Observations on how 36MP challenges Nikkor lenses

[torben.palm]

<p>Coming from crop-sensor Nikon D300, where I could utilize the “sweet spot” on most lenses to get sharp results, I was keen to find out how my lenses performed on a 36MP D800 FX sensor. After taken pictures with lenses like Nikkor AF-S 24-70 F2.8G, Macro Nikkor AF-S 60 F2.8G and the old Nikkor AF-D 85 F1.8 I'm impressed. I knew that Nikkor optics generally where made in a very high grade, but it seems like the lenses where designed for these high resolutions. I can't help be specially impressed by the old Nikkor AF-D 85 1.8 – a small gem that really shines. Unfortunately I sold my approx. 23 year old AF 50mm 1.8 lens with the D300 - but I would have been fun the check the performance on a lens that old. <br /><br />What are your observations on other old lenses?</p><div></div>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Well, I've tried my 50 f/1.8 AF-D when I was checking my D800(e)'s autofocus accuracy, and it's so awful wide open that I couldn't tell anything about the AF. It made me buy the G version, which is at least better... But I'm sure the AF-D is decent stopped down, since it always has been. My 80-200 AF-D (two-ring) is visibly softer wide open (it's slightly softer on a D700 than the VR2, too), but not at all bad in the f/5.6-6.3 range I've mostly been trying to use it. I'll know more when I get home, because I've just paid for a version of Photoshop that can actually ready my new raw files. I'll also be giving my 135 f/2 DC a go sooner rather than later, but I'm not holding out much hope.<br />

<br />

I'll be especially interested to see how my 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 AF-D G (my standard walk-around lens on my D700) and my 500 f/4 AI-P hold up - I've not had a chance to try them yet, but I'm home this weekend, so...<br />

<br />

Technically, my 200 f/2 VR is "old", in that it's the previous version. No complaints in the one quick try I've given it so far, unsurprisingly. I've not tried AF fine-tuning anything yet, though (another weekend job) so I've been avoiding wide-open shooting anyway. For the sake of this thread, I'll try to remember to give my 135 f/2.8 AI-S a go - I most recently tried it adapted onto a Panasonic GF2 (which has pretty high pixel density) and it wasn't too bad.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

35mm film seemed sharper scanned at

5400 ppi vs. 4000 ppi in the parts that

were in focus, and there were drum

scanners that could do even 12000 ppi

if I recall correctly, so why is this a

surprise?

[torben.palm]

<p>Andrew, I'm looking forward to hearing your results. Especially for the 135 f/2 DC - but also the 28-300. Is the 200 f/2 know to be soft wide open?<br>

Ilkka, I remember that I used to drum-scan at very high resolutions years ago, and picture editing on 128bit computer using a software called Imagine (if I remember correctly), but is has been so many years that a can't really recall the quality. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I confess that when I scan most Kodachrome slides above 4000 ppi, the additional detail seems to me more to be film texture and "grain" than actual improvement of the "sharpness".</p>

<p>However, I am always a little skeptical of those who fear that their new camera will "outperform" their lenses. After all is said and done, we are judging the results with a kludge of a biological accident called the "eye".</p>

<p>"Argument from design", my *ss.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Andrew, I'm looking forward to hearing your results. Especially for the 135 f/2 DC - but also the 28-300.</blockquote>

 

<p>Just to clarify, I have the <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af_zoom28-200mmf_35-56g_if/index.htm">28-<b>200</b></a>. It's been a very good lens (as KR recommended) on a D700, and it's been my typical choice of lens to leave on if I don't know what focal length I need and don't know that I need aperture - but it may or may not hold up all that well on the D800. I'll find out.<br />

