|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2013 10:03:23 PM · #1 |
Once a year around this time, I go through my entire lens collection, with the intent of reconciling it with my shooting. I sell lenses that I haven't used all year, and use the money to buy new (to me) lenses that I think I'm going to use in the coming year. This year is unusual, because I've done most of the buying, but haven't done any selling yet, so I have a large pile of lenses at the moment, and I have a new D800, so lens resolution tests have a new meaning. So I thought I'd spend time over the next couple of weeks testing them. Today I spent a couple of testing the sharpness and color of all of the lenses at various focal lengths and apertures.
My methodology:
Set up a tripod with D800 in the park in the unforgiving midday sun, aimed at a grove of trees that was near infinity. Carefully manually focus using live view, and shoot each lens, through the aperture range from widest to f/11. Set the exposure and white balance manually, to ensure consistent exposures. My experience on the D800 is that I see noticeable diffraction at f/11, and f/16 is basically unusable, so I stop testing at f/11. For zoom lenses, zoom to the focal lengths that match the other lenses I have, so I can do some apples to apples comparisons between lenses of the same focal length. View the images in Lightroom with no sharpening or other modifications.
The lenses, from long to short:
* Nikon 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 VR that I bought from  jbsmithana. J.B.'s a great guy to work with if you're buying or selling gear.
* Nikon 300 f/4 AF-S
* Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR that came as part of a kit with my D800.
* Nikon 70-200 f/4. It arrived on Wednesday, and I haven't had a chance to do much with it yet.
* Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. The two ring version.
* Nikon 105 micro VR
* Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. The latest version with the built in motor (BIM).
* Nikon 60 micro. The older one, not the newer G version.
* Nikon 50 f/1.8D. Also the older one.
* Nikon 17-35 f/2.8. My current favorite. An oldie but goodie.
* Tokina 12-24 f/4. Tested on FX from 18-24.
* Nikon 20 f/3.5 AI-S. An accidental ebay purchase. It was late at night, and I clicked the "buy it now" link on the wrong item. Not wanting to besmirch my perfect ebay feedback record, I went ahead with the purchase, now I have been playing with this 30 year old manual focus lens for a couple of weeks.
The results:
I won't bore you with the pictures. It's 150 pictures of tree branches. I realized after I started doing comparisons that it's a daunting task to do all these comparisons at all these focal lengths, so my analysis is a quick, unscientific analysis of which lenses looked the best on this particular day, under this particular set of test conditions. Nothing more. Notice also that I'm *not* penalizing lenses because they're slow. Some of the 5.6 lenses did well at some of the focal lengths, but in real shooting, 5.6 is pretty darn slow, and I might choose a faster lens. My particular interest right now is in lenses for travel, and small, light, sometimes slow lenses are often the right choice for my needs. The last caveat is that, on the longer focal lengths, I'm paying less attention to edge sharpness than I do at shorter focal lengths, just like I would in real life shooting. At 200mm or shorter, all of the lenses were sharp in the center, unless I mention that it isn't. That said, some of the results surprised me.
600mm - The contenders were the 80-400 with a Kenko Pro 1.4x TC, and the 300 f/4 with a Nikon TC-20e iii. With the teleconverters, these are both f/8 lenses at 600mm. Color and contrast were pretty similar, but the 300+2x was reasonably sharp, and the 80-400+1.4x wasn't. My experience in real life is that the 300 with the Nikon TC still autofocuses quite well, and produces good images on a D800. This is the combination I used for this: 
400/420mm - The contenders were the 80-400, the 300 with a Nikon tc-14e ii, and the 70-200 f/4 with a Nikon tc-20e iii. I don't have a 2x teleconverter that's compatible with the 80-200 anymore, so this didn't get tested. When I used the 80-200 with a Kenko 2x teleconverter in the past, it was pretty sharp, but had horrendous CA at f/2.8 (flaming streaks of purple everywhere). The 70-300 VR won't attach to the Nikon TC, so I didn't test it, either. This was a tie between the 80-400 and the 70-200 f/4, which were both pretty sharp. The 300 was less sharp. I suspect user focusing error on the 300 f/4 test, since I've gotten excellent pictures from the 300 f/4 1.4x TC combo before, but in this test, the 300 + tc was blurry throughout the frame. I was pleased with the results from both the 80-400 and the 70-200 f/4.
