https://opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff?start=2
If you mean this one, the optical quality isn’t that much.
George
1 Like
Have to agree on that. At the time I bought it, it was already an old piece. It’s a “superzoom” for FF, but superzoom meant with negative connotation. Can do everything from wide to tele, just nowhere really good.
A Tamron or Sigma 100-400 serves better at the tele end and maybe a 24-105 at the wider end. Not the Nikkor 24-120. I went for the meanhwile also “older” Sigma Art, which is a bit heavy, but has an outstanding vibration reduction inbuilt,1/15 freehand @ 105 mm. But for the “maximum enlargement screensize” condition, why not going µ4/3 if it has to be small and lightweight and good quality?
Edit:
I was completely wrong on that. Introduced in 2010, I think I bought it 2 years later. And I’m also not sure if the lens was really that mediocre or maybe my technique. I remember I found it neither wide nor long nor fast enough and realized all that cannot be in one lens.
They mention distortion but DxO has that covered in spades with the lens module. Like any lens, it just takes getting to know its weaknesses, none of which the optics module can’t correct and it’s really is much more like Ken Rockwell review than that one.
There’s also the issue that the 24-300 sells for a bit more $:
Nikon 28-300
I’ve already got my Nikon 24-85 that creates excellent results.
Nikon sold me a refurb 70-300 for a bit over $500. That’s a step in the right direction.
All that may be true, but having grown up with rangefinder cameras, I’m addicted to them, for lots of reasons. Unfortunately, if I want a rangefinder, the only choice nowadays is Leica. There are alternatives, but there is no substitute.
Zeiss Ikon developed a bayonet mount, while Leica was still using screw mounts. Then Leica developed a better bayonet mount, where the full lens doesn’t turn as you focus. The Leica was more sturdy than the Contax II, then the IIa. Nikon came along with the Nikon 1, similar to Contax, and a few models later with the SP which was the best they ever did. I have one. But in almost every way, the Leica M was better - and it’s difficult to tell the difference between the original LEICA M3, and today’s M10 or M11. Everything is built around the rangefinder.
I always wanted a Rollei, but could never afford one. :-(.
Yesterday I posted the full image, and a 100% screen capture of Biscayne Bay with the tower and statues. So, here’s the comparison shots from my Nikon D750 with the standard “kit” lens that it came with, take at the same time, but this morning:
D750 with Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 G
M10 with Voigtlander 50mm f/2 APO-LANTHAR:
At 100% size, it’s obvious.
Here’s the full image
MM1_0012 | 2022-01-31.nef (29.6 MB)
Maybe there’s an even newer 50mm f/2 lens for the Nikon F mount?
How about 200% ??
That article I was talking about here resurfaced: Dynamic symmetry: The genius of Henri Cartier-Bresson's composition: Digital Photography Review.
@mikemyers you are comparing a camera costing £4,000 used to one costing £700 used or £1,400 new (someone is offering it for £825 new!!) body only in all cases.
Comparing the pictures is a little difficult because the best comparison comes from FastStone not least because the whole screen is used and it has a very useful “nudge” feature but it has no inbuilt RAW convertor.
FastRawViewer can do the comparison but I can’t find the “nudge”. I will attach some comparisons but I will start with one in particular both pictures passed through PL5 for lens adjustment only and then the Nikon JPG passed through Franzis sharpening 3 Pro!
or without additional sharpening applied to the Nikon JPG:-
DNG versus NEF (FRV with RAW conversion):-
If you are going to pixel peep then you need to do it properly:-
PS: I normally reduce the automatic sharpening that Franzis applies when processing my pseudo-Macro photos for fear of “cutting” my eyes but I did not do that in the case of the D750 jpg
Actually, both cameras have 24 megapixel sensors - I wasn’t trying to compare cameras, only the lenses, and I only picked one spot, the column with statues around it. The Voigtlander lens is supposed to be very close to the capability of the newest Leica lenses. The Nikon 50 f/2 as far as I know hasn’t changed in ages, and B&H still offers it for sale today. I’m not aware of a “better” 50mm lens for the Nikon F mount. The Nikon lens sells for $250 or so, and the Voigtlander sells for $1,000 or so. The Nikon lens is plastic, and the Voigtlander is metal, as are the Leica lenses.
About prices - the price I paid for the Nikon D750 was at some discount from the $2,400 or so original price, four or five years ago, and the Leica M10 cost me around $6,000 two or three years ago. One is mass produced in Thailand, and the other is mostly hand made in Germany. The Nikon included far, far more features, a powerful computer that can do much more than the Leica, a built-in flash, electronic coupling to the lens… by most comparisons, the Nikon is the “better” camera. Of course, the huge difference is one is an SLR with computer focusing, and the other has a manual range finder. Both have a display screen on the back, but the Nikon can be oriented in many ways, but the Leica display is fixed. …but again, this comparison was for the lens, not the camera.