<br />

As for the DC, I don't have much hope, since it wasn't all that sharp on my D700 and the LoCA and ability to focus accurately combined to make it a liability. I've been meaning to sell it for a couple of years now - <i>but</i> I've just got it back from asking Nikon to have a look at it in case it was so bad that there was something wrong, and Adobe's camera raw has just sprouted some more advanced LoCA removal features. So I'm prepared to give it another go before I visit eBay. I'll report back, regardless. (Incidentally, I'm prepared to believe that it'd be acceptable at, say, f/4 - but it's an awfully unwieldy way of getting an f/4 lens, and I'm actually quite fond of the 135 f/2.8 AI-S.)</p>

 

<blockquote>Is the 200 f/2 know to be soft wide open?</blockquote>

 

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection">Lensrentals</a> reported that it's sharpest at f/4, so I'm sure it's not quite as sharp wide open. I'm not sure <i>how</i> soft - I've not had enough chance to test yet, but I'm reasonably confident that it won't be unusable, even if it won't necessarily distinguish my D800E from the non-E version unless I stop down a tad. On my D700, I often shot this lens wide open, because it was my best LoCA-free way to make the background disappear. I suspect I'll make a case-by-case trade-off between pixel sharpness and DoF, something that I've not had much cause to worry about on the D700.<br />

<br />

I should stress that I'm in no position to do official lens tests - but I'm quite happy to share my impressions for my particular samples under my imperfect technique, so long as they're taken with an appropriately-sized pinch of salt.</p>

 

<blockquote>Ilkka, I remember that I used to drum-scan at very high resolutions years ago, and picture editing on 128bit computer using a software called Imagine (if I remember correctly), but is has been so many years that a can't really recall the quality.</blockquote>

 

<p>According to Wikipedia, Imagine was (is?) free Windows software launched in 2003, which probably means "128bit computer" in the sense of "SSE" - though I've no idea whether Imagine had a quad-float image format. Assuming it's the same Imagine, that is. I'm not sure there are many computers which are natively 128-bit, although there are a few extensions (like Altivec, SSE and ARM's Neon) that are. I'm intrigued to know if you were using something else, though.</p>

 

<blockquote>I confess that when I scan most Kodachrome slides above 4000 ppi, the additional detail seems to me more to be film texture and "grain" than actual improvement of the "sharpness".</blockquote>

 

<p>While I've yet to take anything worthy of high quality scanning, even the moderate quality scans I have of Velvia seem alarmingly grainy compared with digital. Generally, whenever anyone's said, of film, "look at the detail in <i>this</i>", the detail has been there (though not always - some people mix smooth low-frequency data with resolution) - but I've had to squint through a snow storm of grain to see it. Technically useful for forensics, not necessarily all that useful, although noise processing can do wonders.<br />

<br />

However, the eye does have the advantage of the foot-powered zoom; being optically awful can be overcome by having a big enough (or close enough) target. The output of the eye's lens would be shocking if blown up to 20x30, but that doesn't mean we can't do exactly that to the output of a piece of glass, and then pick holes in it.</p>

 

[torben.palm]

<p>Andrew, I'm sorry to have mislead you. The software was named Dicomed Imagenator, and not Imagine, and I worked with it back in 96-97 (needed to find an old backup drive to find the details). Back then it was some of the most advanced software, which could handle resolution up to approx. 10K x 7K pixels coming from a pro-drum-scanner. It loaded small potions of the image into RAM, so it could to edited. Back then, this was state-of-art, but again - thats a long time ago.<br>

The 28-300 was a typo - I meant 28-200.</p>

 

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Most of Nikon's old Ai and Ai-S primes are just fine in the centre with 36Mp from f/4 onwards, as is their flare and colour contrast. It's the corners and wide-open performance that start to creak and show their age. Of the 50mm MF primes, I think the f/1.8 probably stands up the best to close scrutiny, followed by the f/1.4 versions as long as you don't want good corner definition wide open and anything like a flat field. Both the 50 and 55mm f/1.2s are on a par and technically pretty awful until stopped well down, although the 55mm has more "character" and gives better pictorial effects IMHO.</p>

