Benjamin Marks
Mentor
And of course, a NYC visit to IPC. First, some shots with the made-for-the-Z-mount 15/4.5 (I am definitely a fan):
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Then one with the very promising 40/2:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Last night's experiment was not about adapted lenses, but starting a new thread seems silly. I wanted to see what the camera's low light capability was in a typical dim restaurant setting. Auto-ISO "chose" ISO 20,000 for the following:
So: converted into BW in Silver FX and artsy border added, downsized, and converted to greyscale in PS. Some noise reduction applied. I feel like I am beginning to see some banding on the blackboard that makes up much of the background. I don't mind the noise that's left, which seems pretty film-like to me. Lens was Nikon's own 26mm pancake lens.
Without a low light setting, I like what the lens does. The focal length is a bit odd: betwixt 24 and 28 . . . maybe more like the 28 in terms of how it handles distortion and near lens objects? Here's a more snapshot-like image from that lens in open shade:
Don't bust my chops about the faux-negative carrier borders.
I was in that "camp" in my film years for the simple reason that the edge of the negative gave me film-base plus fog, so I knew in my test strips where my first true black was as I increased print exposure. Also, I thought it looked cool -- kind of like what we now call a humble-brag that the photog composed in the viewfinder, rather than cropped later on. Of course, now it is just another affectation/style choice. But I am happy with it. FWIW, the picture above is cropped as there was a pesky and distracting bit of metal work in the lower left-hand portion of the frame. The 26 does vignette a bit wide open, but the way I will be using it -- environmental portraiture like the image above -- probably, I won't notice/care.
So: converted into BW in Silver FX and artsy border added, downsized, and converted to greyscale in PS. Some noise reduction applied. I feel like I am beginning to see some banding on the blackboard that makes up much of the background. I don't mind the noise that's left, which seems pretty film-like to me. Lens was Nikon's own 26mm pancake lens.
Without a low light setting, I like what the lens does. The focal length is a bit odd: betwixt 24 and 28 . . . maybe more like the 28 in terms of how it handles distortion and near lens objects? Here's a more snapshot-like image from that lens in open shade:
Don't bust my chops about the faux-negative carrier borders.
I was in that "camp" in my film years for the simple reason that the edge of the negative gave me film-base plus fog, so I knew in my test strips where my first true black was as I increased print exposure. Also, I thought it looked cool -- kind of like what we now call a humble-brag that the photog composed in the viewfinder, rather than cropped later on. Of course, now it is just another affectation/style choice. But I am happy with it. FWIW, the picture above is cropped as there was a pesky and distracting bit of metal work in the lower left-hand portion of the frame. The 26 does vignette a bit wide open, but the way I will be using it -- environmental portraiture like the image above -- probably, I won't notice/care.Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Here is a snapshot with the Zeiss 35/2.8 Biogon in M-mount in a Fotodiox helical adapter (racked in, so normal focus is possible). On film, this little gem of a lens was always a favorite. I have also used it on my M9 as an "outdoor" lens due to its maximum 2.8 aperture-- such a great combination of rendering, size, weight. The EXIF data says that the Z8 chose ISO 5000 and 1/40 for this shot which was taken at f:4 with IBIS on next to a set of southerly facing windows in the afternoon. The open sky is your lightbox in these situations. This was shot in Nikon's NEF format, imported to Photoshop as a 16-bit file and converted to BW in SilverFX Pro, and then downsized/rez'd for posting here before being converted to a Greyscale jpg. I didn't do a thing to the exposure in PS, or tweak the contrast or sharpening . . . really just the default SilverFX conversion as a "neutral" film.
The results actually got me thinking about whether fast lenses are necessary any more. One of the reasons I own only one zoom lens and mostly rely on primes is that, in general, primes are faster and give me better performance than a comparable zoom at the prime's focal length. At least, this used to be true more often than not. My guess is that the best samples of current premium zooms are pretty good to excellent. And well they should be at their current costs. There are particular bokeh effects with fast primes, and of course the optical quality of subject isolation due to shallow depth of focus. So if you want those optical effects, you either have to figure out how to duplicate the look in post-processing (I haven't the patience, but my guess is that the engineers at Apple do) or use fast lenses.