The purpose of the test was to take both camera, with the “standard lens”, take a normal photograph with each, and compare the captured detail. I got the same results today, that I got five or eight years ago, with the Nikon lens being softer than the lens I was using on my Leica, which back then was a 1960’s Leica lens.
Neither image was sharpened - I’m not sure what the default preset in PL5 is or does, but I deliberately did nothing beyond importing the images. Interesting that when I compare all your side-by-side images, the DNG looks noticeably better than the NEF.
I’m lost looking at those last four images, but for both pairs of images, the images at the left appear to me to have more detail than the images at the right. Please tell me how I should have pixel peeped these images - I don’t understand, and wasn’t pixel peeping anyway.
I’m lost here - what are you talking about? …and where did the “jpg” image come from?
Everything you’ve just posted confirms my gut feelings about the two images.
Fastone - I used to love that software, but as far as I know, it only works on Windows. If I’m wrong about this, someone please let me know. It was fast, and very helpful. Long ago…
Mike,
You are correct. It is a Windows only tool.
Mark
You compare a camera/lens body. You didn’t mention the exposure settings. To me they look different exposed. If you used the metering system of the camera you might get different results. Even if you used an equal manual exposure there might be a difference due to the T-number.
Every converter will give different results
George
“Pixel peeping” is normally used as a potentially (slightly) derogatory term for very close (100%) inspection of parts of an image, principally for comparison purposes, arguably what you did with the close crops and I copied by zooming in and making side by side comparisons. Both appropriate in this case.
The images on the left are typically better and they are the L images from the Leica or derived from it. The JPGs were created by putting the images through PL5 with only Lens correction, the suffix of _DxPL5 designates that I have processed it through PL5. The additional suffix of _fsp3 indicates that I have processed the image through Franzis Sharpening 3 (Pro).
With the pixel peeping “properly” I was simply referring to going even further using the analysis of of sharpening available in FastRawViewer (FRV), which was one of the reasons I bought that product in the first place.
The green tinted image is from FRV ‘Focus peaking’ ‘contrast edges’ and the Red is ‘Focus peaking’ ‘fine details’.
Franzis sharpening 3 Pro analyses the image and assigns it to a category of fix required and automatically applies that fix when instructed to. However, the values can be adjusted and I normally feel that those automatically selected result in an image that looks “too sharp” so I typically reduce the sharpening value to sharpen the image but try to keep it from being over the top.
In the case of the NEF JPG output from PL5 on the right of the first comparison I left it at the sharpening defaults. So the first snapshot is comparing DNG image through PL5 to create JPG but with no additional processing versus NDF through same PL5 but then through Franzis sharpening and its sharpness comes closer too the DNG derived JPG (I feel).
FastStone does not convert RAWs it only uses embedded thumbnails for displaying RAWS whereas FRV can do both and the R on the bottom line indicates that it has done RAW conversion, but I cannot “nudge” the image to line them up in the same way that I can with FastStone which is windows only whereas FRV is Windows and Mac.
So for my side by side peeking on FasStone (nudge available) I converted both images to jpgs but with FRV (no nudge available) I compared DNG with NEF (essentially RAW images) directly with FRV (but cannot nudge things into line).
@george agreed but as long as you are aware of such possibilities then go ahead and do the comparisons and see if they can help inform your opinion that one approach, one lens, one set of “settings” helps to achieve what you are looking for or inform you about what you should be looking for!
My original purpose for Fast Raw Viewer was for processing JPGs taken in burst mode on my FZ330 where there were (there are way to many “ere”'s there) minor changes in focus on each image in the burst so using the peaking facilities of FRV I could see what my eyes could not and reject all but the best.
I have since mostly abandoned burst mode on any cameras (unless photographing fast moving grandchildren, birds in flight or waves crashing on the shore) and my EM1 Mkii has no such focus changes in burst mode and neither does my G9 so it is simply a waste of editing time to have multiple images to sort through.
However, FRV has many other uses and the sharpness features are still useful when checking and sifting images.
I have to go teach PL to our club photo. I’ll talk more when I get back.
But just to note the shots were taken on different days, with slightly different light and with the Nikon lens at f/5.6, which is far from its optimum. After adjusting contrast and colour to be a better match, I found it almost impossible to determine which was the sharpest - in the middle of the image. The Nikon was sifter at the edges but that is to be expected at such a wide aperture.
The Nikon lens needs setting to f/10 to get the optimum sharpness without diffraction, as do most lenses on full frame cameras, although f/8 is sometimes recommended for certain lenses.
