carl_s

Thank you all. All great comments. Here's my next thought.... I understand that we are re-defining "normal" based on a target field of view (The 150 mm 4x5 example was a great one), and as sensors become smaller, so will the associated standard use focal lengths. With that said, as lenses move towards the ultra-wide end, is there any degradation in the optic? So for example, if I wanted a "traditional" full frame 24mm view and went with a 16mm focal length on an APS-C body, is the 16mm lens going to have any more distortion than the 24mm lens?

Does anyone have experience with the Sony E/FE lenses? I was thinking its the same as Nikons’s Dx/Fx, where an FE (full frame) lens will work just fine on an aps c body, but an E lens would need the aps-c. But then when I talk to the fine folks at B&H they confirm that FE is for full frame, but also say an E lens works for both full frame and aps-c? This seems backwards from Nikons logic.

Excellent. Thank you for the responses. Gotta love learning something new every day.

Hey All, I am a Nikon full frame shooter and haven't owned an APS-C camera in quite a while. I'm advising a friend who is getting into photography, and now I'm starting to question my own understanding of the field of view differences between a full frame and aps-c body. Hoping someone here can straighten me out: I know that in Nikon's case, FX lenses are designed for their full frame line. A 50mm prime yields a 50mm field of view on a full frame body. If you were to take that 50mm FX lens and throw it on a Nikon APS-C/DX camera, you would end up with a 75mm field of view because of the 3/2 multiplication factor that needs to get applied. I had thought that the reason Nikon produced their DX lenses was that these lenses were made for their bodies with APS-C sensors. So a DX 50mm prime lens would give a 50mm field of view when mounted to an APS-C/DX camera body (Exactly the same field of view as an FX 50mm prime on a full frame body). The person I just talked to was telling me that regardless of which lens you put on an APS-C body, the 3/2 multiplication factor still needs to be applied?? Is this correct? I also understand that if you take a DX lens and throw it on an FX body, the camera goes into crop sensor mode and throws out pixels, but I'm more interested in whether or not the multiplication factor ALWAYS needs to be applied when using an APS-C body, regardless of DX/FX lens choice. Thanks in advance.

The lens is on its way back to Nikon for repair (nearing the end of the 90 day refurb warranty period). There's enough doubt that I might as well have them evaluate it before the warranty runs out. I'll post back anything interesting once I get the lens back.

<p>At f/2.5 it's a lot better (attached). I think I probably just need to take more care when taking photos of "free range kids." Fantastic line Mike...<br> I posted this follow up primarily for anyone who might come across the thread down the road.<br> Thanks for your help all..</p><div></div>

<p>Manual Focus Shot</p><div></div>

<p>So here are two images using Nadeen Flynn's focus chart. The first (AF in title) was taken using magnified live view autofocus. The second (MF in title) was taken using magnified live view manual focus. LR sharpening left at the default value of 25, no other noise reduction, clarity, or contrast adjustments were made.<br> The two photos look virtually identical to me, which I think, would indicate that the AF system is working just fine. Focus falloff appears to happen somewhere around the 2 mm mark, and to me, seems roughly equal on both front and back ends. <br> Now I am probably being over the top, but while "This text should be perfectly in focus" is definitely in the middle of the depth of field, the level of visual acuity doesn't seem to be all that great. Perhaps that's just a factor of doing so much pixel peeping... In a print I'm sure it would look great. Kinda wish I had more lenses for comparison's sake. <br> Also, I've not used zoomed Live View before. Is this a technique that you guys are using regularly when shooting to pinpoint focus? Have a nice day all...<br> Carl</p><div></div>

Very good, thanks Shun (and everyone else). That's what I was looking to hear. Have a nice night all..

<p>Shot with tripod 1/200s f/4.0. Significantly better, but a lot smaller aperture and twice the shutter speed. </p><div></div>