280/300mm - Contenders were the 80-400, the 300, the 70-200 with a Nikon 1.4x TC, the 80-200 with a Kenko 1.4x TC, and the 70-300. It was a surprise tie between the 300 f/4 and the 70-300. The 70-300 had a little more CA than the 300 f/4, but it was surprisingly sharp all the way open to f/5.6.
200mm - Contenders were the 80-400, the 70-200, the 80-200, and the 70-300. I hear rumors that the 105 macro works well with the tc-20e iii, but by this point I was getting tired of testing, I had plenty of other lenses to test, and I'm not going to make a buy/sell decision on the 105 at non-macro distances. All of the tested lenses were plenty sharp at this focal length, especially in the center. The 80-400 was the least sharp at the edges, but still sharp enough that I wouldn't hesitate to use it. The winner, though, was the 70-200 f/4, followed closely by the 70-300, because they had noticeably better color and contrast than the others. The 80-200 was arguably the sharpest by a small amount, but it also had the most CA, and compared to the others, the worst contrast. The 80-200 images were noticeably washed out in comparison to the 70-200 f/4.
105mm - Tested were the 80-400, 70-200, 80-200, 105 macro, and 70-300. All of the tested lenses were quite good, and I wouldn't hesitate to use any of them. The 70-200 was, by a small margin, the best at the most aperture settings, and the 70-300 had the worst edges at f/5.6. The newer lenses had marginally better color and contrast than the older ones, but it wasn't as obvious as at the longer focal lengths.
70-80mm - Lots of lenses in my bag at this focal length. 80-400, 70-200 f/4, 80-200, 70-300, and Tamron 28-75. This is a difficult focal length, apparently. All of the lenses had troubles. I'd have to call the 80-200 the winner by a nose. It was sharp in the most places at the most focal lengths. The 70-200 had better color and was almost as sharp, almost as often. The 80-400 sharpened up nicely at f/8. The 70-300 never got sharp on the edges. And the poor 28-75....it finally reached some sort of acceptable sharpness towards the edges at f/8. At f/2.8, it was the worst lens tested at any focal length. By a large margin.
60mm - Two lenses, the Tamron 28-75, and the Nikon 60mm macro (non-AF-S). Both were sharp in the center, and the 60 was somewhat sharper on the edges, but neither lens was very happy with the test. My experience in the past with this 60 is that it's an excellent macro lens, but doesn't focus well at infinity, so its performance on the test makes sense. The 28-75, again looked horrible at f/2.8, and was somewhat better stopped down.
50mm - Two lenses, the Tamron 28-75 again, and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D. The color of the Tamron was noticeably warmer than the Nikon. I could see which lens was which by looking at the thumbnails in Lightroom. The 28-75 was acceptable at f/8. The 50 finally got sharp at f/11. This focal length was a tie, and not in a good way.
35mm - Two lenses, the Tamron 28-75 again, and the Nikon 17-35. The 17-35 was sharp all the way across right at f/2.8. People like to criticize this lens on the internet because it isn't the latest and greatest, but I suspect they haven't really tried it. It's still my favorite. Great color, contrast, sharpness, the whole enchilada. The shots I took at 35mm with the 17-35 were the only shots in this test that I wouldn't be embarrassed to show people. The 28-75 was less bad at this focal length, but couldn't keep up with the 17-35.
24mm - Nikon 17-35 and Tokina 12-24. The Tokina has beautiful color and contrast, even better than the Nikon 17-35, and is a great lens on the D300, but it just isn't quite sharp on the D800, even in the center, at any aperture. I would question whether or not I had focusing problems, since it wasn't sharp in the center, but I've tried the lens in other shooting situations, with the same result.
