[HenriCartierShufflebottom]

I note the recent Nikon 'D' series tests on DX format cameras.

 

Is it me or are all three (20mm, 24mm and 28mm) testing really badly?  All three of these lenses have tested far better in the past (on FX) yet now appear to have plummeted in quality?

 

I would expect a superior test result (to FX) since the (usually) superior central part of the optic is being exploited?  I also realise that much newer designs specifically designed for DX only might be far better?

 

Has Nikon slipped grossly in quality control and moving lens manufacture outside of Japan?  Were the older manufactured 'D' lenses far superior?

 

To my mind there is a yawning gap in the market only really fulfilled by Samyang (manual focus only and dodgy quality control) and Zeiss (impeccable quality, also manual but so pricey).  Sigma make a partial effort but prices are creeping ever higher and there does seem a desire to make everything f1.8 or greater!

 

Time for Tamron to do some quality medium speed (F2.8) primes?  I think so.  Especially as Nikon is not making the effort and after the dirty sensors in D7000 and D600 quality control is an embarassment (or ought to be).

[felix]

These lenses were designed for film, not high resolution digital sensors. Center performance is one thing, pixel density another... It should not be too surprising that the performance is not on par with lenses that were designed for digital photography. Why should this have anything to do with Nikon's QC?

 

I'm also not so sure that there actually is a market for these lenses (at least on DX). The area of 20-28mm with an aperture of f/2.8 is covered by some popular and inexpensive zoom lenses (Tamron, Sigma..). I don't think that Nikon would sell a lot of these to DX shooters.

However, I agree that Nikon's 20-35mm primes are due for an update to modern FX standards. Maybe Nikon was surprised by Canon's implementation of image stabilization in these lenses and is now taking time to design something which is on par.

[Brightcolours]

If you compare the 10mp D200 tests with the 16mp D7000 tests, the differences are not unexplainable. Maybe we also see a slight impact from the sensor like we see very strongly with some lenses on the NEX-7 (and a bit with the NEX-5).

[HenriCartierShufflebottom]

I am not sure that lens design is all that much different between film and sensor other than rear element reflectance and therefore coatings?

 

As for lenses having to be better for digital that is clearly a laugh!  The onset of low resolution digital allowed for the proliferation of (poor) quality zoom lenses and only now are designs (of zoom lenses) doing justice as sensors improve.

 

I am only interested in FX (I have DX also) as it is here where the buck stops.  Poor lens quality shows.

 

OK you can go out and buy a £1800 zoom that has great quality (professionals and photo-journalists do) but Joe Public could do with something cheaper.  Only Samyang are fulfilling this market and only part-way (lacking AF).  Don't let that hold you back though focussing manually is easy (easier?).

 

Samyang have been criticised about decentering and this is the only aspect that half holds me back.

 

 

[Brightcolours]

I am not sure that lens design is all that much different between film and sensor other than rear element reflectance and therefore coatings?

Sensors do behave differently than film. In front of the sensels are micro lenses which try to direct the light towards the pixels. Light hitting them at big angles does not all reach the sensor, so with wide angles at "large" apertures you see more vignetting (light fall off) than with film.

 

Some sensors/lens combinations show colour shifts and even severe resolution loss.

As for lenses having to be better for digital that is clearly a laugh!  The onset of low resolution digital allowed for the proliferation of (poor) quality zoom lenses and only now are designs (of zoom lenses) doing justice as sensors improve.

Huh? With film, we did not get very high resolutions on 135 format. One of the reasons why MF was so popular when resolution mattered.

Zoom lenses of poor quality are something from the 1980's and 1990's, before the digital SLR age.

What are the zoom lens designs doing justice to, if not the "digital sensors"?

 

With digital, we all pixel peep. Before digital, you would just look at your small prints of vacation snapshots you got back from the 1-hour service.

I am only interested in FX (I have DX also) as it is here where the buck stops.  Poor lens quality shows.

Before you seemed to say that lenses do no not need to be better for digital, and now poor quality shows?

OK you can go out and buy a £1800 zoom that has great quality (professionals and photo-journalists do) but Joe Public could do with something cheaper.  Only Samyang are fulfilling this market and only part-way (lacking AF).  Don't let that hold you back though focussing manually is easy (easier?).

