Roger Cicala: Canon v. Nikon lenses on optical bench (no camera)
- Thread starter ScottyP
- Start date
I kind of agree with everything - I found it a fun test with limited practical value. As the database grows, though, I think it will help answer questions.
BUT there are always some real-world points. For example, I have some major customers who shoot magazine spreads on RED Dragons. They changes mounts and lenses like most of us just change lenses. Last shoot one of them had a Zeiss 135 f/2, Canon 85 f/1.2 and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 in Canon mount, along with a Zeiss ZF.2 21mm and Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. He changed camera mounts when he went to the wide angles, using a Nikon mount on the RED.
I do think a day may come when there are cameras all of us can use with interchangeable mounts.
In the meantime, I find this kind of stuff very interesting, if esoteric. For example, I've got another dozen similar comparisons done with primes. From what I see, there are actually some interesting differences in design philosophy between the companies. In many lenses Nikon has lower resolution but less astigmatism and flatter fields. Canon seems to push resolution and are willing to use some field curvature and odd astigmatism patterns to get it.
Assuming that's the case, then when Canon inevitably has a similar pixel density I suspect we'll see different 'looks' to the lenses more clearly. I think that's interesting stuff and of practical value to know. Or what if Canon's 36 Mpix camera comes out and the corners seem softer (or better) than Nikon's? Is that a difference in lenses or in the sensor's microlenses, or something else? Without knowing the way the lenses function by themselves, we can't answer that question.
But even I agree, this kind of thing isn't something I'd pick a lens or a system over.
Roger Cicala
BUT there are always some real-world points. For example, I have some major customers who shoot magazine spreads on RED Dragons. They changes mounts and lenses like most of us just change lenses. Last shoot one of them had a Zeiss 135 f/2, Canon 85 f/1.2 and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 in Canon mount, along with a Zeiss ZF.2 21mm and Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. He changed camera mounts when he went to the wide angles, using a Nikon mount on the RED.
I do think a day may come when there are cameras all of us can use with interchangeable mounts.
In the meantime, I find this kind of stuff very interesting, if esoteric. For example, I've got another dozen similar comparisons done with primes. From what I see, there are actually some interesting differences in design philosophy between the companies. In many lenses Nikon has lower resolution but less astigmatism and flatter fields. Canon seems to push resolution and are willing to use some field curvature and odd astigmatism patterns to get it.
Assuming that's the case, then when Canon inevitably has a similar pixel density I suspect we'll see different 'looks' to the lenses more clearly. I think that's interesting stuff and of practical value to know. Or what if Canon's 36 Mpix camera comes out and the corners seem softer (or better) than Nikon's? Is that a difference in lenses or in the sensor's microlenses, or something else? Without knowing the way the lenses function by themselves, we can't answer that question.
But even I agree, this kind of thing isn't something I'd pick a lens or a system over.
Roger Cicala
Upvote
0
Well, I don't know nearly as much as Privatebydesign does about everything, but I do think Roger of Lens Rentals may be an educated lens buyer almost on the same level as Privates.
Privatebydesign: how many lenses have you purchased? Just round it over to the nearest hundred lenses to keep it simple.
Privatebydesign: how many lenses have you purchased? Just round it over to the nearest hundred lenses to keep it simple.
Upvote
0
ScottyP said:Well, I don't know nearly as much as Privatebydesign does about everything, but I do think Roger may be an educated lens buyer just like Privates.
Privates: how many lenses have you purchased? Just round it over to the nearest hundred lenses to keep it simple, so we can compare your totals and see if Roger at Lens Rentals is as educated as you are.
Scotty,
Personally less than 100, over the years probably closer to 1,000 that involved work for other people too, though I never tested one of them to the extent Roger and Lens Rentals have.
So what?
As I already said I have the utmost respect for Roger, his blog, his testing and his considered comments.
Now in his own comment on this thread he stated many of the same sentiments I did,
Roger: "I found it a fun test with limited practical value",
Me: "the result, however interesting and informative, has little practical application."
Roger: "even I agree, this kind of thing isn't something I'd pick a lens or a system over"
Me: "Nobody in their right mind is going to have their buying decisions, or even their shooting choices, impacted by these results,"
Roger: "I find this kind of stuff very interesting, if esoteric."