The results actually got me thinking about whether fast lenses are necessary any more. One of the reasons I own only one zoom lens and mostly rely on primes is that, in general, primes are faster and give me better performance than a comparable zoom at the prime's focal length. At least, this used to be true more often than not. My guess is that the best samples of current premium zooms are pretty good to excellent. And well they should be at their current costs. There are particular bokeh effects with fast primes, and of course the optical quality of subject isolation due to shallow depth of focus. So if you want those optical effects, you either have to figure out how to duplicate the look in post-processing (I haven't the patience, but my guess is that the engineers at Apple do) or use fast lenses.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Fast lenses still have their uses: Rajasthan
Even with IBIS, this would not have been feasible without both a fast lens and an exceptional sensor. The photo shows this better than I could see it. Imagine what you could do with the Z8 and the f0.95 Noct-Nikkor! If you could hold it up you could shoot in pure darkness.
The b&w conversion here is spot on. Great job.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
That photo you linked to of the ivory opium bowl is amazing!
And yes, I am sort of drooling at the possibilities. I have an f:1 Noctilux and an f:1.1 Nockton and a slew of f:1.4/1.5 lenses, believe me, they are never getting sold. It's just that when I bought those lenses, I was using a 400 speed film and had specific uses in mind. And now that I have a camera with such comparatively good high-ISO performance, I wonder whether I would have made the same choice if I were starting from scratch. Or to put it another way, suddenly an f:4.5 kit lens doesn't seem all that limiting either, although I am not running out to buy one of those.
Cascadilla
Well-known
Since I've been at this for 50 years, I can remember when zoom lenses were usually a considerable compromise in quality for the convenience of not having to change and carry lots of prime lenses. I didn't own any zoom lenses until the mid 90's, and I used a 35 - 105 for shooting weddings where the convenience was worth it. My experience with digital over the last 20 years is that zoom lenses have gotten much better and that the corrections possible in Photoshop for distortion and vignetting have equalized the quality issues to a considerable degree. I own 5 prime macro lenses that I use in my studio where maximum quality is the goal, but for the occasional event that I shoot I use zooms since convenience is more important to me than the slight increase in quality that primes would provide. As usual with photography, what the end result needs to be dictates the tools that should be used.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I did spend a lot time changing lenses today. So: score one for the zoom concept. I only have one, a 28-70/2.8, which I use on my Pentax K-1. It does OK. On this particular trip, I only had primes. Some Nikon Z-mount, which have uniformly exceeded what I need a lens to do, even the 26mm pancake lens that has gotten less-than-impressed reviews. Actually, I find it a useful focal length and great for interior shots.
Here's one of my nephews with the 26mm on a NYC subway car:
Here is the Nikon 85/1.8 this afternoon:
Here's one of my nephews with the 26mm on a NYC subway car:
Here is the Nikon 85/1.8 this afternoon:
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
So Sunday's project was making some photos of my BIL's recent glass-blowing efforts. This is actually a lesson in still life, and glass structures have a certain depth to them, making the technical questions of f-stop selection and point of focus really the central ones. These pictures don't represent a strong suit for me technically, but when a family member asks for specific pictures, I (a) usually have an idea of how to solve the problem and (b) have a better starting place and kit than they do. So it is the regrettable situation of having become the "expert" in the room, even if not an "expert" by one's own standards. The ethos is, "well, you're the photographer, you figure it out." Unless otherwise noted, all pictures are handheld withe Z8's IBIS turned on. I did have a tripod with me, but handheld was just easier, given that each object had to be approached from its own perspective. In keeping with the thread's original title, I will start with an an image from an adapted 50/1.7 Planar Contax MMJ SLR lens in a "dumb" adapter:
Then one with the Zeiss 35/2.8 M-Biogon @f:8 in a Fotodiox helical adapter:
Then some with the native 85/1.8:
I think my BIL will be pleased, as he is really looking for a record of his best stuff. I am always a bit in awe of folks who create objects in three dimensions. I mean, it is all I can do to make my subject interesting from a single point of view. All of the above have been cropped and had the exposure adjusted and color tweaked in Lightroom before being exported as fairly small jpgs. For the first time, I really saw the effects of "throwing out" so much data to get to a final product. The blacks suffer tremendously when posted here, turning to a kind of washed out dark, dark, grey. And my dark greens (not in the above pictures, but in ones I didn't have the guts to post) have gone all dark and muddy. Here's one that's not so bad (but still not a picture I am in love with -- in fact it isn't worth much more than evidence that the object was "there" and certainly doesn't recommend the piece particularly):
