Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ Lens Test Report: Sony E 16mm f/2.8
#11
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282735243' post='2146']



The older lenses you mention, like the 24 F/2.8s of the OEMs, I am sure wil fare no better either. Those are older designs, and manufucatured a little more cheaply, so I'd expect them to perform more or less as they did in the past on film, namely, good, but generally not as good as their primary, professional counter parts (teh F/1.4 versions). The question is whether that is good enough or not. For many it will be. For the "thrill seekers" amongst us the F/2.8s probably are curiosities, and we would probably want better performance in one way or the other, or maybe even all (aperture, resolution, optical characteristics).

[/quote]



Yes, this was my main point/question. Actually my most-used/favourite lens on film was my SMC-K 24/2.8 (which was still small but not SMC-M 20/4 pancake small and since the NEX 16/2.8 is equivalent to a FF 24/4 that's why I compared it to the M20/4) and it was better than "good enough" for me. So, relative to our film reference, I wonder how bad the flaws of the NEX 16mm (on APS-C) or the VL20/3.5 (on FF) are. Until the time that "normal" wide-angles such 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 on FF results are available on PZ, it's hard to interpret the other wide-angles.
#12
[quote name='dave9t5' timestamp='1282748313' post='2158']

Yes, this was my main point/question. Actually my most-used/favourite lens on film was my SMC-K 24/2.8 (which was still small but not SMC-M 20/4 pancake small and since the NEX 16/2.8 is equivalent to a FF 24/4 that's why I compared it to the M20/4) and it was better than "good enough" for me. So, relative to our film reference, I wonder how bad the flaws of the NEX 16mm (on APS-C) or the VL20/3.5 (on FF) are. Until the time that "normal" wide-angles such 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 on FF results are available on PZ, it's hard to interpret the other wide-angles.

[/quote]

I do know someone who used the 28 F/2.8 on the 5D classic, with very good results. Because of the backpack travelling he did and does, including mountain treks (Himalayans amongst others), he needed a light set, but did want a FF camera, and had a limited budget. He ended up with a 28 F/2.8 and a 50 F/1.8 Mk I (more sturdy than the Mk II). So far, he has been very happy with those, and this set has served him very well, with very, very good results (actually, stunning is the word).



I haven't used these two on a 5D II, but I do expect similar results are possible.



In the end, it really is about the photographer, the gear is secondary. Good or expensive gear helps, but good gear doesn't make a better photographer anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#13
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282735243' post='2146']

If I look now at the newly designed TS-E 17, I am really amazed, over and over again, at the incredible IQ this lens provides from corner to corner[/quote]



I must admit [url="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/910050/"]I was a lot less impressed[/url]. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282753192' post='2160']

In the end, it really is about the photographer, the gear is secondary. Good or expensive gear helps, but good gear doesn't make a better photographer anyway <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />.[/quote]



So true. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
#14
Hi Yakim,

[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1282818636' post='2203']

I must admit [url="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/910050/"]I was a lot less impressed[/url]. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />

[/quote]

Yes, I saw that. I reckon you did get a bad specimen to try out, or a mal-treated one. It is my sharpest lens currently <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Tongue' />. It requires desharpening every step of the way when resizing for the web...



Quote:So true. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#15
Well, it doesn't really matter. My next Canon purchase will be the 24/3.5 II, not the 17/4.
#16
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282826839' post='2212']

It requires desharpening every step of the way when resizing for the web...

[/quote]



Sorry, but I have to wave the bullshit flag on that comment. There's no way a normal image requires "desharpening" when downsizing with a normal bicubic resampling algorithm, no matter what the lens was. Quite the contrary, actually. Downsampling causes some loss of edge definition, which is why most people slightly re-sharpen images for web publication. Things may be different if you use a resampling alrgorithm that applies sharpening to the output (but that's independent of the lens, too).
#17
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1283088908' post='2307']

Sorry, but I have to wave the bullshit flag on that comment. There's no way a normal image requires "desharpening" when downsizing with a normal bicubic resampling algorithm, no matter what the lens was. Quite the contrary, actually. Downsampling causes some loss of edge definition, which is why most people slightly re-sharpen images for web publication. Things may be different if you use a resampling alrgorithm that applies sharpening to the output (but that's independent of the lens, too).