<p>Original #2 Cropped</p><div></div>

<p>Gup - You didn't miss anything. I left out some important detail. The lens is the AF-S model on a D750. <br /> Stephen - Thanks for the link. I intend to look into this as soon as my kids will let me focus (pun intended) on something for more than 2 minutes. <br /> Chip - I guess this is part of everyone's dilemma. For natural light shots, I have been using 1/100 as a minimum and managing depth of field in A mode, selecting the aperture as appropriate for the shot. The D750 gives me huge flexibility (compared to my previous Nikon) when it comes to ISO selection. Still though, there's a big advantage to getting good results at large apertures and lower ISO's when it comes to noise.<br /> In the end, the whole reason for starting this thread was that I was absolutely enamored with the performance from my 1.8D lens. I bought the 1.4G thinking it would be at least a little step forward. Unfortunately, I've found myself disappointed more often than not. I haven't changed bodies, and I haven't changed techniques. This is what led me to wondering if there was an issue with my lens. I'm quite interested in the ability to make fine adjustments and am looking forward to giving that a try. <br /> Rodeo Joe - Sorry, thought Dropbox would be easier for most users. I'll attach here.</p><div></div>

<p>Hmm.. All interesting comments. Thanks. Here is a tripod shot, f/4.0 1/200s and is more what I was looking for. However, I've increased the depth of field dramatically and doubled the shutter speed to get these results. <br> https://www.dropbox.com/s/hgjqj6cm65jdmpi/_CRS2967_Crop.JPG?dl=0<br> Perhaps I should be asking more technique related questions than equipment related ones. However, the idea of testing performance using a chart is intriguing to me. Does anyone have any resources that they might suggest for a first timer when it comes to using autofocus charts?<br> <br /> As a sidenote, I had set the camera at minimum shutter of 1/100 using the twice the focal length rule. Maybe when trying to shoot candids of kids I need to rethink thatdecision and set something a little faster.</p>

<p>Shun,<br /> <br />Certainly... Here is a link to a JPEG crop with no clarity, sharpening, or noise reduction applied (<2 MB each). I understand using the tripod for best results. Also understand the shallow depth of field at such a large aperture. However, I was used to the eyelashes being wonderfully sharp with my D lens.<br> <br /> I was really just looking for the general "oh that is bad" or "eh, that's about right" response from those who are more experienced than myself. I'm trying to decide if I should contact Nikon and ask for a different copy of the lens.<br> <br /> Thanks for your thoughts.<br> <br /> https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0rw3i34vopx26u/_CRS2951_Crop.JPG?dl=0<br> https://www.dropbox.com/s/mv3nhbgdw7e5kxw/_CRS2961_Crop.JPG?dl=0</p>

<p>Good morning all,<br> I recently replaced my 50mm 1.8D with Nikon's 50mm 1.4G (albeit a refurb). I was very excited to have Nikon's top offering in the 50mm prime series. However, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed with the sharpness. It seems like I was able to get better performance out of the D lens. It's difficult to make an apples to apples comparison as I already gave my D lens away. So - I'm hoping someone here will take a look at a couple sample images and let me know if these are fair representations of what I might expect from this lens. Or... might I have a bad copy? I realize that there's an awful lot of technique involved, but since I am feeling that my D lens was sharper, I'm thinking that may not be the issue here. <br> Below are links for two images, one at f/2.8 1/100 and the other at f/2.2 1/100. I have used single point AF to focus on one of the child's eyes in each photo. The link is for the raw image so that you can see exactly what was captured without any of my LR edits and/or sharpening.<br> Thanks for any thoughts all. <br> Best regards,<br> Carl</p> <p>http://www.dropbox.com/s/4j0raln6xalwvct/_CRS2951.NEF?dl=0<br> http://www.dropbox.com/s/ue2xblif6xw6txp/_CRS2961.NEF?dl=0</p>

<p>Very good - thanks. I think I'm flat out of questions. For now at least....</p>

<p>"For output color spaces, there are three tables but you have no control over the RI so the one hardwired into the profile (usually Perceptual) is automatically applied."...."It's based on the software used to create this rendering intent. Each product will do this differently, some better than others. So you do need to view the differences with a soft proof and pick the one you prefer."<br> I realize this is a highly technical discussion, but the above statement seems contradictory. In the first sentence, you say that I have no control over the rendering intent. In the second sentence, you recommend picking the rendering intent that I prefer. </p> <p>I understand that I'm stuck with the hardwired method for LR export, but if using LR Print or Photoshop, I have the option to override the hardwired perceptual RI?</p>