Then one with the Zeiss 35/2.8 M-Biogon @f:8 in a Fotodiox helical adapter:
Then some with the native 85/1.8:
I think my BIL will be pleased, as he is really looking for a record of his best stuff. I am always a bit in awe of folks who create objects in three dimensions. I mean, it is all I can do to make my subject interesting from a single point of view. All of the above have been cropped and had the exposure adjusted and color tweaked in Lightroom before being exported as fairly small jpgs. For the first time, I really saw the effects of "throwing out" so much data to get to a final product. The blacks suffer tremendously when posted here, turning to a kind of washed out dark, dark, grey. And my dark greens (not in the above pictures, but in ones I didn't have the guts to post) have gone all dark and muddy. Here's one that's not so bad (but still not a picture I am in love with -- in fact it isn't worth much more than evidence that the object was "there" and certainly doesn't recommend the piece particularly):
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
You know how it is: you go someplace other than home. You take some happy snaps. You process whatcha got when you get back. And then, after a first pass, you wonder what else is on the drive. So you take a second pass, looking for the rose among the thorns.
The irony of my photographic life is that I live in a very beautiful natural setting, but as an urban import. We moved to this rural paradise 20-some odd years ago for my wife's work, and on the whole, I'd say that the move was a good one. But photographically, I am just not a landscape guy. No disrespect meant to those of you who respond to photos of the wild. But personally, I would always choose to be in the wild rather than to photograph the wild. For instance,I have never seen a photo of sunset that could beat (or even match) the actual event. But human interaction in an urban setting is what gets me going -- and I know that that sense of being in a crowd is anathema to many of you. Still, it is what it is. So I tend to take a lot of pictures when I visit urban settings, and not a lot of my rural one. This is true even on a rare April day like today when everything is covered in snow. Here's the view of our aging maple out the back door with a Contax 35/2.8 Distagon, ISO 125, cropped slightly.
The detail is impressive in the original. But to me, this is a technically adequate, but boring photograph. There's no fizz, no point, no razzle. It is snow on a tree.
But here's what caught my eye on the hard drive this morning from my last week's sojourn in NYC. 15 C/V Heliar in Z-mount:
And here's the human detail that I love . . and the crop that might actually be promising, the thing that brings me back to cities over and over:
BTW: the detail pano-crop is about 15% of the original file . . . which is one of the things that 46 MP is going to get ya.
The irony of my photographic life is that I live in a very beautiful natural setting, but as an urban import. We moved to this rural paradise 20-some odd years ago for my wife's work, and on the whole, I'd say that the move was a good one. But photographically, I am just not a landscape guy. No disrespect meant to those of you who respond to photos of the wild. But personally, I would always choose to be in the wild rather than to photograph the wild. For instance,I have never seen a photo of sunset that could beat (or even match) the actual event. But human interaction in an urban setting is what gets me going -- and I know that that sense of being in a crowd is anathema to many of you. Still, it is what it is. So I tend to take a lot of pictures when I visit urban settings, and not a lot of my rural one. This is true even on a rare April day like today when everything is covered in snow. Here's the view of our aging maple out the back door with a Contax 35/2.8 Distagon, ISO 125, cropped slightly.
The detail is impressive in the original. But to me, this is a technically adequate, but boring photograph. There's no fizz, no point, no razzle. It is snow on a tree.
But here's what caught my eye on the hard drive this morning from my last week's sojourn in NYC. 15 C/V Heliar in Z-mount:
And here's the human detail that I love . . and the crop that might actually be promising, the thing that brings me back to cities over and over:
BTW: the detail pano-crop is about 15% of the original file . . . which is one of the things that 46 MP is going to get ya.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Here's another with the C/V 15 for the Z8. This lens and I are going to get along just fine. This is about a 30% crop of the original photo. As you can see the joker pushing the camera buttons couldn't quite level his horizons. Jeez, they'll let anyone post here. . .
