• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Nikkor 85mm f1.4 G


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Vieux loup

Vieux loup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • LocationBlois, France

Posted 08 March 2011 - 11:05 AM

For whatever it means, Ken Rockwell considers this lens to be the best Nikkor ever.
Kind regards, Vieux Loup

#22 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,896 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:39 PM

Interesting that your results completely contradict mine ...

-- Markus

How do they completely contradict yours?

#23 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,896 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:44 PM

For whatever it means, Ken Rockwell considers this lens to be the best Nikkor ever.

Well, it is Ken Rockewell... So one can never be sure what it means :lol:

But it is obviously a good lens, just like the other 85mm f1.4 lenses on the market (Zeiss/Sony, Sigma, Samyang) and the Canon 85mm f1.2.

And the 85mm f1.8's are no slouch either (Nikon and Canon).

And even the Sony 85mm f2.8 seems to be a good lens (but a bit slow for specialized SLR portrait lens).

#24 Vieux loup

Vieux loup

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • LocationBlois, France

Posted 08 March 2011 - 05:25 PM

I have gotten the answers I was looking for so I humbly retire with thanks to all those who help to enlighten me. I am just waiting for the review and again, thanks Markus/Klaus for your work.
Kind regards, Vieux Loup

#25 genotypewriter

genotypewriter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 09 March 2011 - 12:59 AM

Well, it is Ken Rockewell... So one can never be sure what it means :lol:

This is the guy who once claimed that film has infinite resolution

http://www.google.co...ite resolution"

GTW

#26 genotypewriter

genotypewriter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 09 March 2011 - 01:03 AM

Interesting that your results completely contradict mine ...

In my way of doing things, what you see is what you get :) I don't just give numbers and I only show what can be compared.

Plus, anyone is free to reproduce my tests too ;)

GTW

#27 Martin_MM

Martin_MM

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 03:19 PM

The 85 1.2L II has better center resolution at f/1.2 than the 84 1.4G wide open:
http://www.flickr.co...iter/5057691550



Sure the 85 1.4D was sharper in the center than in the corners but the question is, was it sharper than the rest? ;)

The "latest 1.4G" doesn't mean anything other than a built-in motor. For example it took Nikon 35 years to develop their 24 1.4 and here's how it compares to the 24 1.4L II:
http://www.flickr.co...iter/4698284415

The 35G's worse, but I haven't had time to publish my results yet.

GTW



I have no doubts that Canon 85L/f1.2 is a fantastic piece of mech/optical engineereing. Regardless of f1.2, it certailny is one of the most impressive lenses ever produced (within any company). Personally I admire this lens, btw.

As for your tests - judging by your posts all around here, I have my doubts about them. Contrary to that, I have no doubts about your "objectivity" - you are Canon biased and thus one doubts your tests being 100% valid and objective.

Plus - yes, your procalamations about 35/f1.4 contradicts those of Markus. According to measurements of Photozone.de: Canon 35/f1.4 is definitely a weaker performer compared to Nikon 35/f1.4. And yes, somewhat I believe their findings much more.
  • Lomskij and Bare like this

#28 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,896 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 10 March 2011 - 04:15 PM

I have no doubts that Canon 85L/f1.2 is a fantastic piece of mech/optical engineereing. Regardless of f1.2, it certailny is one of the most impressive lenses ever produced (within any company). Personally I admire this lens, btw.

As for your tests - judging by your posts all around here, I have my doubts about them. Contrary to that, I have no doubts about your "objectivity" - you are Canon biased and thus one doubts your tests being 100% valid and objective.

Plus - yes, your procalamations about 35/f1.4 contradicts those of Markus. According to measurements of Photozone.de: Canon 35/f1.4 is definitely a weaker performer compared to Nikon 35/f1.4. And yes, somewhat I believe their findings much more.

Hmm? Klaus somehow does not agree that the 35mm f1.4 from Nikon is a weaker performer. See the thread about that lens in particular.
http://forum.photozo...-35mm-f14-g-fx/
As I noted, the lens (nikon 35mm f1.4) shows weaker results in a number of areas than the Canon 35mm f1.4, with the corner sharpness being better wide open with the Nikon. I don't know how you arrive for yourself to the conclusion that the Canon offering is "definitely" weaker, one thing we know and that is that Markus (and Klaus) do not do side by side comparisons.

As for genotypewriter, yes he can be provocative. But about his test shots, those are honest and matter of fact, although limited in scope. It can not get better, comparison wise, than he does: Same camera body, NO PP after a basic conversion with no sharpening in the same converter.

His wide open test shows, wide open, the lenses not to be very different sharpness wise, with a slight advantage to the Canon. Other tests seem to show the same trend: both lenses are sharp for 85mm large aperture ones. There is not even a shread of evidence to make one think genotypewriter's simple tests are in any way not honest.

Markus stated his tests show something totally different from what genotypewriter's show. I wonder what difference they show, as Markus does not compare the lenses. And genotypewriter's test did not show ANYTHING strange about the Nikon.

