Suprised by difference in some quality

[solamnus]

<p>This is by no means a scientific comparison. But i just wanted to throw it out there to see what your experirnce was with this.<br /> I used two different lenses today when taking portraits at home. And they were my nikon 28-300 lens and my nikon 85 f1,4 D lens which i always liked alot.<br /> I bought the 28-300 quite recently and havent tried it more than a week and today and yesterday was the first time i used it with speedlights in a studio environment.<br /> I noticed a remarkable difference in contrast and light. And the 28-300 was the one with nicer contrast and brighter overall exposure in my opinion. I used the same settings on my speedlights( manual) and had the same aparture and shutterspeed.<br /> I know the 85 mm is an older lens. But still it is considered so much better as a portrait lens so it was a bit suprising to actually find that i got better results with my 28-300. Then of course i did not use a wide aperture with any bokeh to speak about. And in that case im sure the 85 mm would beat the 28-300 hands down.<br /> I just found this odd and thought maybe someone with more knowledge on the technical side could explain this better for me hehe:)<br /> /Martin.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Once I took some pictures inside a restaurant, with a 85mm/f1.4 AF-S and a 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR, both on the D800E. The problem was the shutter speed, something like 1/30 sec indoors. The images captured with the 24-120 is by far better mainly due to VR. All the optical quality in the 85mm/f1.4 was meaningless in that occasion because of camera shake.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Yeh i was thinking about the VR as well. Thing is i had the shutter speed stuck at 100 + and at most 160 or so all the time and had an aparture around 8. So the shake shouldnt be there that much when using so much flash. But even so maybe it IS the VR making the difference in this case.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

So now you know what results you got under those circumstances. It helps you to make a choice later on when shooting

certain styles. For years I used a certain older zoom 28-80 that I liked. It was really a workhorse for many things. Then

one day I had a problem and used one of the 18-55 kit lenses on my D200 to shoot some outdoor truck shots, and it was

really great on the D200. I was very surprised and put my old workhorses out to pasture.

[Two23]

<p>I use flash all the time for night shots, where the ONLY light is the flash. I can easily tell which shots were made handheld vs. tripod even when flash is the only light and shutter speed was set to 1/200s or 1/250s. I've often said here that any lens used on a tripod will beat any lens not used on a tripod when it comes to sharpness. VR definitely helps close the gap though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[dwight200]

<p>VR will not do any good if you're using flash. The flash is generally a millisecond in duration or less, corresponding to a fast shutter speed. VR operates by moving a lens element at a rate of about 2 milliseconds or 500 Hz. Using VR at high shutter speeds is not recommended, since it can actually degrade the image.</p>

<p>Check out http://www.bythom.com/nikon-vr.htm</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Actually, VR can help with flash photography, if you drag the shutter to balance your shots between flash and ambient light.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>What condition is your 85mm f/1.4 in Martin? It only takes a small smudge or fingerprint on the lens to knock the contrast right down. "Old faithful" lenses tend to get a bit neglected, or worse still over-cleaned. Filters? Do you have any filters fitted and are they also clean and unscratched? Lens hoods - fitted or not? Was the lighting identical between shots or was there any backlighting that could have affected the 85mm shots.</p>

<p>You can really only compare the contrast of lenses across a variety of identical subject and lighting conditions. This isn't something that just happens with normal shooting.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"... was the one with nicer contrast and brighter overall exposure in my opinion. "

 

The operative clause being the last three words.

 

"Brightness" might be quantifiable and "contrast" might be as well, but "nicer" never will be.

 

In the end it doesn't make a difference. If one helps you make photos that you like more than ones with theother, that's

gray. Legendary master (and I don't say that lightly) color photographer and teacher Jay Maisel is a firm believer that by

allowing you to frame the precise image you want are a real aid to making better photographs, arguing that a little bit of

optical quality makes no any difference.

[elliot1]

<p>The coating on the lenses is different. That might account for some of the difference. Also, perhaps the aperture on the 85mm not functioning correctly.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>and had an aparture around 8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There will be differences Always between lenses at different apertures.</p>

<p>In this case (resolution wise..)<br /> - the optimal aperture settings for the 85mm F/1.4 D are at f4 & F5.6<br /> The optimal aperture settings for the 28-300mm at around 85mm ( different at other focal lenghts) are f5.6 & f8<br /> ( both on FX that is).</p>

<p>So it might be interesting to do this comparison at f5.6 ?</p>

[solamnus]

<p>@ Dave. Yes thats true:) I have decided to use my 28-300 for the assignment next week for sure. I was expecting the other lense to be better for this perticular job. However for some reason( this situation and lighting etc or smudge on lens or downgrade of lens etc etc) the 28-300 is the winner this time.<br>

About VR. Yeh i thought that could be a reason myself. But you guys seem divided on that subject so i will have to read up on that to know for sure.<br>

@Rodeo: Its an older copy, not sure how old but in very good condition, meaning no scratches etc and the outside also looks great. However There might have been a smudge or so somewhere that i did not notice on beforehand.<br>

