Nikkor 28mm f1.4D - sharpness problem?

[dave_gold]

Guys, you are repeating yourself.

 

I understand your point of not to shoot wide open at very close distances, but instead of judjing my ability on inability of

testing the equipment, try to answer one question:

 

The lense looks soft when shooting at EVERY distance wide open - its sharpness wide open at 5 m is very simillar to

what you've seen in my shot or even slightlyworse.

 

Now - attention - the question itself:

 

Should I expect significantly sharper images if

A) I am buying new Nikkor 24 1.4

B) send the current lense to Nikon lab for calibration.

 

Thanks.

[studio460]

<p>Not to get in the middle of this, and kinda off-topic, but since at least one member here also has an AF-S 24mm f/1.4G, I'd like to compare notes someday. My $2,000, 24mm f/1.4G never struck me as tack-sharp, though neither has my $1,700, 85mm f/1.4G. I just chalked it up to the fact that super-fast lenses just aren't going to be the sharpest things in the world, wide-open. However, the two lenses I own which scream "sharp," are my DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D, and my AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR I, even wide-open. Those two lenses are razor-sharp. I really need to do some high-contrast tests soon with my 24mm and 85mm.</p>

<p>[A note about low-contrast lighting: as far as I know, low-contrast, diffuse lighting, decreases apparent sharpness, and results in lowered acutance. High-contrast, more-parallel, point source-ey lighting, increases apparent sharpness, and results in higher acutance.]</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>DG: <em>Tom,</em><br /><em> a) They are crops</em><br>

<em>------------</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

I hate to have to keep asking questions, but don't you think it would helpful if you also told us the size of these crops, ie, 50% by area, 10% along each axis, 1:1 crops, etc.? Without that information, no one can say just how blurry the original is. Even if you just posted the original uncropped image would help loads.</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

 

[tom_mann1]

<p>DG, the other responders keep asking you to show some photos taken with the lens under what they term "typical" shooting conditions.</p>

<p>Let me try another approach. If I'm asked to pass judgement on whether or not a lens is "sharp", I need to remove as many variables as possible from the tests, e.g., depth of field, camera shake, subject movement, lighting direction and contrast, colors, magnification of the cropped version, a reference image to compare to, etc. If you don't lock all these variables down, no one will be able to make a definitive statement about sharpness of your lens. Unfortunately, the images you have posted up till now did not lock any of these down.</p>

<p>Probably the easiest way for you to settle your question one way or the other is to put your camera on a tripod, shoot some scene with lots of detail at infinity (eg, a landscape or a cityscape) twice - once at f/1.4 and again at f/8 (adjusting the shutter speed and/or ISO to maintain the same exposure). Then, post the overall photo as well as 1:1 crops from the center of each image. It should then be very, very easy to compare the sharpness of the two different f-stops. The whole process should take less than 10 minutes.</p>

<p>HTH,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[dave_gold]

<p>Tom, Thanks for the feedback.</p>

<p>The published crops are 100%, does it explain something?<br>

I'll try to use the setup you proposed today and will post the pics.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

[studio460]

<p>This thread reminded me that I never really tested my AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G that I purchased a few months ago. I just set this up a few minutes ago, and shot this beat-up aluminum ruler to check it. Hopefully, this post is related enough to contribute to this thread:</p>

<p>Full-frame:<br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/images/24-1-650.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D3s; AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4G; Nikon SB-600; ISO: 100; f1.4 @ 1/60th; tripod + cable release.</p>

<p>100% crop:<br /> <img src="http://studio460.com/images/24-1-100.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thankfully, it looks pretty sharp. Does everyone agree? I've mostly shot this lens, so far, only under diffuse, available-light conditions, so the images I've captured up until this point have been comparatively low in both subject and lighting contrast. Upon 100% viewing, I wasn't too sure of the lens' sharpness at the time. But, it looks pretty good, right?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Guys, you are repeating yourself.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because you haven't seemed to respond to the things that have been said.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I understand your point of not to shoot wide open at very close distances, but instead of judjing my ability on inability of testing the equipment, try to answer one question:</em><br>

<em>The lense looks soft when shooting at EVERY distance wide open - its sharpness wide open at 5 m is very simillar to what you've seen in my shot or even slightlyworse.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>We may be able to judge that once you have done a real world test. The question that you've asked is impossible to answer with only the images you have posted.</p>

[dave_gold]

<p>RO,<br>

It looks excellent to me, sharp enough.<br>

Thats the sharpness I was expecting my lense to produce, but it isnt even close!</p>

 

[carl_becker2]