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
And another:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
And another from Nikon's own 35/1.8 Z mount lens. f:5.6 in broad daylight. Interesting/instructive set of errors on my part. I chose 5.6 when I was photographing in open shade and then sort of forgot about it. Moving to full sun, even from the shadow side, I lost some DOF. So the lens's "missile lock" focus tracking was on the eye of the woman in the light-colored coat, center/right of frame. But a choice of f:11 or f:16 would have gotten more of the image in critical focus. I am also surprised that at 1/250 there is some motion blur on the foot of the guy in the ball-cap. This is, I think, one of the perils of an Auto-ISO setting. The exposure is fine, overall, given the very contrasty nature of the scene, but if I had had my brain turned on (rather than letting the camera make all these decisions) I think I would have chosen IS0 500 (which has the same functional equivalent for noise for a photo like this as ISO 64) or above and been happier with the overall result. Last note: I took this, apparently, in JPG-Fine mode, rather than RAW as I usually do. I was testing out the quality of those files out of the camera. Not bad, is how I'd rate them, although for this contrasty a scene I think I'd want all my post-processing options open in the future as little things like the shadow detail on ball-cap's sweatshirt in the shade are gone.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Alright. All of this is play for me. But some play is sillier than others. So for the sake of wasting some perfectly good time (yours and mine, to paraphrase Click and Clack), I offer the following: Did you know that there is a m-4/3 adapter to the Nikon Z system? Yup. For those of you who just feel like every lens has to go on every body it can, the Interwebs offers this. Just in case you were burning with desire to know the answer to the question: so how much of a 35mm frame does the image circle of a Micro 4/3 lens cover, I offer this:
Goofy, right? The above was taken with the C/V 25mm f: 0.95 at about f: 4.
Actually there were some large format photographers who went this route, shooting on the traditional sheet film sizes with wide or small lenses that didn't cover the format. The final result wasn't everyone's taste, but I always thought it was a novel way to view the world photographically.
The truth is that if you process in Lightroom you can "copy" your development settings to automate a particular crop across many photos, so you could, if you wanted, turn your Z8 into a m4/3 camera, by judicially cropping the above image to a rectangle. It would look more or less like this:
Why bother? Well, if like me you are incredibly easy to amuse, you might do it for the fun. The Z8 produces such a great whopping load of data for each image, there is plenty of detail, even with a 50% (roughly) crop like this. And as a bonus, you get to rate my housekeeping, which ain't what it oughter, if you know what I mean.
Actually, you can see that I should have gone a liiiitle tighter with my crop to totally get rid of the evidence of the lens' coverage limitations.
Goofy, right? The above was taken with the C/V 25mm f: 0.95 at about f: 4.
Actually there were some large format photographers who went this route, shooting on the traditional sheet film sizes with wide or small lenses that didn't cover the format. The final result wasn't everyone's taste, but I always thought it was a novel way to view the world photographically.
The truth is that if you process in Lightroom you can "copy" your development settings to automate a particular crop across many photos, so you could, if you wanted, turn your Z8 into a m4/3 camera, by judicially cropping the above image to a rectangle. It would look more or less like this:
Why bother? Well, if like me you are incredibly easy to amuse, you might do it for the fun. The Z8 produces such a great whopping load of data for each image, there is plenty of detail, even with a 50% (roughly) crop like this. And as a bonus, you get to rate my housekeeping, which ain't what it oughter, if you know what I mean.
Actually, you can see that I should have gone a liiiitle tighter with my crop to totally get rid of the evidence of the lens' coverage limitations.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
One of the things that you hear on the Interwebs is that when you buy a mirrorless camera, you may have to just grind down all your existing legacy glass to dust and dispose of it responsibly because the blood-sucking hordes of chromatic aberration are going to destroy your mind, break down your body, and leave you a gasping husk of a photographer begging for death's merciful release. But is that really true? Well, for one thing, even modern up-to-the-minute lenses are going to show some CA on today's sensors if you torture them enough. By this I mean, if you insist on pointing even a modern lens produced yesterday directly at your back-lit, detailed subject, and zoom in on the subject's edges on-screen against the backlighting you are going to notice some sensor bloom and CA. I have seen enough of Sean Reid's lens reviews to know this for certain.