The lighting was basicly the same. There was some ambient light from a lamp but that did not change in between shots. Also same manual settings were used on the camera and flashes. Also trying a few different flash compensations etc and the result was still a bit more "dull" with the 85 mil.<br>

I have taken some great portraits with it in past though and especially in daylight condition the bokeh etc is marvelous.<br>

I DO have a filter that might be the cause( a marumi one) however im sceptical that is the issue. I will check to see its clean on all sides though before next time.<br>

Thanks:)<br>

@Ellis. You are right of course. Sometimes i have taken some great shots that i kept forever using only the simplest equippment. i tend to always take better images if i get some type of passion for a lens hehe. Then i also use it more and that can only be a good thing!<br>

@Elliot. Yes maybe it is time to just take it for some service to see if everything is allright. Im scared of how much the cost would be for that though, but it might be worth it.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>@ C.P.M. Good point. I will try and do a test using those apartures against eachother. I thought the 85 was a bit sharper at 8 though i must say. But i didnt stick around long enough on 5,6 to make a fair comparison to be honest. So i will try that again.<br>

/Martin.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

The newer lenses have different coatings and glass combinations to match the digital better. I still have older Nikkors that

work great, but you can see a difference with the newer coatings in some cases, not always so obvious.

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>I can easily tell which shots were made handheld vs. tripod even when flash is the only light and shutter speed was set to 1/200s or 1/250s.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I fully agree with this statement. But I've often wondered how this can be so? Whether the flash duration is not actually that short or there's some interaction between the shutter speed and the flash duration even with the flash providing all the light. Don't know...but would like to!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Interesting read on Nano coating.

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/scenes/20/index.htm

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Neither lens has any nano coated surfaces.</p>

<p>I always found the 85/1.4 D to be a superb lens for images of people. Without seeing the images you're getting it's difficult to say why it did not perform. But I have to say that I used it mostly from f/1.4 to f/4. It should still perform well from f/5.6 to f/8 but I don't have many examples like that, with this specific lens.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Yeh the best pictures i have taken with in past has been bigger apertures than 5,6. It has a great looking bokeh and in natural light for me it has been shining the most brightly. I will try it out a few times more checking for smudges etc and make a second opinion on the matter. I love the build of this lens and the 1,4 aperture. That was why i was a bit dissapointed after this session.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"I can easily tell which shots were made handheld vs. tripod even when flash is the only light and shutter speed was set to 1/200s or 1/250s"</em><br>

<br>

Impossible (unless a piece of equipment is malfunctioning).</p>

[elliot1]

<p>The only thing that is different is my test images is the angle of view. This is an extreme crop of the entire frame. Both shots done with AF on the same spot.</p>

<p>Attachment here:</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Both lenses will do fine at f/8, and I am not completely surprised the contrast of the newer lens seems nicer - the newer lenses seem to have a bit more punch and saturation, while the older seem a bit colder. Nothing a bit of PP can't fix.<br>

The main problem with the 28-300 is its performance between f/1.4 and f/4, though. And that's exactly where the 85 will start to shine and render its gorgeous and famous out-of-focus rendering. So, in my view, you're testing the 28-300 in its comfort zone versus the 85mm with its hand tied behind its back. If anything, it proves that nearly all lenses are quite capable at f/8.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>One reason might be that the 85mm Nikon primes are not with ED glass, I think this is to keep colour saturation down and suitable for portraiture. The ED lenses have more punch and vivid colours which may not be what is wanted for portraits (to keep the skin tones reasonable). Of course this is a matter of subjective judgment also. Nikon has 60mm and 105mm AF-S ED Micro lenses that may also work, and give more punch (they're both nano coated which further adds contrast and makes colour reproduction more clear). The AF-S Micro Nikkors have very nice bokeh as well. Personally I prefer the more subdued rendition of the 105 DC and the 85mm Nikkors for images of people, but I do use the 60mm from time to time, especially for images of children.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p><br>

</p>

<p >To me, lenses are like different “brushes” likened to painting. Each has its own “texture” and subtle qualities that can be appreciated for different reasons. I don’t think of it in terms of “this one is better than that one.” True, the modern lenses have better coatings and can provide higher contrast, but the older ones can have a “smoothness” that the new lenses don’t have. On DX cameras I still like to use my older AF and manual 50mm (f1.4 and 1.8), pre-Ais 105 Sonnar, and 28 Ais 2.8. I do a lot of people shots with these lenses. For convenience, especially at events, my 18-105 kit lens is quite usable too. </p>

[scottelly]

<p>This makes me want a D5300 with a 10-24mm f3.5-4.5 G and 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 VR. 18" at 300mm?!?! Nice! I'm actually surprised that's only a .32x magnification.</p>

[solamnus]

<p>Yes i agree about the lenses being like different "brushes". It is one of the nice features in my opinion that they all adds something new to the palette so to speak.</p>

<p>Get it scott! Its a great lens for its limitations.<br>

/Martin.</p>