<p>This lens does not meet your needs. Sell it and find a different lens that does. Purchasing a f1.4 lens for landscape is not what I would carry around. Something at its best around f8 or f11 would suit me much better. For that kind of money I would prefer a PC-E lens to better control DoF if the focal length met my requirements.</p>

[studio460]

Thanks, Dave. I think you may just be expecting too much of a lens of such an older design. Plus, I

would guess that an f/1.4 wide-angle is difficult to design no matter what. I've read that the AF Nikkor

28mm f/2.8D doesn't have a very stellar reputation--maybe 28mm was a difficult focal length for Nikon

engineers at the time. I have a couple older Nikkors, an old push-pull AF Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D, and an

AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D--both are noticeably soft wide-open.

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My $2,000, 24mm f/1.4G never struck me as tack-sharp, though neither has my $1,700, 85mm f/1.4G.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, off-topic--but I wanted to correct my earlier post: I was wrong. I'm looking at some portraits I recently took with the 85mm f/1.4, and it looks great--both lenses look pretty darned sharp when shot under more contrasty lighting, and/or of subjects with more inherent contrast. Most of the images I took initially with these two lenses were of low-contrast, available-light scenes. Since the contrast was so low, the images appeared soft.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Thats the sharpness I was expecting my lense to produce, but it isnt even close!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dave, you'd want to do a similar test to be sure, though. Yours is a 3D image shot in available light at a kind of high ISO (at least I think they were a high ISO), Ralph's is a flat subject with a flash at low ISO. I'm not sure you're seeing the flaws of your testing.</p>

<p>From Bjorn's review of the 28mm f1.4</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"...I've tested several samples, on film-based as well as digital bodies, and the results are all similar with flare, low contrast and loss of image sharpness at the widest apertures."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I really have to admit I grow a little weary, though, of hearing people complain that their expensive lens is soft wide open. There are precious few (if any) lenses that are at their best wide open.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Peter said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>. . . There are precious few (if any) lenses that are at their best wide open.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Clearly, lenses typically perform at their absolute worst wide-open. However, in addition, as I mentioned previously, I surprised even myself at how much diffused lighting, or a low-contrast subject (not to mention, increased ISOs), can rob so much of a lens' apparent sharpness. Also, setting up a test scene which represents "real world" conditions, yet is still able to reveal a lens' particular weaknesses, and/or particular strengths, can be a challenge. I once set up an utterly flawed test and thought <em>all</em> of my Nikkors were rife with chromatic aberration . . . it turned out, that I was simply overexposing the test shots.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Hey, I've got the 24mm F/1.4G, the 35mm, F/1.4G, and the 85mm F/1.4G and I think they are a razor at F/1.4 in the field. I realize that if I were shooting test charts that I would be much better off to shoot at F/4 where both lenses are undeniably sharper, but I if I were shooting at F/4 I wouldn't own those three primes, just the 14-24 & the 70-200. Contrast has a lot to do with it, because dare I say, it isn't robbing the lens of sharpness, but rather its preventing our eyes from seeing the sharpness. Our eyes are lenses too, and in low contrast situations (in pictures that is), our eyes can have difficulty seeing sharpness (or at least I theorize). Likewise I think the myth of F/1.4s being razor gets started because people see pictures of a subject being in perfect focus while the background is a wash of blur, the result is, our eyes see the one sharp thing in frame and it looks sooooo sharp, because all we have to compare it with is buriness. When in reality whats in focus will not be as sharp as say F/4, but at F/4, suddenly the background is much sharper too, giving our eyes less contrast between what is sharp and what is blurry and thus takes the illusion away of the subject being razor. Does this make sense?</p>

<p>If anyone wants razor sharp images wide open, buy a macro. If you are shooting at normal distances, even wide open your images will be amongst the sharpest wide open.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I once set up an utterly flawed test and thought <em>all</em> of my Nikkors were rife with chromatic aberration . . . it turned out, that I was simply overexposing the test shots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Guilty, I have done the same thing. Ugh.</p>

<p>What I have done when I tested lenses is take them outside and shoot some busy leafy boring tree scenes using a tripod at all the apertures, taken them inside to a huge room (at a church where I worked) and shot "flat stuff" at a distance... and even though I've tested every one of my lenses (except I didn't bother with my 105mm f2.5, I just started shooting and the images are so amazing that I haven't bothered "testing... because...), my tests have always borne out others' results, like Thom Hogan and Bjørn Rørslett or photozone. Even Rockwell is right about some lenses, in my experience, although you can never predict when his information is useful and when it's "entertainment"... His overblown love of the Nikkor 18-200 and the lens being discussed here are two good examples.</p>