And it is true that older lenses, designed film in mind instead of a digital sensor are going to have this problem. But it's like the old Vaudeville Dr. Kronkite joke. Man goes to "Dr, when I raise my arm like this, it hurts." Dr: "so don't do that."
The Pentax Takumar M42 (what used to be called universal screw-mount) lenses are beautifully built, all brass creations. I don't think there is anyone out there making lenses of this build quality today -- maybe Leica. They can still be had for a reasonable price, are compact, and fun to use. But will they perform? The punchline is, of course, that you all are going to have to decide for yourselves, but this morning I put a 105/2.8 Takumar lens on the Nikon Z8 to see what would happen.
Here's a shot of the blooms on the maple tree in the backyard with that lens wide open. The maple blossoms are funny flowers, and are often among first thing that the local bees go for when spring sets in around here. First the crocuses, then the daffodils, then the maple. It has been like that every spring since we moved here:
That's a shot of the blooms at minimum focus of about 1.2 meters. As you can see the subject is isolated by the f:2.8 aperture and the OOF areas are pretty smooth. The sun is behind me, so this isn't a torture test, but you can see a little smearing/CA in this 100% crop from the above shot:
Here's the same shot at f:8:
As you can see, there is less CA, and the perceived result in the picture is higher contrast. I should mention that these are jpg conversion from PS with no corrections applied. What you are seeing is about .3% of the data that the sensor produces. I'll return to that below with some links to full-size JPGs.
Here's a 100% area crop from the second picture:
To my eye, this cleans up nicely. Now you might be thinking that being "constrained" to shooting at f:8 would be a drag. But it does suggest that whatever the native quality of the glass is wide-open, you do have some tools to control this if that's the direction you want to go.
But what about an actual torture test? What's the use of cherry picking performance with the sun at my back? So here's a shot of a pine tree, shot up against the open sky:
There's definitely some CA there. . . I can feel the purple greeblies reaching out even at this reduced image size. Here's a crop, viewing the worst of it at 100%:
Yuck, right? Well, what about PS Camera RAW's check box for removing CA on conversion? MMMMMmm, it helps, but doesn't eliminate the problem. The above is a straight conversion with no attempt at digital "help" from PS. Here's the same crop from a version of the file with Camera RAW's CA box clicked, "help meee . . . ."
Not much help, to my eye.
So is the "problem" of legacy glass one that is insurmountable? Well, I am going to argue "no," but you have to kinda know what your tools are going to do before you press the shutter button. Today, the eFray price for a clean 105/2.8 Takumar is $89 plus $17 shipping from Japan. That's a pretty sweet deal in lens-land, even if it is more than these things were selling for a couple of years ago.
Here are some other shots for comparison. f:2.8:
f: 8 (different focus point, though):
Here's another at f:2.8:
And at f:8:
F: 2.8 again (you're getting the idea by now):
Finally, I have posted links below to 10 MB versions of jpg of a couple of the above. I dunno, I have to figure out whether Smugmug can take 8-bit TIFFs. The best way, I think, to see what's going on with these is to have copies of the files to play with on your own set-ups. But for now, the links go to larger versions of a couple of the above shots. If you think "larger images might convince me," download 'em and look.
My own conclusions is that the old Pentax M42 lenses can do great, especially for the price. I feel almost like families of lenses can give photographers a particular color palate, or "look" that would be hard to re-create digitally (or would take more time sitting in front of the computer than I want to put in). I will use this lens without particular fear of its CA properties, but will also have to take some care about shot placement vs. light source. Then again, we all do that anyway when we are working at our best. The nut behind the trigger release is responsible for how the picture turns out . . . including where he or she is placed in relation to the light. Apologies for the boring nature of the pictures. But that's what its like in my backyard after only one cup of coffee.
https://benjaminmarks.smugmug.com/Nikon-Z8-Full-Size-Test-Files/i-p9XPNC4/A
Nikon Z8 Full Size Test Files - Marks Imaging LLC
Nikon Z8 Full Size Test Files - Marks Imaging LLC
Nikon Z8 Full Size Test Files - Marks Imaging LLC
Edit: I can actually imagine a use for a portrait lens with a little softness wide open. There used to be LF portrat lenses that came with a series of diffuser disks allowing the photographer to dial in the amount of diffusion he wanted in the final portrait. You could think of this lens as a portrait lens for subjects of a certain age. I'm as vain as the next man and I wouldn't mind some of my more common defects softened a bit when the camera comes in for a close up.