What are you talking about? Samyang does not offer ANY zoom, let alone any quality zoom. Besides Samyang, there are many companies offering affordable prime lenses, most of which offer AF (voigtlander (MF only), Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron).

 

And Nikon, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all offer relatively affordable zoom lenses with AF too.

Samyang have been criticised about decentering and this is the only aspect that half holds me back.

The Samyang 85mm f1.4 is the least sharp 85mm available. It does however render things nicely. The Samyang 24mm is not great. The Samyang 14mm is sharp but has a LOT of distortion. 

[felix]

As for lenses having to be better for digital that is clearly a laugh!  The onset of low resolution digital allowed for the proliferation of (poor) quality zoom lenses and only now are designs (of zoom lenses) doing justice as sensors improve.

 

Following the official specifications, Velvia is the highest resolving film made by Fuji. Under optimal conditions, you can achieve about 22 megapixels with it (160 l/mm @ 1000:1 contrast). Provia 400X is roughly equivalent to 16 megapixels, Superia is 14 megapixels and lower... 

In a nutshell: current FX models clearly outresolve film. DX cameras have done so for a while.

[HenriCartierShufflebottom]

I see you are mostly recent adherents to digital photography (or have conveniently short memories) as it is only in recent years that mass-market DSLRs have been manufactured with the quoted pixels counts.  My first compact digital camera cost £660 and was 2 megapixel (Canon S10).  I still have it.

 

Quote "In a nutshell: current FX models clearly outresolve film. DX cameras have done so for a while."

 

I agree with you this is now becoming possible.

 

Quote "Before digital, you would just look at your small prints of vacation snapshots you got back from the 1-hour service."

 

I think you must be a holiday snap-shooter as personally I have not used a commercial service as I neither used colour print film and bulk-loaded, self process and printed and developed my own black and white and transparency films but this was 35 years ago.

Certainly my Nikon and Leica shots (at that time) exhibited far superior detail and resolution.  That being said I am seeing great results on a new Nikon D600 that come near to matching this (on prime lenses).

 

Quote "Zoom lenses of poor quality are something from the 1980's and 1990's, before the digital SLR age."

 

You are correct in that I was indeed referring to (older) zoom lenses and the cheaper recent ones (DX).

 

Quote "Huh? With film, we did not get very high resolutions on 135 format. One of the reasons why MF was so popular when resolution mattered."

 

You are not correct. 35mm resolution was good.  Above 16 x 20 (inch) print sizes MF was preferred (I had a Mamiya myself).  I would have gone onto 4 x 5 but finances limited this.  Certainly I would have achieved (with technique) greater resolution but the main reason I desired this was a personal extension of the love of gadgetry and the art of photography. 

 

Quote "What are you talking about? Samyang does not offer ANY zoom, let alone any quality zoom"

 

Apart from you being slightly rude I think you need to read the whole thread which starts with a market opportunity for primes which Samyang have started to fulfil.  I know they don't make zooms!  I have legs.  This is the problem.  Most digital photographers would benefit from leaving their beloved 14-24mm behind and moving.  The most satisfying photographic period I ever has was returning to a Leica M3 and a 50mm Summicron. 

 

However that was photography and it certainly is easier to allow the Canon corporation to do everything for you?  Blimey I was never certain I had a decent image until I had processed the film and hung it to dry.  Even then until projected or printed successfully was there certainty.  No labs involved.  Pan F, Fp4, Tri-X, Ektachrome and E6, Cibachrome ... Yahoo!

 

I recommend u switch AF off and use a prime .... you will see an improvement.  Sports fans ignore this.  lol

[felix]

Well regarding your point with the Canon S10: That camera's sensor has a pixel densitiy roughly equivalent to a 50 megapixel FX sensor. So it's actually pretty demanding in terms of lens performance.

Even the original Nikon D3, which was introduced in 2007, was already on par with negative film (not slide film though).

The main point here is that it's quite difficult to design excellent performing lenses for digital cameras. Not only due to the resolution, which has been at least equal to film for several years, but also due to the issue with the direction of light hitting the sensor, that was mentioned by brightcolours.

Still, I am totally with you that we need more affordable, high quality prime lenses.


I know this part was not directed at me, but I still shoot a lot of film on my Nikon F80 and my OM-10 and I really enjoy the whole process. Not sure what you mean with "seeing an improvement" though.