume than any new primes will be as good or better. Could someone compare

the 24-70 to say the 50 1.8 ?

 

I'm attaching an image taken from my 50mm. It is wonderfully sharp, but the other day when taking some snow

photos I noticed some blue fringing. It appeared everywhere but the center of the image on my D50, at all the

high contrast edges. The lens is pretty new and in good shape so I can only assume this is "normal" for it. and

I'm hoping someone could say whether they feel that their 24-70 (and then presumably new AFS primes) performs

better than the 50mm in this department.

 

All the current primes use older coatings do they not? while newer better ones have been incorporated into modern

zooms?

 

I'd like 28, 50 and 85 primes, but I'm in no hurry, and I'd be kicking myself if I bought these D lenses just to

have the AF-S ones come out in the next year or 2, with better coatings and image quality. But if they're going

to be no better, then perhaps I should save some money and buy the older D models now...<div></div>

full image<div></div>

Are you sure parts of the snow are not clipped? Just a thought.

 

I am currently using AF-D primes from 50mm to 180mm, an Ai-S 28/2, - all of them work really

well on FX and reasonably well on the D200.

 

I also have the more modern 24mm PC-E, 60mm AF-S, 105mm AF-S and 300/4 AF-S and they have somewhat different

imaging characteristics

than the previous generation of primes - and you can consider them an evolution of a sort - they're a bit less

prone to purple fringing and the bokeh is a bit better but in many cases I love the characteristics of the older

ones also.

 

The latest Nikon DSLRs, starting with the D300 and D3, when you look at images processed in camera (JPG/TIFF) or

NEF files converted with NX have reduced CA compared with the previous generation. I think it's a combination of

the design of the AA filter, the microlenses, and software/firmware. I think if you upgrade your camera to a

newer model you might find these problems gone with your 50/1.8. Just something to consider.

 

My recommendation is to not purchase an AF-D wide angle prime at this time; Nikon has been updating their lenses

from the superteles down to AF-S and the latest is the 50/1.4 AF-S. The wide angle primes are a logical extension

of this development, particularly since the optics of the WA AF-D prime lenses aren't up to date.

The 28/2.8 AF-D is an "ok" lens which has high contrast & nice colors, is quite resistant to flare and ghosting

but it has some CA at wide apertures and isn't all that sharp until stopped down to f/5.6-f/8. The wider than

28mm Nikon primes in my opinion are problematic on FX and I

don't recommend them, though some like the 24mm and the 20mm. The 35/2 AF-D on the other hand is

a good lens, compact, nice colour and good sharpness except at f/2 and in the full 24x36 image corners there is

softness. If you need an autofocus prime

lens right now and can't wait, the 35 would be my recommendation. The AF- S replacements probably will be

announced relatively soon and I would expect them to be excellent. If the 24mm PC-E is an indication of the

quality Nikon is capable of in a wide angle prime (not wide open though), it'll be worth the wait.

 

The 24-70 is a really nice zoom lens, and some people say it's better than primes in its

range. I think it's very good but only in a few instances "better" than the best of the primes. I've done a lot

of side by side testing and I have found that the 24-70 is optimized for close range and

wide apertures. At f/8 and/or at infinity the 25mm ZF and the 24mm PC-E are significantly better. At 35mm and at

50mm the ZF primes are better than the zoom even at f/2.8 and without having done a direct comparison I would

expect the Nikon 50/1.8 and 50/1.8 also to be better than the 24-70 at f/2.8. However, at 24mm at f/2.8-f/4 and

2m distance the 24-70 is the sharpest and and cleanest of my 24mm-25mm lenses.

 

My recommendation: If you are like me, and like prime lenses I think it's safe to buy current autofocus primes

from 50mm on up, they all perform amiably. For the wide angle primes I recommend that you only buy those that you

absolutely need right now, or if you can use manual focus, the Nikon 35/1.4 and 28/2 are really quite good and

the 24mm PC-E is excellent at small apertures and versatile because of the movements, but it's not small.... If

you can wait, I believe there will be new AF-S primes which will be better on digital than the current ones.