And it is true that older lenses, designed film in mind instead of a digital sensor are going to have this problem. But it's like the old Vaudeville Dr. Kronkite joke. Man goes to "Dr, when I raise my arm like this, it hurts." Dr: "so don't do that."
The Pentax Takumar M42 (what used to be called universal screw-mount) lenses are beautifully built, all brass creations. I don't think there is anyone out there making lenses of this build quality today -- maybe Leica. They can still be had for a reasonable price, are compact, and fun to use. But will they perform? The punchline is, of course, that you all are going to have to decide for yourselves, but this morning I put a 105/2.8 Takumar lens on the Nikon Z8 to see what would happen.
Here's a shot of the blooms on the maple tree in the backyard with that lens wide open. The maple blossoms are funny flowers, and are often among first thing that the local bees go for when spring sets in around here. First the crocuses, then the daffodils, then the maple. It has been like that every spring since we moved here:
That's a shot of the blooms at minimum focus of about 1.2 meters. As you can see the subject is isolated by the f:2.8 aperture and the OOF areas are pretty smooth. The sun is behind me, so this isn't a torture test, but you can see a little smearing/CA in this 100% crop from the above shot:
Here's the same shot at f:8:
As you can see, there is less CA, and the perceived result in the picture is higher contrast. I should mention that these are jpg conversion from PS with no corrections applied. What you are seeing is about .3% of the data that the sensor produces. I'll return to that below with some links to full-size JPGs.
Here's a 100% area crop from the second picture:
To my eye, this cleans up nicely. Now you might be thinking that being "constrained" to shooting at f:8 would be a drag. But it does suggest that whatever the native quality of the glass is wide-open, you do have some tools to control this if that's the direction you want to go.
But what about an actual torture test? What's the use of cherry picking performance with the sun at my back? So here's a shot of a pine tree, shot up against the open sky:
There's definitely some CA there. . . I can feel the purple greeblies reaching out even at this reduced image size. Here's a crop, viewing the worst of it at 100%:
Yuck, right? Well, what about PS Camera RAW's check box for removing CA on conversion? MMMMMmm, it helps, but doesn't eliminate the problem. The above is a straight conversion with no attempt at digital "help" from PS. Here's the same crop from a version of the file with Camera RAW's CA box clicked, "help meee . . . ."
Not much help, to my eye.
So is the "problem" of legacy glass one that is insurmountable? Well, I am going to argue "no," but you have to kinda know what your tools are going to do before you press the shutter button. Today, the eFray price for a clean 105/2.8 Takumar is $89 plus $17 shipping from Japan. That's a pretty sweet deal in lens-land, even if it is more than these things were selling for a couple of years ago.
Here are some other shots for comparison. f:2.8:
f: 8 (different focus point, though):
Here's another at f:2.8:
And at f:8:
F: 2.8 again (you're getting the idea by now):
Finally, I have posted links below to 10 MB versions of jpg of a couple of the above. I dunno, I have to figure out whether Smugmug can take 8-bit TIFFs. The best way, I think, to see what's going on with these is to have copies of the files to play with on your own set-ups. But for now, the links go to larger versions of a couple of the above shots. If you think "larger images might convince me," download 'em and look.
My own conclusions is that the old Pentax M42 lenses can do great, especially for the price. I feel almost like families of lenses can give photographers a particular color palate, or "look" that would be hard to re-create digitally (or would take more time sitting in front of the computer than I want to put in). I will use this lens without particular fear of its CA properties, but will also have to take some care about shot placement vs. light source. Then again, we all do that anyway when we are working at our best. The nut behind the trigger release is responsible for how the picture turns out . . . including where he or she is placed in relation to the light. Apologies for the boring nature of the pictures. But that's what its like in my backyard after only one cup of coffee.
https://benjaminmarks.smugmug.com/Nikon-Z8-Full-Size-Test-Files/i-p9XPNC4/A
Nikon Z8 Full Size Test Files - Marks Imaging LLC
Nikon Z8 Full Size Test Files - Marks Imaging LLC
Nikon Z8 Full Size Test Files - Marks Imaging LLC
Edit: I can actually imagine a use for a portrait lens with a little softness wide open. There used to be LF portrat lenses that came with a series of diffuser disks allowing the photographer to dial in the amount of diffusion he wanted in the final portrait. You could think of this lens as a portrait lens for subjects of a certain age. I'm as vain as the next man and I wouldn't mind some of my more common defects softened a bit when the camera comes in for a close up.
