08-09-2010, 12:53 PM
[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1281354163' post='1601']
Hi Markus,
I'm a bit surprised to see just 2/5 rating on the optics vs. 4/5 on the field rating <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Other than that I wonder how much more difficult is for this (or any other) lens to perform on the D3X comparing to a D700 (which I own) ? I'm asking since I also use the N85 f1.4 and I am more than happy with it (except for the AF, that leaves me wanting at times due to it's inconsistent results at small distances). Specifically, are the optical aberrations more visible and irritating due to the increased resolution of the sensor ?
BTW, I don't know how to describe it, but the image rendition of this lens in portraiture somehow goes beyond resolution alone, while comparing with results from other apparently sharper overall lenses at f 2.8, I liked the outcome from the N85 f 1.4 much more, whether it's microcontrast, skin rendition or whatever else - I don't know, but it's there (and the 85 1.8 somehow hasn't got it).. Just my subjective 2 cents <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[/quote]
It's always an adventure to publish such lens tests - the outcry is always the same. :-) Technically there isn't really any stellar lens in this class. The C85/1.2L, Z85/1.4, Samy 85/1.4 or N85/1.4 - they all perform very similar which means less than stellar at large apertures. However, we can't really ignore the technical findings in our ratings.
As far as qualities beyond the technical aspects is concerned - well, to be honestly I fail to see these. Technically their sharpness is not any different. However, due to the very shallow depth-of-field a "sharp object" is much more pronounced (subjectively) compared to a -say- 18mm lens where just everything tends to be within the depth-of-field. This "transition" into sharpness is certainly a unique feature but "just" a visual effect. However, this is, of course, the primary aspect here and naturally worth the investment - we don't question this at any time. You will not be able to achieve it with slower lenses. From a field perspective the weak corners are usually irrelevant. Who uses such lenses e.g. for nature photography after all.
As far as "micro contrast" is concerned - the MTF50 figures are actually just that. MTF20 or less can be regarded as macro contrast. It is valid to state that the 85/1.4 group has a higher macro contrast at f/2 than e.g. the 85/1.8 lens group.
Hi Markus,
I'm a bit surprised to see just 2/5 rating on the optics vs. 4/5 on the field rating <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Other than that I wonder how much more difficult is for this (or any other) lens to perform on the D3X comparing to a D700 (which I own) ? I'm asking since I also use the N85 f1.4 and I am more than happy with it (except for the AF, that leaves me wanting at times due to it's inconsistent results at small distances). Specifically, are the optical aberrations more visible and irritating due to the increased resolution of the sensor ?
BTW, I don't know how to describe it, but the image rendition of this lens in portraiture somehow goes beyond resolution alone, while comparing with results from other apparently sharper overall lenses at f 2.8, I liked the outcome from the N85 f 1.4 much more, whether it's microcontrast, skin rendition or whatever else - I don't know, but it's there (and the 85 1.8 somehow hasn't got it).. Just my subjective 2 cents <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[/quote]
It's always an adventure to publish such lens tests - the outcry is always the same. :-) Technically there isn't really any stellar lens in this class. The C85/1.2L, Z85/1.4, Samy 85/1.4 or N85/1.4 - they all perform very similar which means less than stellar at large apertures. However, we can't really ignore the technical findings in our ratings.
As far as qualities beyond the technical aspects is concerned - well, to be honestly I fail to see these. Technically their sharpness is not any different. However, due to the very shallow depth-of-field a "sharp object" is much more pronounced (subjectively) compared to a -say- 18mm lens where just everything tends to be within the depth-of-field. This "transition" into sharpness is certainly a unique feature but "just" a visual effect. However, this is, of course, the primary aspect here and naturally worth the investment - we don't question this at any time. You will not be able to achieve it with slower lenses. From a field perspective the weak corners are usually irrelevant. Who uses such lenses e.g. for nature photography after all.
As far as "micro contrast" is concerned - the MTF50 figures are actually just that. MTF20 or less can be regarded as macro contrast. It is valid to state that the 85/1.4 group has a higher macro contrast at f/2 than e.g. the 85/1.8 lens group.