<p>The 105mm f/2.5 is still a stunning lens to use on the D800/e, along with some of the MF wideangles. I'm reasonably impressed by the performance of my Ai-S 28mm f/2 - again as long as the corners aren't looked at too closely. The 24mm f/2.8 is not-so-hot, but the 20mm f/3.5 is snappy, contrasty and fairly resistant to flare. The only one of Nikon's older zooms that still cuts my mustard is the little 75-150mm f/3.5 series E. The rest of the MF zooms mostly need to be quietly parked in the Nikkor care home for retired gentle-optics.</p>

<p>Having said that; modern aspherical designs are far better on the whole, and if there wasn't such a price differential the choice would be a no-brainer.</p>

<p>Just my opinion based on those lenses that I own and use. YMMV as may your expectations and the use you put your lenses to.</p>

<p>As for scanning film at >4000 ppi and getting any more meaningful information out of it. ROFL!</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>To me the "flaws" in lenses give them their character. If I had a D800 I would probably enjoy the camera's ability to bring out these imperfections, which in a lens are like having different paintbrushes with different textures, etc. I love some of my older lenses that are sharp in the middle, but have less sophisticated coatings which creates more flare in some shots. There are different kinds of sharpness too. Some lenses are "smoother" and some are more harsh. Its not all just about "sharpness" if you are doing a portrait , for instance, and not circuit boards or something that requires a technically perfect image. Even with 35mm and the DX cameras I now use, I often choose a lens because of its complex character, and not just how technically sharp it is.</p>

[torben.palm]

<p>Just took my 20+ year old AF Nikkor 70-210 f/4-5.6 for a morning walk. Nice to see that this lens still can give useful results, even at 200mm and handhold.</p><div></div>

[torben.palm]

<p>Here is another example, but also one that shows the pronounced vignetting wide open. But I like the effects of the vignetting and out of focus rendering. </p><div></div>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I'm not finished with my 50 mm testing, but the 60/2.8 seems to be clearly superior to an older 50/1.8 and I know that the 50/1.8 is a good one, no problems on that sample.<br>

The tele and macro lenses generally do well, it's the wideangles which have issues. I sold my 24/2.8 AF-D already when I got a D300.</p>

[rconey]

<p>75-150 f3.5 AIS series E. Very nice. Not perfectly sharp at a pixel level but very pleasing rendition to me. Easy focus as well. $200 used- remarkable.<br>

80-200 f2.8 D 2 ring design-great.<br>

I like the 135 f2 DC althought the lateral CA is there.<br>

28-105 f3.5-4.5D very good.<br>

Your mileage may vary.</p>

[torben.palm]

<p>Hi Robert,<br /> Can you post an example of the 135 f/2 lens in the D800?</p>

[rconey]

<p>Hi Torben,<br /> I put on my web page in the contribution stuff folder (third one down) four images. The vine is from 5 feet away. Depth of field is a real problem this close but the leaves are generally in focus. Flourescent green CA is mostly gone by f4. The house is about 50 yards away. In the window highlight the red CA goes away by f4. (I wonder if I got f4 and f5.6 mixed up). Anyway, there is no post processing here. It is neutral picture control so low contrast, low color saturation. No sharpening. Tripod. Iso 100.</p>

[torben.palm]

<p>Thanks, Robert. From f/4 it looks good to me, and f/5.6 even better. I might consider buying this second hand.</p>

[rconey]

<p>I got the lens originally for indoor high school sport photos- low light. It does fine in that application. I soon found that for portraits with flash it is a great lens- even f2.8. My copy is quite sharp, although I have seen comments from others who were not so lucky.</p>