[/quote]

Sorry, but you're wrong. I did have to use "bicubic smoother", and I still got sharpening artefacts nonetheless. Do note that normally you'd have to use "bicubic sharper" for downsampling, effectively as you state, and as I do with all of my other lenses, although not for every step, because with f.e. 24L II and 135L I also get into sharpening artefacts trouble occasionally that way. I also use steps of approximately 1.4X, 1.5X max (down obviously in that case, so 1/1.4, or 0.7, just in case I get another undeserved reprimand), so that the algorithm has to make a choice when downsampling (or upsampling for that matter, same thing, step wise), rather than just divide by 2 in the case of downsampling, or multiply by 2 in th ecase of uprezzing.



In short, I used "bicubic smoother", which is normally used for uprezzing, instead of "bicubic sharper", and still had to desharpen a bit.



BTW, there are nicer ways to say things than using the words you did. I'll be the first one to admit a mistake, so no need even to raise a flag, just ask.



Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#18
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1283118956' post='2319']

BTW, there are nicer ways to say things than using the words you did. [/quote]



I can't agree more.
#19
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1283118956' post='2319']

Sorry, but you're wrong. I did have to use "bicubic smoother", and I still got sharpening artefacts nonetheless. Do note that normally you'd have to use "bicubic sharper" for downsampling, effectively as you state, and as I do with all of my other lenses, although not for every step, because with f.e. 24L II and 135L I also get into sharpening artefacts trouble occasionally that way. I also use steps of approximately 1.4X, 1.5X max (down obviously in that case, so 1/1.4, or 0.7, just in case I get another undeserved reprimand), so that the algorithm has to make a choice when downsampling (or upsampling for that matter, same thing, step wise), rather than just divide by 2 in the case of downsampling, or multiply by 2 in th ecase of uprezzing.



In short, I used "bicubic smoother", which is normally used for uprezzing, instead of "bicubic sharper", and still had to desharpen a bit.



BTW, there are nicer ways to say things than using the words you did. I'll be the first one to admit a mistake, so no need even to raise a flag, just ask.



[/quote]



Sorry if I offended you, that was not the intent. My opening remark was entirely tongue in cheek.



However, on the subject matter, I've never seen sharpening artefacts when downsampling, as downsampling inherently reduces sharpness (well, micro contrast, or whatever you want to call it), not increases it, and thus softens the image overall. So, unless you have sharpening artefacts in your original files already, it's hard to imagine how they could come about when downsampling. If on the other hand what you're seeing are sampling artefacts (which I haven't really seen with my files when using decent algorithms such as bicubic, either), as opposed to sharpening artefacts, I don't think you'd want to attribute them to the quality of the lens used (in fact, it would really bother me if I had to soften a downsampled image even further, leading me to question my downsampling routine...).
#20
[quote name='BG_Home' timestamp='1283150088' post='2325']

Sorry if I offended you, that was not the intent. My opening remark was entirely tongue in cheek.



However, on the subject matter, I've never seen sharpening artefacts when downsampling, as downsampling inherently reduces sharpness (well, micro contrast, or whatever you want to call it), not increases it, and thus softens the image overall. So, unless you have sharpening artefacts in your original files already, it's hard to imagine how they could come about when downsampling. If on the other hand what you're seeing are sampling artefacts (which I haven't really seen with my files when using decent algorithms such as bicubic, either), as opposed to sharpening artefacts, I don't think you'd want to attribute them to the quality of the lens used (in fact, it would really bother me if I had to soften a downsampled image even further, leading me to question my downsampling routine...).

[/quote]

Ok, thank you for the explanation. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />



I did get artefacts which looked like sharpening artefacts, at one of the steps (edge effects), which kept on getting worse whatever I did, and I got rid of those by desharpening the original size processed image slightly. Normally I do use alternating bicubic sharp and bicubic smooth, as not to overdo on the sharpening when downsizing, but I couldn't in this case, as I still got edge effects when downsizing. So I only used bicubic smoother for downsizing, after slightly desharpening the original size. The detail is still incredibly good.



It could be a contrast issue too, I guess, not necessarily entirely a sharpening effect.



Whatever is causing this exactly, this still is the sharpest UWA lens I have ever used or owned, even with a few degrees of tilt or a few mm of shift. I haven't seen this effect happening with any pictures taken with any other lens to this degree. Generally I could overcome these edge effects by using fewer steps of bicubic sharper and a few more with bicubic smoother. I do use the standard settings in the CS4 Raw converter for sharpness. Maybe I should set that to 0 to start with, although I never really had this happen before.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)