 

If you have no preference for primes and just want whatever autofocus wide angle that works best and is available

today, the 14-24, 24-70, 17-35 f/2.8 lenses are all great lenses (though large and expensive). To me, I prefer to

use a manual focus prime rather than such a large zoom, even if there is a slight performance penalty.

Might just be the high-contrast nature of the image, too. That makes CA more apparent. However, it's relatively easy to

correct with a lot of Post-processing software...

I photo at night a lot, and the older lenses just weren't performing for me. While they were sharp enough, they didn't have the modern coatings, didn't have the rear coatings, and weren't of the new aspherical design. I got plenty of CA, ghosting, and some distortion. I got rid of those lenses and switched to the latest pro f2.8 zooms. They perform better for me, and I am a happy camper. I've never been happy with fixed length lenses anyway. Seems like I was always missing fast breaking shots because I had on the wrong lens, and I really don't like doing lenses changes in the blizzards and dust storms I sometimes photo in. Seems to me that a DSLR is all about being quick and light. I think the "prime lens mystique" is a holdover from the 1960s, when they couldn't make the high tech zooms of today.

 

 

Kent in SD

Kent, my prime lens use is not an issue of mystique. I simply cannot afford some of the really high end new zooms, so I like the prime lenses. The zooms that I do have are not anywhere close to as sharp as the prime lenses that I use. I'm not doing the same sort of photography that you are either, so your applications obviously don't work well w/ prime lenses, where as mine do.

Peter, I to am anxious to see the image quality of the new prime lenses they are releasing. I have doubts they are much better then what you can currently get. Sounds like a better AF system and maybe more resistant to flare and CA's?

 

I will say that the price point of the new 50mm 1.4 AF-S is ridiculous...unless that lens is so much better then everything else previous?

Prime lenses aren't about "mystique". They are much smaller at equal FL and maximum aperture. Assuming equal resources and technology is available for their design and manufacture, they also give better image quality. Just like not all zooms are equal, not all primes are suitable for all tasks. There are many primes which are very resistant to flare and ghosting for night photography, and these special primes are far better in that respect the f/2.8 zooms. These lenses include the 28/2 Ai-S Nikkor for wide angle, the 105/2 DC Nikkor for short tele and the 180/2.8 AF-D for medium tele. The rather modern 17-55mm f/2.8 DX Nikkor is extremely prone to ghosting when bright light sources are in the frame, such as in photos taken in city street light or worse yet at construction sites which use very bright un-diffused point-like lights. The simple 28/2.8 AF-D performed much better for that kind of scenes, and the 28/2 Ai-S is even better. While there are zooms better than the 17-55 in this respect, such as the new 24-70/2.8, which is very hard to make show visible ghosting, in a side by side "burn test" of shooting into the undiffused sun, the 25/2.8 ZF retained high contrast in the image, whereas the 24-70 did not ghost but it flared heavily, resulting in a low contrast image where the sun had effectively diffused into the image and made it brighter than it should be, and reduced the contrast of objects in the vicinity of the sun.

<p>

The problem is that you need to know exactly which prime (from all primes ever made for the F mount) to use for a particular type of shot to get the benefits. When you have more than 15 of them, it's fairly simple task to pick one that is better than a f/2.8 for a particular shot. :-)

<p>

<i>I've never been happy with fixed length lenses anyway. Seems like I was always missing fast breaking shots because I had on the wrong lens, and I really don't like doing lenses changes in the blizzards and dust storms I sometimes photo in.</i>

<p>

Yes, there is an inconvenience when you have to change lenses. But to me carrying a 1kg lens instead of a 200g lens is also an inconvenience. I am almost embarrassed when I carry the 24-70 or a f/2.8 telezoom in public - everybody is looking at the camera. I am left at peace to do my photography when I use just a little prime. I use the 24-70 in blizzards also, although I use a lot of protection. I don't enjoy getting my cameras exposed to the elements either. But when the weather clears up I will leave the big zooms at home and feel relief. ;-)

<p>

<i>Seems to me that a DSLR is all about being quick and light.</i>

<p>

How are lenses like the f/2.8 zooms "light"? Anyway, soon there won't be anything else but digital cameras around, so it's not about convenience any more. It's the only option. And the quality of digitally captured images is typically better than film based images unless you use a really large piece of film or do black and white photographs.

thanks everyone!

