For whatever it means, Ken Rockwell considers this lens to be the best Nikkor ever.
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1299578280' post='6596']
Interesting that your results completely contradict mine ...
-- Markus
[/quote]
How do they completely contradict yours?
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1299578713' post='6597']
For whatever it means, Ken Rockwell considers this lens to be the best Nikkor ever.
[/quote]
Well, it is Ken Rockewell... So one can never be sure what it means <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':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).
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.
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299584685' post='6601']
Well, it is Ken Rockewell... So one can never be sure what it means <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />
[/quote]
This is the guy who once claimed that film has infinite resolution
http://www.google.com/search?q=ken+rockwell+"infinite+resolution"
GTW
genotypewriter
Unregistered
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1299578280' post='6596']
Interesting that your results completely contradict mine ...
[/quote]
In my way of doing things, what you see is what you get <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> I don't just give numbers and I only show what can be compared.
Plus, anyone is free to reproduce my tests too <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
GTW
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1299550847' post='6593']
The 85 1.2L II has better center resolution at f/1.2 than the 84 1.4G wide open:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/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? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
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.com/photos/genotypewriter/4698284415
The 35G's worse, but I haven't had time to publish my results yet.
GTW
[/quote]
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.
[quote name='Martin_MM' timestamp='1299766742' post='6654']
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.
[/quote]
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.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/702-next-pz-lens-test-report-nikon-af-s-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.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1299770152' post='6656']
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.
[url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/702-next-pz-lens-test-report-nikon-af-s-35mm-f14-g-fx/"]http://forum.photozo...-35mm-f14-g-fx/[/url]
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.
[/quote]
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 ...
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1299772378' post='6657']
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 ...
[/quote]
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.
|
