A New 85L is on the Way [CR2]

[Alex_M]

in support of Neuroanatomist's statement that the compromises must be made in other, more subjective aspects of optical performance in favour of maximal sharpness:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4

"... Something we were told by Sigma president Kazuto Yamaki cued us to take a closer look, though. In discussing lens-design tradeoffs with IR founder Dave Etchells, Mr. Yamaki said they chose to make a very small compromise on sharpness in order to deliver significantly better local contrast..."

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs.

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story.

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.

That linked article is a bit of joke. It talks about "flat noses" where it means out of focus noses. A flat nose is either a result of a boxing punch or a very very long lens compressing features. Yes there's a relationship between micro contrast / bokeh/ fore ground or background rendering/ CA and critical sharpness. But this article takes assumption and ridicule to a new level. Not every muppet with a web site and an opinion is worth reading or listening too.

 

[Larsskv]

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs.

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story.

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.

That linked article is a bit of joke. It talks about "flat noses" where it means out of focus noses. A flat nose is either a result of a boxing punch or a very very long lens compressing features. Yes there's a relationship between micro contrast / bokeh/ fore ground or background rendering/ CA and critical sharpness. But this article takes assumption and ridicule to a new level. Not every muppet with a web site and an opinion is worth reading or listening too.

I agree with you to some extent, but have a look at your own pictures. I do believe you will find that some of your lenses generally render depth better than others, and you may find some truth in the claim, that simpler lens design generally show more depth than complex ones.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs.

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story.

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.

That linked article is a bit of joke. It talks about "flat noses" where it means out of focus noses. A flat nose is either a result of a boxing punch or a very very long lens compressing features. Yes there's a relationship between micro contrast / bokeh/ fore ground or background rendering/ CA and critical sharpness. But this article takes assumption and ridicule to a new level. Not every muppet with a web site and an opinion is worth reading or listening too.

I agree with you to some extent, but have a look at your own pictures. I do believe you will find that some of your lenses generally render depth better than others, and you may find some truth in the claim, that simpler lens design generally show more depth than complex ones.

As it happens I regularly review my portfolio of work. Depth is rendered by depth of field and angle of view...not by a reduction in the number of elements within the lens. This is utter gibberish to think otherwise. If this crazy opinion were true then the height of lens construction would be a pin hole camera...
The only lens that I could never use for portraiture is my 400mm f2.8 LIS. That's because it's rendering would be unflattering in portraiture due to the 400mm focal length (it's compression effects) and not because of the number of elements. The link that was posted is full of bro-science and pseudo science. A lot of pretty charts and diagrams that have no baring on truth or lens design science. To say that a 35mm f1.4 L renders flat and uninteresting images is laughable...compared to my portfolio, usage and the lens' reputation with in professional circles.

At the end of the day, all photography is an abstraction. It's a 2 dimensional representation of a three dimensional object in a 3D world. What we are trying to achieve as photographers is a pleasing rendition, which in it's self may or may not be truthful. Or it is trying to make a statement or narrative. If I choose to use a particular lens because I believe that it can render a flattering image...then it's my prerogative to use what I wish. As I have done for many many years as a professional photographer.

 

[Ozarker]

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs.

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story.

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.

That linked article is a bit of joke. It talks about "flat noses" where it means out of focus noses. A flat nose is either a result of a boxing punch or a very very long lens compressing features. Yes there's a relationship between micro contrast / bokeh/ fore ground or background rendering/ CA and critical sharpness. But this article takes assumption and ridicule to a new level. Not every muppet with a web site and an opinion is worth reading or listening too.

I agree with you to some extent, but have a look at your own pictures. I do believe you will find that some of your lenses generally render depth better than others, and you may find some truth in the claim, that simpler lens design generally show more depth than complex ones.

As it happens I regularly review my portfolio of work. Depth is rendered by depth of field and angle of view...not by a reduction in the number of elements within the lens. This is utter gibberish to think otherwise. If this crazy opinion were true then the height of lens construction would be a pin hole camera...
The only lens that I could never use for portraiture is my 400mm f2.8 LIS. That's because it's rendering would be unflattering in portraiture due to the 400mm focal length (it's compression effects) and not because of the number of elements. The link that was posted is full of bro-science and pseudo science. A lot of pretty charts and diagrams that have no baring on truth or lens design science. To say that a 35mm f1.4 L renders flat and uninteresting images is laughable...compared to my portfolio, usage and the lens' reputation with in professional circles.

At the end of the day, all photography is an abstraction. It's a 2 dimensional representation of a three dimensional object in a 3D world. What we are trying to achieve as photographers is a pleasing rendition, which in it's self may or may not be truthful. Or it is trying to make a statement or narrative. If I choose to use a particular lens because I believe that it can render a flattering image...then it's my prerogative to use what I wish. As I have done for many many years as a professional photographer.

I used to have the "flat nose effect" in my portrait work all the time. It was frustrating as hell. Since my Korean girlfriend dumped me the problem has disappeared too.

 

[Larsskv]

I have read this article a couple of times. The author claims complex modern high performance lenses doesn't render depth as well as older lens designs, and I think he may have a point.

http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/problem-modern-lenses/

I've examined pictures from different lenses I've had, and found the the Sigma35ART makes somewhat flat looking images. The much simpler Canon 28 f2.8 IS on the other hand makes pictures with more depth in them, I think.

The problem is that it is hard to replicate results that shows differences in depth rendering between lenses. Light, distance, shadows, focal lengths and aperture comes into play. Even so, I found especially that 28 f2.8 to make images with a lot of depth in them, compared to many other lenses.

I didn't agree to the article at first, but after looking at my own pictures, I changed my mind, and now find the article to be very interesting. I don't know if his theory is correct, but i think he is on to something.

Is that about focal length of the lens or is that about the glass materials and/or the coatings? Would a comparison of different 35mm/28mm have the same result?

According to the article, it has a connection with the amounts of glass elements that is used to correct different aberrations. The theory seems to be based upon a claim, that older and simpler lens designs, preserve/create a better depth rendition than never and more complex designs.

Personally I found the images from the 24-70 f/2.8LII to have a lot of depth to them, contradicting the theory in the article. Further, my 35LII also render depth in a very good way, so the number of glass elements cannot tell the whole story.

The biggest thing for me personally is that I have been more aware of the rendering of depth from my various lenses, but I wonder why it is so.

That linked article is a bit of joke. It talks about "flat noses" where it means out of focus noses. A flat nose is either a result of a boxing punch or a very very long lens compressing features. Yes there's a relationship between micro contrast / bokeh/ fore ground or background rendering/ CA and critical sharpness. But this article takes assumption and ridicule to a new level. Not every muppet with a web site and an opinion is worth reading or listening too.

I agree with you to some extent, but have a look at your own pictures. I do believe you will find that some of your lenses generally render depth better than others, and you may find some truth in the claim, that simpler lens design generally show more depth than complex ones.

As it happens I regularly review my portfolio of work. Depth is rendered by depth of field and angle of view...not by a reduction in the number of elements within the lens. This is utter gibberish to think otherwise. If this crazy opinion were true then the height of lens construction would be a pin hole camera...

With your reasoning, bokeh is only determined by focal length, aperture, sensor size and distance to subject, and every 35mm f/1.4 lens would produce the same bokeh, if used in the same situation and with the same settings? We all know that´s not the case. How can you be so sure when it comes to rendering the impressions of depth?