<p>So, other than trying to find defects, which is what our OP is trying to ascertain, I haven't tried so much to "test performance" unless I was writing a review (I only have done that once, though). The biggest thing I've learned in testing is that in an 8 x 10 print, my worst lens at f8 is the same as my best... all other things being equal (which they are not).</p>

<p>I'm getting the feeling that since the OP wants this lens to shoot landscapes (for which this lens is ill suited imho, as it's sweet spot is probably closer to f4 than f8) and people in low light (presumably either slower shutter speeds or hand-held, for which other lenses like his much lighter 35mm f1.8 are far better choices), he will probably eventually sell this lens, make a bunch of well-deserved cash, and he will get something else and be really happy, and the person who buys the lens will be as well.</p>

<p>btw, Dave, if you're still engaging, you might also want to check into a 50mm length for the people shooting (when it's just one person) in low light. Even the humble 1.8D is awesome for this. I shoot it wide open at at f2 and f2.5 all the time.</p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>The 28mm does show nice bokeh, regardless of other factors. ;-)</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>While the 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 AF-S are better, the 28/1.4 you have appears to perform as expected. From the sample images you can see that the 28/1.4 is sharper than the 35/1.8 when both lenses are used at f/1.8, but not wide open which is exactly what is expected. If you are not happy with the result then you can sell it to someone who appreciates it for what it is. I certainly would have, years ago, wanted the 28/1.4. Today I am fortunate enough to have the AF-S wide primes but it didn't come without financial sacrifice and the 28mm focal length would have been, to me a preferable solution.</p>

[arthur_gottschalk]

<p>I must agree that the cat pictures suffer from a very shallow DOF. It looks like the focus was on the tip of the cat's nose, which appears adequately sharp IMHO. Even the whiskers seem sharp enough. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Skyler said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hey, I've got the 24mm F/1.4G, the 35mm, F/1.4G, and the 85mm F/1.4G and I think they are a razor at F/1.4 in the field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks. Now, you're going to <em>make</em> me buy an AF-S 35mm f/1.4G, aren't you? I still can't believe I spent $2,000 on the 24mm. But I couldn't resist. It's the widest, fastest Nikkor there is, and I love shooting it wide-open. A wide-angle lens with shallow depth-of-field--what a hoot! When it was first announced, boy did I want one. Then the tsunami hit, and I ran to my dealer, and bought whatever was still on the shelves . . . <em>except</em> the 35mm f/1.4G.</p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Ralph,<br>

Lol, sorry about that old chap, couldn't help myself. Well, for the record, I don't think the 35mm F/1.4 is as optically good a lens as the 24mm. The thing about the 24mm is it gets stupid sharp stopped down. I imagine on a test chart its performance wide open isn't the best, matter of fact my very own Egyptian Cat Statue pictures were good, but not fantastic. But I don't let this bother me, I love 24mm, and I love shooting it wide open, and I could care less what so and so has to say about its sharpness. What I worry about most is getting it in focus, as its more prone to miss, as I understand the wide angle can warp what the AF points see (especially at critical F/1.4), not a fault of lens or AF\camera system, simply laws of physics camera manufactures have yet to avoid. That aside, the 24mm gets razor stopped down, while I never really feel like the 35mm does. Oh it gets sharper, and plenty sharp enough but I feel like my 35mm has a hard time living up to the amazing 24-70 @ 35mm when both are stopped down.</p>

<p>Anyways, I shoot DX, D7000, and ultimately I realized that the 35mm F/1.4G is pure vanity, as I can purchase the near equivalent the 35mm F/1.8 for basically nothing compared to the F/1.4 version. I did have a few reasons, in my business focus pulling, especially smooth focus pulling, especially wide open can be critical, and even though I owned a 35mm F/1.8 for a while, pulling focus was essentially impossible by the way it was geared. None the less right now I can't justify having both the 24mm & 35mm F/1.4G for a DX camera when most of the time I can slap the 24mm on if I need to pull focus. If I build up my photography business and move to FX, then personally I can find enough of a difference between the two focal ranges to pick up a 35mm F/1.4G once again.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>late to this thread, but it think it's unrealistic to expect tack-sharpness with <em>any</em> 1.4 lens shot wide open. shooting that way, even under perfect conditions, gives you relative sharpness, i.e. somewhat soft images which pop because of blurred DoF. if you want max sharpness with a 1.4, shoot @ f/4. otoh, a 1.4 shot at 1.4 can give a soft-focus effect which can be beguiling if you have high-contrast framing.</p>