We can't even compare the results from Klaus and from Markus, see the strange CA measurement differences when testing the exact same lens sample (Zeiss 35mm f2). The difference can NOT lay in the different bodies, as the D3x, due to its a bit higher resolution, should show slightly higher CA instead of less. So... we see that there are differences between when Klaus tests a lens, and when Markus does. Keep this in mind when evaluating lenses from the different "platforms".

Anyway, I am sure Markus will find the lens a very good lens (which it is), and that in no way contradicts what genotypewriter's wide open test shows. And probably Markus will again rate the lens a bit higher than Klaus would have done.

#29 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 10 March 2011 - 04:52 PM

Hmm? Klaus somehow does not agree that the 35mm f1.4 from Nikon is a weaker performer. See the thread about that lens in particular.
http://forum.photozo...-35mm-f14-g-fx/
As I noted, the lens (nikon 35mm f1.4) shows weaker results in a number of areas than the Canon 35mm f1.4, with the corner sharpness being better wide open with the Nikon. I don't know how you arrive for yourself to the conclusion that the Canon offering is "definitely" weaker, one thing we know and that is that Markus (and Klaus) do not do side by side comparisons.

As for genotypewriter, yes he can be provocative. But about his test shots, those are honest and matter of fact, although limited in scope. It can not get better, comparison wise, than he does: Same camera body, NO PP after a basic conversion with no sharpening in the same converter.

His wide open test shows, wide open, the lenses not to be very different sharpness wise, with a slight advantage to the Canon. Other tests seem to show the same trend: both lenses are sharp for 85mm large aperture ones. There is not even a shread of evidence to make one think genotypewriter's simple tests are in any way not honest.

Markus stated his tests show something totally different from what genotypewriter's show. I wonder what difference they show, as Markus does not compare the lenses. And genotypewriter's test did not show ANYTHING strange about the Nikon.

We can't even compare the results from Klaus and from Markus, see the strange CA measurement differences when testing the exact same lens sample (Zeiss 35mm f2). The difference can NOT lay in the different bodies, as the D3x, due to its a bit higher resolution, should show slightly higher CA instead of less. So... we see that there are differences between when Klaus tests a lens, and when Markus does. Keep this in mind when evaluating lenses from the different "platforms".

Anyway, I am sure Markus will find the lens a very good lens (which it is), and that in no way contradicts what genotypewriter's wide open test shows. And probably Markus will again rate the lens a bit higher than Klaus would have done.


Markus and I are, of course, often debating about specific ratings but I'm afraid that you're seeing a dissent although there is none (or at least very little - we are humans, of course). A primary misconception is probably that you assume that the MTFs and CAs are the primary weights in the final verdict. They're heavy, of course, but they're still only part of a global picture.

Anyway, I would suggest that just stop this endless C vs N debate. It just leads nowhere. As mentioned many times the brand differences are really minor with outliers on a local basis only. So please ...
  • Lomskij likes this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#30 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,896 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 10 March 2011 - 05:27 PM

Markus and I are, of course, often debating about specific ratings but I'm afraid that you're seeing a dissent although there is none (or at least very little - we are humans, of course). A primary misconception is probably that you assume that the MTFs and CAs are the primary weights in the final verdict. They're heavy, of course, but they're still only part of a global picture.

Anyway, I would suggest that just stop this endless C vs N debate. It just leads nowhere. As mentioned many times the brand differences are really minor with outliers on a local basis only. So please ...

I was reacting to a post which suggested this particular 35mm f1.4 from Nikon was far superior than the comparable Canon, Klaus. The post was referring to the photozone tests of each lens, so just read my post only in that context.

#31 genotypewriter

genotypewriter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 11 March 2011 - 01:43 AM

As for your tests - judging by your posts all around here, I have my doubts about them. Contrary to that, I have no doubts about your "objectivity" - you are Canon biased and thus one doubts your tests being 100% valid and objective.

You are right... I do have a preferred platform, just like Klaus, mst and everyone else here and out there have their own. But like you've realised, I have been objective and scientific when doing my comparisons and have put the results in front of the readers eyes. And I haven't even given any personal optical ratings or handling ratings or recommendations or any such nonsense like some reviews do out there. I don't publish MTF numbers or blur ratings that are barely meaningful. With my tests, what you see is what you get but when in doubt, feel free to ask... I'm not making money out of these... it's all about knowledge.

Also just FYI, have you looked at my equipment list? I have 8 DSLR lenses and only 4 of them are Canons. The others aren't even for a Canon mount. My most used camera thesedays is my Sony Nex-5 and 16mm prime. In fact, my preference for Canon stuff is purely a statistical thing. Here are some of the reasons for my choices:

1. My preferred fast wide angle lens happens to be on Canon
2. My preferred fast 200mm lens happens to be on Canon
3. My preferred fast "portrait lens" happens to be on Canon
4. My preferred tele-photo tilt-shift happens to be on Canon
5. I'm keeping an eye on 400 2.8s and the best happens to be on Canon (through hands-on experience) and the upcoming one is even better.
6. At the end of the day, it's amazing to look at 21MP FF images from the above on a sensor that doesn't have strong AA filter and doesn't force noise reduction and smear the RAW files. I like my RAW files uncooked so I am the one in control giving me more photographic control.