I actually just picked up a 28 2.8 MF lens yesterday for $25 (close focus version) and am eager to try that out as well

 

Illka could you perhaps tell my a bit more about the D300's ability to reduce CA? I find doing it in photoshop to be quite difficult. This blue fringing I just tried to get rid of now and all I could do it reduce it a bit with the Lens Correction tool, before the cyan/magenta fringing started showing up. Anyone have a better way of dealing with CA than those two slider? I find those affect the entire image anyways so even if I can get the corners fixed reasonable then all of a sudden I have a cyan/magenta fringe popping out in the center of my image.

Thanks for your lens list as well Illka, I could be very interested in the 24 PCE. does it work at all with DX bodies though? I don't think I'll be buying an FX body until it's down in the $1500 range.

 

I would very much like to use 24/28 2.8, 50mm 1.8, 85 1.4, 180 2.8, and 300 f4 primes on an FX body that I will eventually have.

 

Chad the pricing of these new lenses concerns me also though. $200 more for the AFS version of the 50 1.4. Which means the 50 1.8 will probably be $150 more, the 28, 85, and 180 probably $250-400 more!

 

That would be getting into the price range of the pro zooms for sure...

 

Oh I double checked that image and it WAS slightly overexposed at the very edges. but I have another identical image exposed 2/3 lower and the CA is still very present.

I have the 55mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor AIS lens and it can produce as good of quality as any of the modern f2.8 zooms, and it only cost me $50. It's pretty much welded to my D700 now.

As hinted, all this depends a lot on which lenses you compare and how. For example, the lowly 28/3.5 is practically impervious to flare, it's hard to find anything like it, which is why I favor it for night scenes. Similarly, the much-touted 24-70 is an excellent wedding lens, but at 24 mm focused to infinity on a D300, the image quality was atrocious while the 24 PC shined.

 

CA used to be a huge problem, but the D300 and similar do a very nice job in reducing it automatically.

 

I think small-format photography should be light too, but the idea of carrying a D700 + 24-70 + 70-200 (or a D300 with those and a WA zoom) makes me think that would a Hasselblad be better anyway. I rarely leave the house now without a micro Nikkor and preferably also a PC Nikkor. BTW, some PC Nikkors and some teles are excellent examples on how Nikon managed to do primes long ago that still give modern optics a run for the money. Although I have to say that the 85 PC is simply a superb lens in every image quality aspect, the only weaknesses are the size and somewhat slow handling.

Humbly, for I am not purporting to have even a fraction of experience, I am very much in agreement with Ilkka's questioning of the common wisdom that zooms are the most flexible and 'free-ing' of lenses. My normal walk-around / tourist kit is to have the 35/2 on my D80 (sweet small setup that is so lovely to use from an ergonomic pooint of view) and my 85/1.4 and a couple of CP filters in my pocket. Thats it. For the quality and low light options that this gives me, plus light weight and unobtrusiveness in a public setting, I couldn't imagine any good zoom making me feel more 'quick and light'.

 

As an aside I often think the issue of changing lenses is over-stated. Lets face it, it takes 5 to 10 seconds to do. And even if there is a gale, sand-storm or surf-spray going I find it can easily be done under a t-shirt or jacket to provide that extra bit of protection.

<p>The fringing / CA with legacy lenses is going to vary, both by lense and by camera/sensor. At least that is my limited experience so far. The D200 is my DSLR, so I am not familiar with the CA reduction in the firmware of the D300 and up. Stepping aside from the age old zoom vs prime debate, a couple comments.<br>

The 35mm f/2 AF (or AF D) plays far above its price point. Excellent lense. Mine is old, and it did not perform on a manual film body (IQ-wise) near as well as it does on my digital. Go figure.<br />I think the micro-lenses in a DSLR do add another point where CA can enter. I have a number of AI-s lenses. On my D200, a couple of them exhibit CA that was never there with film. On the other hand, some of them, work really well, CA-wise. Two of the ones that do (I have mostly primes) work well with near zero CA, are zooms, the 80-200mm F/4 AI-s, and the 75-150 E.<br>

 </p>