20mm - Nikon 17-35 and Nikon 20mm f/3.5 AIS. The 17-35 has fuzzy corners at f/2.8, otherwise it's excellent. The oddball Nikon 20, which the internet tells me is the weakest of the many manual focus Nikon 20's, is not really all that bad. The 17-35 is certainly better, and the 20 has all kinds of distortion, blurriness, coma, and general bizarreness at the sides, especially wide open, but it has great color and contrast, and things look pretty reasonable at f/8. Since it's tiny and only weighs 9 oz, it's definitely a possibility for my travel kit.
Conclusion:
Not surprisingly, all of the lenses that cost more than $600 new did well on this test. Two lenses in particular surprised me in a good way. The 80-400 was sharper at all focal lengths than I expected, possibly because I was manually focusing it. Regardless, I'm not sure whether or not I'd recommend it, since it autofocuses slowly, and this copy tends to back focus at long focal lengths and front focus at short focal lengths, something that would show up in real life, even if it doesn't show up on this test. And the 70-300 VR is a superstar, especially given how much cheaper it is than the other lenses in the test.
Bear_Music is right about the Tamron 28-75. I was hoping to not have to replace this one, but I can see the writing on the wall...
The Tokina 12-24, though it's excellent on DX, just didn't hold its own in this test. I have no idea if it's just my copy or all of them.
My travel kit will probably have the following:
Nikon 300 f/4
Nikon tc-20eiii
Nikon tc-14eii
Nikon 70-200 f/4
Nikon 50 f/1.8
The 70-300 is in my wife's kit, and she's not giving it up....
|
|
|
|
01/14/2013 06:23:16 AM · #2 |
This makes for an interesting read, even to someone that only has Sony kit!
It has only recently dawned on me that much of the reason that I'm not getting the results I am hoping for is that I'm not accounting for the capabilities of my cheap lenses. I've read a few lens tests in recent days and now fully understand under what conditions they produce the best clarity etc. I'm looking forward to retrying my failed shots with a clearer perspective on what to expect as a result.
Thanks for posting |
|
|
|
01/14/2013 12:35:58 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by lawrysimm:
It has only recently dawned on me that much of the reason that I'm not getting the results I am hoping for is that I'm not accounting for the capabilities of my cheap lenses. |
I think that's one of the takeaways of the test. Most of the lenses I was testing are pretty expensive lenses, so I would expect them to perform well in a lot of different situations. But even the cheap lenses do well when used appropriately. That Tamron 28-75 that had such poor edge sharpness is still sharp in the center. It's not so good for landscapes, but for people photography, where the edges don't matter as much, it's still just fine. And this was a quick snapshot taken with that 30 year old Nikon 20 that had such poor edges in the test. I think it turned out just fine.
 |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 02:41:24 AM · #4 |
Simple and plain methodology well written Ann. I tend to ignore most if not all private "reviews" because they are really partisan and mostly from pixel peepers. Your D800 would give me a headache right now as I spent the last 4 years shooting with D80/D90/D300s at 10-12Mp's. My D7000 is starting to show flaws in my PP technique as it is so sharp, and some lenses in my arsenal that were dubious are now looking worth picking up again. I have yet to play with an ancient Sigma 170-500mm on the D7000 and the newer 150-500mm and am hoping that whilst they are slow, the better high ISO capabilities if the D7000 vs my D90 etc I might be able to use them again in dawn and dusk wildlife situations.
It is important to take stock and I am finding lugging all that glass around time and again on tours is breaking my back. Two primes (Wide and TelePhoto) and one zoom is all I need, but the students clamour to see them all to make future buying decisions. I need a Porter or Butler :)
ETA: PS if you ever want to get rid of the 105 Micro let me know :) My 180mm f/3.5 is too heavy for chasing lady bugs all day long.