If Nikon or even Samyang comes up with anything that's better in the above categories, I don't need to jump ship... I'll just get one of those too ;)


Plus - yes, your procalamations about 35/f1.4 contradicts those of Markus. According to measurements of Photozone.de: Canon 35/f1.4 is definitely a weaker performer compared to Nikon 35/f1.4. And yes, somewhat I believe their findings much more.

It's up to you who you believe... a place with an ad supported website, some numbers with no evidence and a partially reasoned methodology sounds much more credible than an independent reviewer with a strong scientific background who does it only for the kicks I suppose.

GTW
  • Bare likes this

#32 Klaus

Klaus

    Chief Editor

  • Moderators
  • 5,541 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 11 March 2011 - 07:46 AM

It's up to you who you believe... a place with an ad supported website, some numbers with no evidence and a partially reasoned methodology sounds much more credible than an independent reviewer with a strong scientific background who does it only for the kicks I suppose.

GTW


So the question of the day is ... why are you here anyway assuming that our reviews are really so bad as you suggested. :-)

Regarding your "ad" argument - if we wanted to make more money our verdicts must be generally higher. Our number of "highly recommended" lenses is very low which isn't exactly driving readers into buying many lenses. Sometimes I'm a little wondering about our masochism here - lots of testing efforts but only a marginal business case. :-)
Other than that we are not running any manufacturer ads (possibly once in a while they may come in via Google Adsense but not directly). And unlike other sites we've only marginal contacts with the manufacturers regarding the supply of test lenses. Consequently I'd say that your related argument is simply ... invalid.

It's also interesting to read that you ... as a scientific reviewer as you describe yourself ... can't come up with numbers nor with a formal rather than just informal testing methodology. Maybe something to think about ... ? Competition is good so why aren't you starting an own website where you post our results ? Maybe you could even make some money. ;-)
Any if not - we are always open to suggestions how to improve our testing procedure.


cheerio

Klaus
  • Claus, BG_Home, Lomskij and 2 others like this
Chief Editor
photozone.de

#33 Lomskij

Lomskij

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts

Posted 11 March 2011 - 09:28 AM

I do have a preferred platform, just like Klaus, mst and everyone else here and out there have their own.

The main difference between you and "Klaus, mst and everyone else" is that they don't have a full-time job bashing a competing brand to make your favourite look better.

It's up to you who you believe... a place with an ad supported website, some numbers with no evidence and a partially reasoned methodology sounds much more credible than an independent reviewer with a strong scientific background who does it only for the kicks I suppose.

True. The "strong scientific background" you mentioned is a master's degree in online trolling, I assume?
  • Claus, BG_Home and Martin_MM like this
SLR Camera, Zoom lens #1, Zoom lens #2, Zoom lens #3, Prime lens #1, Prime lens #2, Prime lens #3, Prime Lens #4, Prime Lens #5, Flash gun.

#34 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,896 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 11 March 2011 - 11:13 AM

So the question of the day is ... why are you here anyway assuming that our reviews are really so bad as you suggested. :-)

Regarding your "ad" argument - if we wanted to make more money our verdicts must be generally higher. Our number of "highly recommended" lenses is very low which isn't exactly driving readers into buying many lenses. Sometimes I'm a little wondering about our masochism here - lots of testing efforts but only a marginal business case. :-)
Other than that we are not running any manufacturer ads (possibly once in a while they may come in via Google Adsense but not directly). And unlike other sites we've only marginal contacts with the manufacturers regarding the supply of test lenses. Consequently I'd say that your related argument is simply ... invalid.

It's also interesting to read that you ... as a scientific reviewer as you describe yourself ... can't come up with numbers nor with a formal rather than just informal testing methodology. Maybe something to think about ... ? Competition is good so why aren't you starting an own website where you post our results ? Maybe you could even make some money. ;-)
Any if not - we are always open to suggestions how to improve our testing procedure.


cheerio

Klaus

While I do not agree with the provocative ways of genotypewriter, I do think that it is not unscientific at all to just show, side by side, actual image results and analyze what one actually sees there.

However, this of course is a limited view on a lens, genotypewriter only looks at how they perform wide open and with limited scope even there (see for instance the bokeh test image, which is not a telling "subject" image).

I do value the information photozone's reviews give, but of course things can always be improved on.

For instance, what usually gives the biggest "impact" on people IQ wise is that hard to get a hold on quality of "colour" and contrast. Contrast is not being tested.

And then there is the rating system, which apparently makes it matter a bit which reviewer is rating a lens. Another point of attention should be the inconsistencies in getting the measurements, as illustrated by the Zeiss 35mm f2 tests, where it is possible for one reviewer to get strangely lower CA measurements than the other, I think that should be seriously looked into.
Maybe it has to do with that the measuring method of the software is not very reliable (my guess).

So, where I would like to see improvements:
- Contrast valuation
- Veiling test with out of view light sources
- More reliable CA assessment
- Maybe do vignetting via RAW with known tonal curve, because now it says more about the body being used than the actual lens.

But, as I said before, I do value your review work, for me it is always part of the puzzle of assessing how good certain lenses actually are.
  • Bryan Conner likes this




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de