Me: "if we want to test some esoteric value"
Now it seems to me I am the one more in tune with his position than you. However, whereas I saw "test results that have extremely limited, if any, real world value" Roger did point out that he does have a couple of clients that use interchangeable mounts, and in time he believes others might. So do you use interchangeable mounts? Does anybody here? If, as he believes, one day many of us will be using interchangeable mounts then his database will have a lot more practical value, personally I don't see interchangeable mounts in my professional lifetime (probably another ten to fifteen years), I think the manufacturers will push back against it if it ever happens in serious numbers, heck we have seen how petty they can be over simple things like third party batteries, what do you think they would do to protect their lens lineups!
Sorry, but the Dragon stills shooters are the highest high end, they are the guys (and girls) that have H5D 200's outright and use them for test shots and "personal projects", and they will always find the next thing long long before anybody else because that is the market they move in, they have the time, money and assistants to cull RAW video to stills, who of us ever will?
So you go ahead and devalue the conversation to antagonistic, petty, and mean spirited insults and personal digs, that makes far more sense to people like you. I'm happy to discuss the relevance of the tests, along the same lines as the tester does, with anybody with a more interesting thing to say.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Why is it wrong to want to know. I want to know regardless of the practical application of the results. I will say I earned a bachelor's of science so I've been asking why for a long time... why... didn't I pick a better major.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
I am seriously starting to worry about peoples reading comprehension.
Did I say it was wrong? NO, if you look at the words I wrote and you quoted you will see this " Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself" See? I actually said there is "nothing wrong"!
On the flip side of that however, even if you are 100% wrong about my point of view, what is wrong with me asking why people are interested in the result, other than it is what it is, when even the tester says "I found it a fun test with limited practical value" and "But even I agree, this kind of thing isn't something I'd pick a lens or a system over. "?
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
In my opinion, the picture on the page is photography, but the benchmark performance of different optics is optical lens science. http://www.answers.com/topic/lens-1 There is no objective way to measure photography. But, there is, (and needs to be) a way to objectively measure lens performance. And, like all science, the best testing measurements require the best scientific method, which includes limiting variables to (hopefully)- one. Pax.
Attachments
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
You know what... it's probably me. I'm reading a good deal of disdain in what I perceive to be the subtext of your comment. But if you say it isn't there... I won't argue that.
But in regards to knowing... I think there is some merit in knowing which lens set is "better" than the other. Bodies can be changed every 3 years, but you can keep a lens for 20 years and while they may replace it after a decade, the practical benefit of the successor may be marginal or merely show up on tests but have less real world value.
And if you are prone to replace your body with any frequency, knowing which lens system is better equipped to handle in increases in resolution and... let's just say micro contrast, would be worthwhile.
Now is this the point of the study... probably not... I'd say it's a d!ck measuring contest... but content with my girth and length... I'm going to go to bed.
Upvote
0
LovePhotography said:
Why?
The logical conclusion from that train of thought is that the "best" tested lens will give the "best" photograph, when that is patently false. Even if you totally discount the photographer from the photograph making equation your fundamental point is flawed.
For example, you have an assignment to photograph Usain Bolt crossing the line of the 100m at the next Olympics, you can use any camera system, just get the image. For arguments sake the Canon 400 f2.8 tests better than the Nikon 400 2.8, but the Nikon has more MP and more DR, however the Canon has better AF, but the Nikon system can resolve more even though it doesn't test as well. Hm, the Canon can do more fps. Now which do you choose? The lens that esoterically "tests better" or the the other system that scores much better for more meaningful metrics; or the system that "wins" your test but for reasons other than that...........
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I'm the biggest offender of refreshing my gear... I buy something with the expectation of selling it at some point in the future. I've had gear, that I wanted, for less than a week because someone made me an offer. I tend to think I'm atypical. I tend to think that some people who buy gear (and I'm not only referring to high end lenses) that they are satisfied with have the intention of keeping it well past the freshness date on the milk expires. So if you have a few thousand bucks, and you know that the half-life of a body is significantly shorter than that of a lens, you might take that into consideration.
Getting the shot now is short sided. Polaroid instamatics allowed us to get the shot now... and that really worked out well for them.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
Really? If you didn't forget the irony tags then I'd have to take issue with that.
What use is a "better" lens for which there might never be a "better than the other guys" body? Any new body will give better results, even with a current lens; and any new lens will give better results with current or yet to be announced bodies, and the differences will be minute and be easily covered in post. If you need a 14-24 you need a Nikon, if you need a 17 TS-E you need a Canon, if you need a 400 f2.8 other factors will impact the differences far more than these esoteric test results.
That has to be the weakest point of view yet, I'll get the "best " lens now because the next generation or two of bodies might be better than the other guys, of course they might not, and the differences these tests show are unlikely to be visible anyway, but I'll have the "best" lens.