<p>As far as the original question on older lenses- my 400 f5.6 ED Ai is very good on the D800. This was not very expensive used, and snaps into focus well. I've not seen CA as a problem witht he lens. It also couples well with an older 2x adapter. I have some new hawk's nest pictures in the "Winged Creatures" folder that are crops of hand held shots from about 70 yards away. Good light of course.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Belatedly, if anyone's still checking, I've just had fun AF fine tuning my lens collection, and here are some brief comments on what the centre of the frame looks like in my samples (other lenses may differ), in order of minimum focal length. In most cases, I've not checked the corners - I'll find out more (and about other apertures and focal lengths) when I've had a chance for more testing...</p>

<dl>

<dt>Sigma 8mm f/3.5 fish-eye</dt>

<dd>Surprisingly good in the centre, pointed at a test chart. I wasn't quite so impressed at Wimbledon, but that may have been autofocus inaccuracy.</dd>

<dt>14-24 f/2.8</dt>

<dd>Pretty good in the middle even wide open. Appreciably better at f/5.6, from previous experiments.</dd>

<dt>28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G (tested at 200mm)</dt>

<dd>A bit soft wide open, much better by f/8, although prone to lateral CA. Front focus inconsistent when trying to AF fine tune. Probably still going to be usable with Photoshop CA fixing on the D800.</dd>

<dt>50mm f/1.8 AF-S G</dt>

<dd>Soft/low contrast wide open, much better at f/2.8. (As mentioned above, the AF-D had such little contrast wide open that I couldn't test for the left focus problem with it, so I'm not expecting to use it much now.)</dd>

<dt>80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (two-ring, tested at 200mm)</dt>

<dd>Pretty low contrast/soft at f/2.8. Much better at f/5.6, but the back focus is more extreme than I can adjust for (worse than -20). Maybe I'll be saving for a VR2.</dd>

<dt>Samyang 85mm f/1.4</dt>

<dd>Low contrast wide open and pretty visible LoCA, but much better by f/2.</dd>

<dt>Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro</dt>

<dd>Given how happy I've been with it on the D700, surprisingly poor at f/2.8. Colour fringes visible until f/8 or so. Guess I'm still planning to get a 150mm Sigma macro.</dd>

<dt>135 f/2 AF-D DC</dt>

<dd>I've just got my lens back from Nikon, having asked them to check that it was within spec. Wide open, it's awful - very low contrast and very bad LoCA even without adjusting the DC. The LoCA near the focus point can be removed in ACR's new LoCA adjustment sliders, but farther from the focal plane the colour fringes are too extreme. It's not too bad at f/5.6 (f/4 is still poor), but it's a heck of a big bit of glass to use at f/5.6.</dd>

<dt>135 f/2.8 AI</dt>

<dd>Not too bad at f/2.8; pretty good at f/4. Better than the DC lens at either.</dd>

<dt>200 f/2 AF-S VR (mk 1)</dt>

<dd>Pretty good wide open. I suspect slightly more contrast stopped down a bit, but more than usable by my standards at full aperture. Showed up more tripod vibration than I expected.</dd>

<dt>500 f/4 AI-P</dt>

<dd>Not too bad at f/4, appreciably better at f/5.6 and higher contrast still at f/8.</dd>

<dt>500 f/4 AI-P + TC-16A</dt>

<dd>I was hoping the centre of the frame would hold up, but it's much worse than the 500 f/4 on its own, at least at larger apertures. I need more light to do more experiments outdoors - the minimum focus distance on the 500 f/4 is long enough that the focus chart wasn't an option. A shame - I rely on the TC-16A for moving targets. Guess I'll keep saving for that 500 f/4 VR (or 400 f/2.8).</dd>

</dl>

 

<p>I've not tested my 150-500 yet, but I don't have high hopes. These are all mostly impressions from pointing lenses briefly at a focus chart, occasionally supplemented with a little real-world shooting, but I've not had my camera for long enough to get much experience of how most of the lenses handle in the real world. Again, other samples of the lenses may behave differently.<br />

<br />

Torben - interesting, I'd not heard of that system before; cool stuff. Live and learn! (And I've just picked up some Cray manuals on eBay, so I'm not far from that company's products.)</p>