Mike, you really need to make any comparison by shooting exactly the same settings, at the same time of day, on the same day, for it to be valid. And with the same optimum aperture and colour balance.
Hi
Just passing…
Found comparison studio scene between D750 and M10, on dpreview. Seems to me D750 shows little better results with probably much cheaper lens.
Raws on their site.
But to my mind pixel peeping is useless and a sharper pic doesn’t make a better pic… unless really not sharp of course.
Cheers
1 Like
This was just a quick test, to see how the statues compared from the two camera/lens combinations, Nikon vs. Leica. I’ve done it the way you describe years ago, and every time, straight from the camera, the Leica image in the center appears to be sharper. I’ll do it again as you suggest, same image, same lighting, one after the other, using the same ISO and aperture.
The Nikon 50 is the “kit lens”, that comes with the camera, or sells for around $200. The Voigtlander sells for around $1,000. I also have my old 50 Summicron, that sells used for something between $2,000 and $3,000.
As far as I know, Nikon doesn’t make a “better” 50mm f/2 lens.
How the snapshots were done - simply, open the un-edited image in PL5, view at 100 and 200%, then do a simple screen capture. Nothing fancy. Then I looked at the statues at the base of the tower.
The new Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 sells for $2,800. The Nikon 50mm f/2 is $220 or so, depending on where I order it. One is metal, and the other is plastic. The Nikon lens is what you get when you buy a package deal kit of Nikon dSLR with standard lens.
B&H does offer several specialty 50mm lenses for the Nikon F mount (probably without autofocus) for prices up to what Leica charges.
And how did you make the image from the Leica? As a jpg from the camera or did you develop it somewhere else.
George
Well, I did a lot of searching, and the sites that give recommendations were that the Nikon kit lens works best between f/5.6 and f/8 - but I’ll test at any aperture you select.
Did one of your Nikons come with this lens? Do you have one? What are your thoughts?
I also found this lens comparison from Adorama:
Best 50mm lenses for Nikon - from Adorama
My lens is at the bottom of the list - I see lots of potentially wonderful choices higher up on the list, which are rather expensive - even the older (metal) Nikon lenses cost more than this basic kit plastic lens, of which the best feature seems to be the price.
Everything else being equal, I consistently get better images from my Leica than from my Nikon with this kit lens. On the other hand, with my 80-200, and my new 24-85, and probably my coming-soon 70-300, the image quality in my mind is excellent. I’ve never been overwhelmed by the image quality from any “kit lens”.
The Nikon lens does have other attributes. It seems to focus instantly, and precisely. It may not be small, but (thanks to the plastic) it is very light. At first glance, all the images from it usually seem perfect. It’s a great match for the Nikon dSLR cameras. Apparently it has been replaced with a new lens for the Z cameras. It’s reliable - it always works as expected. I like it a lot, always have, probably always will. But for ages, my Leica lenses were better - of course, they didn’t need to do auto-focus and auto-exposure, and therefore they were tiny and light.
If I could afford it, I would be paying more attention to this page:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/50mm-f2-m.htm
I can’t so it doesn’t matter, but I compromised by buying the Voigtlander:
https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2021/02/14/the-voigtlander-50-apo-f-2-vm-lens-m-mount-review-video/
I read a similar review, asked around, then bought the APO-LANTHAR. They also make a 35mm version which I haven’t (yet) bought. (???)
@Man While I agree that a better camera (and lens etc.) certainly doesn’t make a better photographer it might still help and encourage the photographer along the way to becoming a better photographer (or not! - the pops and crackles I experienced through my headphones certainly turned me off vinyl for life, i.e. I became obsessed by the details and flaws I detected and lost sight of the music itself).
This topic wasn’t about becoming a better photographer (it arguably wasn’t about evaluating cameras and lenses either) but pixel peeping has its place in evaluating both the camera/lens combination and what the settings the photographer was using has done to elements within the photo, exactly what it was being used for in the comparison study you identified, providing you don’t become “obsessed” (as I did with vinyl playback") and lose sight of whole the picture.
That’s as maybe but most of those comparisons tend to concentrate on while f/stop values. In concert with technical info by George Duvos (who wrote TrueDoF-Pro, I found that, for any full frame camera, f/10 gives the most DoF without any diffraction.
I never buy kits. I have the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D and find it perfectly adequate to give me large prints at the right aperture.
I took the two images from your postings and adjusted the Nikon image to best match the contrast and tonality of the Leica. Zoomed in to 200% in PL5 and took a screenshot of both…
Based on sharpness of things like the foliage, which would you say is the Leica and which the Nikon?