<p>So to clarify that - if converting to a color space, LR Export always converts via RelCol. Photoshop gives an option regardless of conversion to color space or output profile. <br> A LR Export conversion to output profile, however, is typically Perceptual, unless specified differently using LR's print module OR Photoshop's Convert to Profile?<br> I'm assuming that LR's Print module and Photoshop's Convert to Profile module are doing the same conversions, provided that the same output profile and RI are selected. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks. That's exactly what I'm doing. On a sidenote, I sure wish LR's export function would all me to choose a rendering intent. It is a pain to use the print module for each image when it seems I could far more easily do a batch export. I wonder if LR Export picks one option be default? -- since I'm not presented with a choice.</p>

<p>No... I might be missing something then. I imported the NEF directly into my LR catalog, made my adjustments, and then used either the Print module or Export module to select the output profile and rendering intent. Then sent those files off to print. <br> My understanding is that everything remains in LR's working color space until I select something different at export/output. ProPhoto never even came into play - I thought it was just bypassed. </p>

<p>Andrew,<br> Original image was a 14 bit raw (D750). I'll try my experiment again and print your tif from Costco in different variations. I had watched your video previously (Thanks for producing these by the way) and just watched it again for an obviously needed refresher regarding OOG clipping.<br> The differences seen in the dots portion of your tif image comparison were very similar to the levels of blue saturation I mentioned in the blue shirt of my original experiment. The print that had been embedded with the printer's profile showed more variation in saturation levels than just "blue" as was seen in the sRGB version. <br> At the end of the day, I personally enjoy knowing that I'm getting the very best out of my own capabilities, hence my quest to learn the "right" way. That said, the sRGB version still looks pretty darned good. I think herein lies the true beauty of Raw photography and a LR workflow. If I don't like what I printed last month, year, etc. I can just go and reprint using different settings! No loss of original data! <br> Thanks again for everyone's comments on this thread. It's been highly informative. I'll post back any interesting results after printing your tif from Costco (and probably WHCC as well). </p>

<p>To test the differences between sending Costco an sRGB file vs sending them one with the printer profile embedded, I sent them three copies of a sample image (Granted, my test is limited by the colors in the specific image I chose). The three versions I sent were: 1) sRGB, 2) Profiled using Perceptual, and 3) Profiled using Relative. <br> The results are quite interesting. All three images look great. It would not be surprising to me if 99+% of users would be more than happy with what they get out of the sRGB image. Both images that had been converted to the printer's profile look nearly identical. The biggest difference between the profiled images and the sRGB image is that the profiled images appear to reproduce more shades of certain colors (ie A Blue shirt that contains multiple shades of blue prints the shading more accurately with the profiled image whereas the sRGB version just looks "Blue). <br> The final test came when I gave all three images to my wife (who doesn't know or care about color management). She humored me, and after looking at all three images she picked the profiled ones because she felt the coloring more closely matched the shirt that the subject was wearing. She said "All three are so close in color that if I didn't know exactly what this shirt looked like, I wouldn't have been able to pick one over the other."<br> The argument to not use sRGB seems quite clear. Costco won't accept AdobeRGB, and "most" of the other online labs won't accept a profile embedded image. Either way, as long as I stick with either AdobeRGB or embed the Costco profile, I think my images will look great. <br> One question though... When soft proofing with the printer's profile, I'll get print gamut warnings by clicking the triangle on the right side of LR's histogram (To be technically correct, I think it's called something else when soft proofing, but you get what I'm talking about...). If I deselect the gamut warning, is the proof showing me how the printer will reproduce that out of gamut color? In other words, if I'm happy with the color shown in the warning area, I need look no further, right? This would be as opposed to using the HSL panel to try and desaturate some of those out of gamut colors. </p>

<p>Andrew,<br> Good question... But Dry Creek and Costco seem to be out of the norm. I've checked as many "Pro" printing houses as I could find websites for this afternoon and nearly all of them say that all images must be embedded in a standard color space. As far as I can tell, if you want relative rendering, you're SOL, at least from WHCC. <br> It would be nice to just embed the profile as many of the experts recommend. Does make me wonder why I'm having a hard time finding a non-Costco printer to do it this way.</p>

<p>Thanks all... </p>

<p>I was thinking other than Costco - but maybe that's truly my best (and least expensive) option. <br> I just got off the phone with WHCC and they use perceptual rendering for everything, which I guess is why it's not a big deal that the profiles are not embedded. They accept AdobeRGB, and will only convert to sRGB in the event that an image is sent without a profile. So I guess perhaps it's not that big a' deal that WHCC does not allow their ICC profiles to be embedded into the image.... </p>