[torben.palm]

<p>Andrew, I'm really impressed by the huge amount of effort that you have put into this matter. I appreciate it, Thanks!<br>

I had hoped that your findings on the 135 f/2 DC would have been better, but I agree that it's too much glass to use at say f/5.6-8. Now that Nikon does not offer an modern AF portrait prime above 85mm, I'm also just thinking of saving for the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II. But maybe I would be happy with the Sigma Macro 150mm - I have read and seen a lot of nice work with this lens.<br>

Unfortunately I'm too eager and trigger happy to be able to use manual focus lenses for my kind of normal work.</p>

<p>In regards to the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 - would you rather buy the AF-S f/1.4?<br>

And, how much did the AF fine tune actually improve the performance - any noticeable difference in general?</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Not that much effort! Had to AF fine tune anyway. :-) Still, glad to share, however non-definitive.<br />

<br />

I was hoping the 135 would be a little sharper (although it's designed to flatter skin a bit - I'd rather smooth skin in post than try to sharpen eyelashes) and that ACR would get rid of the colours, but at least I didn't waste all my money on the 200 f/2 trying to solve these problems. I use the 200 f/2 for portraits, although admittedly mostly candids - Joe McNally also uses that lens for the same reason, which reassures me - but the 150mm macro does seem like a useful option when I can't step back and don't mind seeing a bit more background. I've resigned myself to ditching the 135, with some reluctance since it was one of the reasons I switched to Nikon. Alas, it's not the faster version of the Sony STF lens that I was hoping it would be, but I'm very happy with my big glass.</p>

 

<blockquote>In regards to the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 - would you rather buy the AF-S f/1.4?</blockquote>

 

<p>No. To me, the 50 f/1.4 AF-S seems to be a reasonably large price jump that gets me ugly bokeh and a lot of LoCA (from reviews, I've not used one). The Sigma has better bokeh, still poor LoCA, and iffy corners on FX (in my brief experience). The AF-D is also soft in the corners. I'm prepared to pay f/1.8 money for a lens with these compromises, but not f/1.4 money - the same reason I went with the 85mm Samyang rather than the AF-D or AF-S f/1.4 (the new f/1.8, with better bokeh than its predecessor, wasn't out when I bought). Give me a 50mm f/1.2 AF-S with enough ED optics to fix the LoCA, and I'll buy it - although I've yet to see what Photoshop can do with the output of a 50mm AF-S.<br />

<br />

But I shoot a lot of images for which I want the frame edges (and sometimes corners) to fall on the focal plane, and with black/white transitions in the foreground and background. I really care about sharp corners and LoCA. I acknowledge that, for a lot of people and subjects, it really doesn't matter, and any of these is a lovely lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>And, how much did the AF fine tune actually improve the performance - any noticeable difference in general?</blockquote>

 

<p>Sorry, haven't had time to find out (alas, not enough time shooting, too much time at work trying to afford camera kit). The 28-200 didn't seem to focus very consistently, so I've low hopes (but at f/8 it may not matter). I couldn't properly correct the 80-200, which is the other lens that I've given a decent work-out on my D800. I didn't notice that the 200 f/2 needed it before I explicitly tested; photozone reports some focus shift on stopping down, which may undo most of my good work. The stopping down of the 80-200 to f/5.6-6.3 for sharpness showed up crud on my sensor, so my D800E is currently with Nikon and I can't test further - I'm out of the country next week, so I had to drop it off briskly for their sensor clean turn-around time. I never really bothered with AF fine tune on the D700, but you can certainly see when the D800 has missed. I'll have more of a test when I have the chance - but live view is still the best indicator if you can use it.</p>

[torben.palm]

<p>I think I need to give it a try and fine tune some of my lenses. I've only tried it on a second hand AF-D 50mm, which had a functional problem and got returned to the seller (there must have been a loose lens element, since the focus performance changed from time to time).</p>