Not sure I agree with that, I would have thought, I'll get what I can now and use it would be a more solid foundation for taking photographs, but maybe that is where I am going wrong, maybe taking photographs isn't the goal of many measurbators here.
Besides, the cost of "jumping ship" is always overestimated, like for like via the secondhand market it costs very little to move manufacturers.
Upvote
0
For some, that's sure enough true.privatebydesign said:
For many others, the second hand market is a place to unload unwanted items, new is the preferred way to purchase. Cost to change camp is then quite significant.
I'll buy someone's used car and deal with its issues, but only after picking and choosing through what's on the market at the time.
When I buy camera gear, I pretty much want new.
Upvote
0
I'm trying to think of how many twenty year old lenses are still in heavy use... the 50 f1.4 usm comes to mind. I know it's long in the tooth.
Ok... now let's move backwards twenty years to which bodies were in use in 1994. Film obviously, but in the digital realm there was.... assuming I believe Wikipedia, the Canon eos dcs 1.
I'm kinda thinking the lens outlived the generations of bodies.
That's not a fair comparison... but I don't feel like being fair.
Ok... now let's move backwards twenty years to which bodies were in use in 1994. Film obviously, but in the digital realm there was.... assuming I believe Wikipedia, the Canon eos dcs 1.
I'm kinda thinking the lens outlived the generations of bodies.
That's not a fair comparison... but I don't feel like being fair.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
Convolution.
Ask yourself this question. Why, when DPReview tests a body, do they use a quality prime at an optimal aperture, mounted to a heavy studio tripod, with careful focus bracketing and remote release?
The answer is, so that the lens so dramatically out-resolves the body that the results you get are almost entirely limited by the body itself.
Why do you want that? So that you can estimate how the body will perform with other lenses.
Same thing with lenses. How does the lens perform by itself? You want to know that so you can estimate how it will perform with any body.
If you don't do that, you're left testing every possible lens/body combination and retesting every lens every time a new body is released.
Convolution allows you to avoid that.
1/R^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2, where R is system resolution, Rs is sensor resolution, and Rl is lens resolution.
If you know Rs and Rl independently, you can find R.
Upvote
0
privatebydesign said:
I'm sorry, sir, but you simply cannot conduct science in the way you have described here.
Once again, there are way too many variables. The fact is, that if you photographed Usain Bolt crossing the finish line with two identical situations except, one, with a good lens, and, the other with a great lens, the photo with the better lens will be better. That is simply a fact. About that there can be no rationale doubt or conflict.
Upvote
0
This is the very equation that the theoretical physicist I spoke with pointed out was wrong. The equation _only_ applies if you consider light as photons, which they are not. At least they don't behave that way when it comes to optics, sensors, and photography.
HOWEVER, the good news is that the entire exercise in understanding resolution performance of an imaging system can be simplified in a meaningful and useful manner. It's been hinted at in this thread, in fact.
Calculate the sensor resolution and you'll have the right answer.
This holds true to the cross-over point where optical diffraction effects take over. For current sensor technologies that aperture is f/16. Everything from wide open down thru f/11 is "good to go." This will hold true with Sony's soon to be announced 46mpixel FF sensor and their current 50mpixel medium format sensor.
Go over to Nikon's US website and look at their D800E/D800 technical recommendations (it's a PDF file). Scroll down to where they talk about resolution and aperture selection. Note they recommend not stopping down below f/11 (they give examples). You'll find no discussion of the 1/r equation as Nikon has figured out that it doesn't apply in the way we all too often think it does.
On the other hand, if you still believe in 1/r, go to Fuji's website where you'll still find support for your claims.
HOWEVER, the good news is that the entire exercise in understanding resolution performance of an imaging system can be simplified in a meaningful and useful manner. It's been hinted at in this thread, in fact.
Calculate the sensor resolution and you'll have the right answer.
This holds true to the cross-over point where optical diffraction effects take over. For current sensor technologies that aperture is f/16. Everything from wide open down thru f/11 is "good to go." This will hold true with Sony's soon to be announced 46mpixel FF sensor and their current 50mpixel medium format sensor.
Go over to Nikon's US website and look at their D800E/D800 technical recommendations (it's a PDF file). Scroll down to where they talk about resolution and aperture selection. Note they recommend not stopping down below f/11 (they give examples). You'll find no discussion of the 1/r equation as Nikon has figured out that it doesn't apply in the way we all too often think it does.
On the other hand, if you still believe in 1/r, go to Fuji's website where you'll still find support for your claims.
Lee Jay said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