<p>what i think is more important for the OP is real-world sharpness. i would shoot some people in low light at various apertures, from 1.4 to 2.8. and compare to 35/1.8. i generally find you need to be at f/2 to avoid common focus-accuracy errors associated with a razor-thin DoF. it may just be that older lenses dont play all that well with d7000, in which case you could exchange it for a 24/1.4 G--or spend far less on a sigma 30, which will be just as good as long as you aren't expecting sharp corners (which i don't, for low-light candids). the sigma's bokeh is vastly better than the 35/1.8, and you still get 1.4. on a DX body, i dont think the 24/1.4G is a must-have as there are other fast options. it's a different story with FX, where you can't get a newer designed 1.4 AF lens for under $500.</p>

 

[furcafe]

<p>I'm also late to this thread & don't own any of the current Nikon line up for comparison purposes, but I am a long time user of modern Leica lenses, which are optimized for wide-open shooting. I got the 28/1.4 AF-D specifically to pair up w/a D700 for "photojournalist"/documentary-type available darkness shooting @ ISO 3200, etc., i.e., I rarely use it w/apertures smaller than f/4, let alone landscape work @ f/11 or whatever. That said, it appears from your 2nd set of examples that your lens is within spec (the 1st set seem to have been affected by motion blur), though you (or the camera) seem to have front-focused a bit on the f/1.4 shot. In my experience, f/1.4 on the 28/1.4 AF-D is noticeably better than f/1.4 on the 35/1.4 Ai-S (the lens Skyler mentioned in his post about the movie set photographer), but not as razor sharp as that from my Leica 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH. (penultimate version). Here's an example (focused on the figurine):<br /> <img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6160/6191085716_534d74ac07_o.jpg" alt="" width="719" height="1080" /><br /> Perfectly usable for my purposes, but maybe not for yours.</p>

[marc_schlueter]

<p>I'm new here but I have some experiance with the AF 28mm/1.4D and AF-S 35mm/1.4G since I own both.</p>

<p>Wide open both are not tack sharp. No f/1.4 lens is. My 0ne year old AF-S 35mm/1.4G is a little bit sharper wide open than my 'one year old' AF 28mm/1.4D (Nikon rebuild it a year ago, 90% of the parts are new), but at minimum focus distance you hardly see that. I actually pretty amazed how good the 20 year old design of the 28mm/1.4 still is. I tried the AF-S 24mm/1.4G briefly in front of the shop, but that's also not mutch sharper but pretty suspicious to flare. The 28/1.4 doesn't flare.<br>

The only fast lens I own that is sharper at f/1.4 than the AF 28/1.4D and AF 35/1.4G is the AF-S 85/1.4G. No wonder, because it's no wide angle lens...</p>

<p>I didn't made a 'scientific' test between the AF 28/1.4D and AF-S 35/1.4G yet, but I compared the bokeh at around 0.4m distance with the D700 here (big files): http://marcschlueter.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/nikkor-af-28mm1-4-d-vs-nikkor-af-s-35mm1-4g-bokeh/<br>

I got some test shots of the AF-S 35mm/1.4G and the really good old Nikkor 35mm/2 OC Auto between f/1.4 and f/8 at 2m to see what both can do if you focus with LifeView (big files): http://marcschlueter.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/nikkor-oc-auto-35mm2-vs-nikkor-af-s-35mm1-4g/</p>

<p>The only other big file with the 28/1.4D I got online is the second one at f/2.8 at about 1m here: http://marcschlueter.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/the-nikkor-af-28mm1-4d/</p>

<p>Hope that helps.<br>

Marc</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Marc, is it really a problem of softness wide open? Or is it the razor thin depth of field? What do you shoot at f1.4?</p>

[marc_schlueter]

<p>Peter, the AF 28/1.4 is slightly soft wide open. Nothing that a little sharpening can't resolve in the real world AND it has razor thin depth of field... The lens 'cleans up' very nice at f/1.8 though.<br>

Look for yourself: If you follow my first link to the bokeh comparison and click on the pix, you find unsharpened full size JPGs from the AF-S 35/1.4G at f/1.4 and the AF 28/1.4D at f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2.<br>

I hadn't real testshots in mind when I made them. Thats why the f/1.6 shot is missing. I was just looking witch of them had the softer bokeh while on a cigarette break in front of the studio. For 'real' pictures I would had have some slight sharpening applied as well.<br>

Because of the very thin dept of field I seldom use both lenses at f1.4. More often I stop down to f/2 or f/2.8 or whatever is necessary for the intended picture...</p>