I also found these diffraction articles very useful:
Cambridge In Colour
Luminous Landscape
F Stoppers
Message edited by author 2013-01-15 03:07:21. |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 12:37:21 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by HarveyG:
Simple and plain methodology well written Ann. I tend to ignore most if not all private "reviews" because they are really partisan and mostly from pixel peepers. Your D800 would give me a headache right now as I spent the last 4 years shooting with D80/D90/D300s at 10-12Mp's. My D7000 is starting to show flaws in my PP technique as it is so sharp, and some lenses in my arsenal that were dubious are now looking worth picking up again. I have yet to play with an ancient Sigma 170-500mm on the D7000 and the newer 150-500mm and am hoping that whilst they are slow, the better high ISO capabilities if the D7000 vs my D90 etc I might be able to use them again in dawn and dusk wildlife situations.
It is important to take stock and I am finding lugging all that glass around time and again on tours is breaking my back. Two primes (Wide and TelePhoto) and one zoom is all I need, but the students clamour to see them all to make future buying decisions. I need a Porter or Butler :)
ETA: PS if you ever want to get rid of the 105 Micro let me know :) My 180mm f/3.5 is too heavy for chasing lady bugs all day long.
I also found these diffraction articles very useful:
Cambridge In Colour
Luminous Landscape
F Stoppers |
LOL. The whole point of this exercise is that I'm getting a travel kit together for an Africa trip, and I'm trying to find the lightest kit I can put together that's both flexible enough for that kind of travel, and high quality enough to complement the D800.
The 105 Micro won't be going on the trip. Like the 17-35, it's too big and heavy for the trip, but too nice to sell. Around home, those are the two I use the most. I had an older non-VR 105 micro a few years ago. It was excellent optically, but small enough to carry around. No VR, though. I miss that lens...I sold it when I got the 105 VR. Sometimes I think about buying another... |
|
|
|
01/15/2013 01:31:16 PM · #6 |
Haha ok well I tried :)
You're talking about the 105mm AF-D f/2.8 Nikkor? Yes excellent macro, one of the finest, but like hens teeth :) e-Bay maybe?
Where are you planning on travelling, Kenya or South Africa? What are you wanting (hoping) to photograph?
Depending on your budget and the lodges/camps you visit the type of lens(es) can be quite critical. If you can go from 24mm up to about 400mm and stick to f/2.8-f/4 at the long end most of your best light and best opportunities are golden hour and you will need the fastest lenses you can take along. Animals often retire from 10am to about 4-5pm due the savage heat and so do us humans. We head back to the camp for a G&T and a nap. Unless in a hide the entire day looking for birds or the odd antelope coming for a drink and the croc taking it down. If the weight is a problem then rental would be the way to go. I understand the desire to have the lenses you know and love but lugging along 6 lenses in hand luggage is not ideal, or cost effective.
when I shoot in the African bush, mostly birds but I travel through the regions whith big game to get to the birds, I usually have 3 bodies DX (x1.5) available with 70-200mm f/2.8, 100-300mm f/4 and a 150-500mm f/slow
Once at the hide I run 1 body with 100-300mm f/4. Here we usually shoot as wide open as we can unless panning and getting blur of running antelope. Seldom shoot at f/8 or more unless it's around camp, beatles, insects, butterflies, groan squirrels etc.
Looking at your arsenal I'd take the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4 with both TC's. On your D300 the 300mm f/4 is a 450mm f/4 and oh so sharp. The 70-200mm f/2.8 with a 1.4 or 1.7 TC is perfect on the D800. Not all animals are 1000 feet from the vehicle where you need a 600mm f/4 :) The small kit 18-200mm on the D300 for travel and people pics. If you really need a monster lens hire one in Johannesburg. I know this guy... ;P
Last time I flew to Kenya from Johannesburg Kenya Airlines baggage restriction was not 20kgs but 30kgs for a "local" flight. So hiring a large lens would work. If you are staying in South Africa and it's a road trip from airport to lodge the weight won't be an issue.
Pick my brain if you like. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 01:02:52 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 01:02:52 AM EDT.
|