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
Here's a mix-n-match. Not really a comparison that's worth much, but interesting to me. The first picture is with a Contax 45mm Tessar -- it's the little 2.8 pancake lens they sold as a "walking around" compact. Design emphasis (as many lenses of this type were/are) on portability/carryability than on image quality per se. But I think the results are good.
The second is from the venerable/venerated Pentax 50/1.4 Takumar in M42 mount.
Both files lose a little saturation when I post them to RFF . . . not sure why that is. I think there may be some double-secret file compression going on. I am fine with that, as I value the forum. But the interesting thing from my perspective is that in PS and on screen once they are posted, the colors of the two seem pretty similar to me. I had never heard of Pentax and Contax being a particular match on color cast. Contax and Leica were always contrasted . . . Both of these lenses are gems, although I'll admit that sticking them on mirrorless adapters for the Nikon is kind of like taking a graceful ballerina and dressing her in combat boots. Still . . .
The second is from the venerable/venerated Pentax 50/1.4 Takumar in M42 mount.
Both files lose a little saturation when I post them to RFF . . . not sure why that is. I think there may be some double-secret file compression going on. I am fine with that, as I value the forum. But the interesting thing from my perspective is that in PS and on screen once they are posted, the colors of the two seem pretty similar to me. I had never heard of Pentax and Contax being a particular match on color cast. Contax and Leica were always contrasted . . . Both of these lenses are gems, although I'll admit that sticking them on mirrorless adapters for the Nikon is kind of like taking a graceful ballerina and dressing her in combat boots. Still . . .
Last edited:
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
So how about a selection of boring pictures with wide angles? The knock on mirrorless cameras is that they are not great with wides, due to the incident angle of the rays coming out of the lens iris. Worse with the short flange distance and design of Leica lenses, than with SLR retrofocus designs. I am going to do a head-to-head of SLR 24's to Leica this weekend. But for now I wanted to see how three older SLR 24mm lenses would do. So up today are a 24mm Nikkor-D, Pentax SMC, and Konika Hexinon all at f:2.8. I didn't have any exposure compensation dialed in, and the wall is an interior mostly-white color. So all three shots have +1.65 of a stop correction dialed in in Camera RAW. Other that, I made no corrections to these first three pictures.
Here's the Nikon:
That grey blob in the middle is my shadow. Room lights were off, and the light source is a row of South-facing windows behind me. Light falloff isn't too bad. Remember some wide angle lenses vignetted on film too. Here's the Pentax.
Little bit more vignetting than the Nikon, but not too bad. Here's the Konica:
I am not sure how to measure these. . . but the Konica and the Pentax 24's seem pretty similar in performance. Those lenses are 10-15 years older than the Nikon, but performance is close.
Well if you've gotten this far, let me bore you with a couple of more boring pictures. These next two are the the same as the last two, but with the corrections that Photoshop offers dialed in. Here's the Pentax (corrected):
and here's the Konica (Corrected):
The Konica's corrected file looks good to me, about as good as the Nikon 24's uncorrected file.
What this tells me is that your adapted SLR wide-angle lenses can work just fine on a Z8 with a bit of minimal tweaking. The Pentax corrected file doesn't look as good in the corners, but I think with some time spent tweaking the file it would be fine.
It is true that the ZII adapter and the 24-D's autofocus don't work together. Then again, focusing a 24 is not that hard by hand.
Here's the Nikon:
That grey blob in the middle is my shadow. Room lights were off, and the light source is a row of South-facing windows behind me. Light falloff isn't too bad. Remember some wide angle lenses vignetted on film too. Here's the Pentax.
