• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums > Back > 1 Nikkor lens quality
#1
Looking at the MTF the 10-100mm seems to be the best choice, isn't it ?



[url="http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/#lenses"]http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/#lenses[/url]



The 30-110mm is a tad better at 110mm but otherwise ...



The MTFs for the 10-30mm are especially disappointing at 10mm. Basically no corner resolution. The 10mm pancake is also not exactly great.
  Reply
#2
That doesn't look promising. However, the MTFs only show the extreme ends of the focal ranges, it will be interesting so see how the lenses behave inbetween.



On the other hand, it wouldn't be really suprising if the superzoom turned out to be the best of the (current) bunch. It's by far the largest (and most expensive) lens.



The pancake is probably more about portability than performance (unfortunately).



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

  Reply
#3
well, with the rather generous dof all the way down there at inch, no doubt the least they could do is give us soft corners
  Reply
#4
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1316677384' post='11759']

That doesn't look promising. However, the MTFs only show the extreme ends of the focal ranges, it will be interesting so see how the lenses behave inbetween.



On the other hand, it wouldn't be really suprising if the superzoom turned out to be the best of the (current) bunch. It's by far the largest (and most expensive) lens.



The pancake is probably more about portability than performance (unfortunately).



-- Markus

[/quote]



You could argue that these MTFs show the performance fully open.



However, e.g. the 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 is actually a "27-81mm f/9.5-15" so given the dependency of diffraction they should perform best at max. aperture. Even the "fast" 10mm f/2.8 is just a "27mm f/7.5". Hmmmh ....
  Reply
#5
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1316672543' post='11755']

The MTFs for the 10-30mm are especially disappointing at 10mm. Basically no corner resolution. The 10mm pancake is also not exactly great.

[/quote]



Well, there is a piece of information missing for this judgement:

The MTF-chart does not tell for which aperture it applies. (At least

I dont see that anywhere).



But on the other side ... this is a crop-2.7-system ... I guess it

is diffraction-limited for every aperture beyond f/5.6 ... so,

very likely the MTFs are for wide open aperture.
  Reply
#6
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1316678978' post='11762']

You could argue that these MTFs show the performance fully open.



However, e.g. the 10-30mm f/3.5-5.6 is actually a "27-81mm f/9.5-15" so given the dependency of diffraction they should perform best at max. aperture. Even the "fast" 10mm f/2.8 is just a "27mm f/7.5". Hmmmh ....

[/quote]



The equivalent aperture only represents for similar depth of field, not the image quality, or the compact cameras with much smaller sensor size will cry...
  Reply
#7
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1316679025' post='11763']

Well, there is a piece of information missing for this judgement:

The MTF-chart does not tell for which aperture it applies. (At least

I dont see that anywhere).



But on the other side ... this is a crop-2.7-system ... I guess it

is diffraction-limited for every aperture beyond f/5.6 ... so,

very likely the MTFs are for wide open aperture.

[/quote]



I guess since the aperture is not given, it is the widest used in the tests... And these are 60lp/mm by the way... Still not so impressive but I don't think before f/11 the diffraction will have an impact on that 3,40 microns of pixel size.



All in all, I think the lens line is very poor in terms of "fastness"... One could expect faster primes and smaller zooms. That 10-100mm looks huge on the V1 and it's hard to understand why... I assume the register distance is shorther than m4/3 and Sony E mount. And with regard to that, "in theory" a variety of lenses can be alternatives to those...



Serkan
  Reply
#8
[quote name='mousefire' timestamp='1316682285' post='11764']

The equivalent aperture only represents for similar depth of field, not the image quality, or the compact cameras with much smaller sensor size will cry...

[/quote]



Is that so ?

[url="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-82/TABLA3.jpg"]http://www.luminous-...s-82/TABLA3.jpg[/url]

[url="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml"]http://www.luminous-...esolution.shtml[/url]



or



[url="http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/"]http://www.clarkvisi...el.size.matter/[/url]



Admittedly this is about the size of the photodiodes but the only appropriate way for a valid comparison is an identical megapixel number.
  Reply
#9
I'm waiting for future 32 F1.2 lens.
  Reply
#10
[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1316718136' post='11775']

I'm waiting for future 32 F1.2 lens.

[/quote]

85mm f3.2? Why? f3.2 is not really that great for portrait use... it will be quite big and heavy in relation to the camera too, and expensive. And it still does not come close to what a 85mm f1.8 does on FF...

A compact APS-C DSLR with Tamron 60mm f2 makes a bit more sense to me here?
  Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)