Little bit more vignetting than the Nikon, but not too bad. Here's the Konica:
I am not sure how to measure these. . . but the Konica and the Pentax 24's seem pretty similar in performance. Those lenses are 10-15 years older than the Nikon, but performance is close.
Well if you've gotten this far, let me bore you with a couple of more boring pictures. These next two are the the same as the last two, but with the corrections that Photoshop offers dialed in. Here's the Pentax (corrected):
and here's the Konica (Corrected):The Konica's corrected file looks good to me, about as good as the Nikon 24's uncorrected file.
What this tells me is that your adapted SLR wide-angle lenses can work just fine on a Z8 with a bit of minimal tweaking. The Pentax corrected file doesn't look as good in the corners, but I think with some time spent tweaking the file it would be fine.
It is true that the ZII adapter and the 24-D's autofocus don't work together. Then again, focusing a 24 is not that hard by hand.
tcmx3
Member
I think this is just the nature of the discussion around camera stuff these days.
Modern lenses got better near maximum aperture, people started using them like that, this put more pressure on manufacturers to keep pushing in that direction even at the expense of size, vignetting and distortion (the latter two seem easier to fully correct than CA). Rinse and repeat. Imagine, too, a long rant about how YouTube has pushed the discussion right {here}.
By the way, as I look through the images in this thread, I love the rendering of the old lenses but I cannot help but be very impressed by the 35/1.8S. It's not just that it's sharp, I think Nikon has really broken through with this generation of lenses. They're sharp everywhere all the time, and the rendering is the best I've seen from post-millenium lenses with a few minor exceptions. I've really fallen in love with the 105/2.8 S macro and 50/1.8S myself. These Nikon lenses have really made things complicated; this was all very simple when I had Canon bodies, as I did not want their lenses lol. That said there are still a couple of lenses for which there is something so special that it justifies the effort. Older Olympus and Leica lenses still do wonderful, soft colors that even the 6/4 configuration 40mm Z lens doesn't do. To my eye, that subtlety in mid tones often makes final images a bit clearer in the details even if they lack the obvious immediate punch of modern lenses. I've been thinking I really need a v4 or so 50mm summicron lately as such lol.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I agree completely about the qualities of the Z-series lenses. Their output is great. However, I might choose a different lens if taking a portrait of an 80 year-old, as opposed to a 26 year-old.I starting to think of the various brands' design choices as different pallettes to choose from.
Edit: beginning of next month I am taking portraits of a couple whose wedding I am photographing this summer. The 105 Z-mount macro lens will be the first lens out of the bag. The couple will be photographed against a black background in the open shade. I will also test out a Contax 100 Macro Planar, and a 90 AA Leica lens. We shall see.
Edit: beginning of next month I am taking portraits of a couple whose wedding I am photographing this summer. The 105 Z-mount macro lens will be the first lens out of the bag. The couple will be photographed against a black background in the open shade. I will also test out a Contax 100 Macro Planar, and a 90 AA Leica lens. We shall see.
Last edited:
tcmx3
Member
Having used the 105 on a person much younger than 80, I can assure you that the clarity and texture sliders in lightroom (or the C1/nx studio equivalent) are your friends lol. Drag them to the left as needed and enjoy the color and OOF rendering of the lens. I actually purchased the 105 in part because has that swirly bokeh at f2.8. Very different than the Plena, which would be the more obvious choice for "portraits" but also has a good maximum magnification ratio, to the point I actually was kind of considering it instead. I found the Plena immensely compelling but it has that really smooth rendering that I think suits wedding photographer better; total obliteration of background details, no circulation of highlights around the subject, etc. which is very apparent from samples from the flickr pool or youtube reviews with the 105.
I used the RNI Fuji 400H "simulation" and while it's definitely not the same as shooting on 400H, I will say the results were really really nice in terms of skin tone.
The 105mm perspective and characteristics of the VR macro are absolute A+ in my book for portrait work, but I realize they wont be to everyone's taste. The 90AA is incredible, irreproachable, really. I would bet money at shared apertures the 105 is sharper but who cares, both are way sharp enough, and both are amongst the best rendering lenses to my taste. the 100MP I'm less fond of tbh, but it's still a great one. I know many people love it, I actually have the 50mm version for F mount and can't bring myself to part with it for what they're worth second hand.
Last edited: