105mm Macro sharpness expectation.

[Lee R]

Hello,

I’m curious if my expectations are too high or if this lens I bought is normal for image sharpness. I bought the lens a few days ago and tried it on a few things like a dollar bill to compare sharpness with the TT Artisan 100mm 2.8 2x macro I have and was kind of shocked to see very little difference resolution/sharpness wise.

The Nikon has better contrast and color but I’m kind of left wondering if I got a soft copy or my TR Artisan is as good as the Nikon 105mm Z which could be possible.

I had to leave for a week long business trip so brought them both and the Z8 to really thoroughly compare but it’s looking like the Nikon isn’t really better sharpness wise.

I have a 30 day window to return the lens which I may unless I can confirm that it’s fine and I just have a great copy of a $300 TT Artisan.


If anyone has one and a dollar bill would you mind posting a screen capture of the eagles head at 1:1 minimum focus distance and at 100% in Lightroom. Here’s what I’m seeing with the Nikon Left and TT artisan right by default in Lightroom. Noise reduction is 0, default sharpness.

The Nikon is a smidge sharper but they’re extremely close.


I may have also just had sky high expectations due to all the good said about this lens and the TT is just a great value for a manual lens. It hands down outperformed my older FA 100mm 2.8 Pentax lens.

These are at about minimum focus distance on each and the TT at 1:1.

 

[DRwyoming]

Those are both extremely sharp lenses. I'd think more in terms of the other lens being good vs the Nikon being overly soft.

Contrast is also a big part of sharpness as what we call sharp can just as accurately be described as edge contrast. To me the left image is sharper due to that increased contrast and the slight increase in detail such as down near the mostly green areas near the bottom with patches of white.

Still I'd be happy to shoot macro including product photography with either of these lenses.

 

[Lee R]

Those are both extremely sharp lenses. I'd think more in terms of the other lens being good vs the Nikon being overly soft.

Contrast is also a big part of sharpness as what we call sharp can just as accurately be described as edge contrast. To me the left image is sharper due to that increased contrast and the slight increase in detail such as down near the mostly green areas near the bottom with patches of white.

Still I'd be happy to shoot macro including product photography with either of these lenses.

Thanks DR. The Nikon is clearly better from a color and contrast standpoint.

I think my expectations were way too high and the TT Artisan is just a great optic for its price. Full manual and you can see the coatings are not as good but it’s very sharp.

That’s just a screen shot of both at default from a RAW.

I was thinking the Nikons probably fine and the TT Artisan is just that good.

Either of them are much sharper than the older Pentax lens I had which was not a badly regarded lens on its own, z mount just delivers.

 

[JAJohnson]

Hello,

I’m curious if my expectations are too high or if this lens I bought is normal for image sharpness. I bought the lens a few days ago and tried it on a few things like a dollar bill to compare sharpness with the TT Artisan 100mm 2.8 2x macro I have and was kind of shocked to see very little difference resolution/sharpness wise.

The Nikon has better contrast and color but I’m kind of left wondering if I got a soft copy or my TR Artisan is as good as the Nikon 105mm Z which could be possible.

I had to leave for a week long business trip so brought them both and the Z8 to really thoroughly compare but it’s looking like the Nikon isn’t really better sharpness wise.

I have a 30 day window to return the lens which I may unless I can confirm that it’s fine and I just have a great copy of a $300 TT Artisan.


If anyone has one and a dollar bill would you mind posting a screen capture of the eagles head at 1:1 minimum focus distance and at 100% in Lightroom. Here’s what I’m seeing with the Nikon Left and TT artisan right by default in Lightroom. Noise reduction is 0, default sharpness.

The Nikon is a smidge sharper but they’re extremely close.


I may have also just had sky high expectations due to all the good said about this lens and the TT is just a great value for a manual lens. It hands down outperformed my older FA 100mm 2.8 Pentax lens.

Assuming the lighting is identical, the Nikon image is brighter, with better contrast and color rendition. Perhaps my perception differs from yours but I find the image on the left superior, without question.

However, what matters most is what you think!

 

[Lee R]

Here’s a screen grab of the Pentax and TT Artisan and then a crop out of a pixel shift shot of the TT artisan at 2:1 off the Z8. The TT Artisan at 2:1 and pixel shift can produce a lot of detail.

 

[Lee R]

Assuming the lighting is identical, the Nikon image is brighter, with better contrast and color rendition. Perhaps my perception differs from yours but I find the image on the left superior, without question.

However, what matters most is what you think!

I do think the Nikons producing a better image. I think I was expecting a lot more resolution, it’s there but the TT Artisan is quite good on its own, but not color or contrast.

 

[RickW]

No opinion on which is better, but I’m not sure photographing a dollar bill is the best test of a macro lens. I’d choose a subject with sharper lines.

 

[Lee R]

No opinion on which is better, but I’m not sure photographing a dollar bill is the best test of a macro lens. I’d choose a subject with sharper lines.

I was thinking the cotton fibers. Knife edge? I’m all ears for suggestions. I don’t have test charts.

 

[RickW]

I’m thinking pretty much anything other than something printed which will have some ink bleed. Perhaps a newish coin which is in sharp relief? Even the edge of a leaf?

 

[StefanSC]

was kind of shocked to see very little difference resolution/sharpness wise.

I wouldn't be... excepting the very very cheap/bottom of the barrel ones, macro lenses have always tended to be within spitting distance of each other sharpness wise, especially at close focusing distance ... you usually pay for features more than sharpness with them.

And the TTArtisan one doesn't seem to be a bottom of the barrel lens (while they skipped on AF, it looks like they invested in other places the savings).

 

[Len Shepherd]

Assuming the lighting is identical, the Nikon image is brighter, with better contrast and color rendition. Perhaps my perception differs from yours but I find the image on the left superior, without question.

However, what matters most is what you think!

The reason for the perception the image on the left is superior is because it has more contrast.

 

[Krümelkraft]

I think that your two images are not comparable, since the upper part of the shown crop is more out of focus in the left image than in the right.
Could be that they are shot at a slightly different angle, or, if not, focus may be slightly different.

 

[Lee R]

It looks like the culprit is Lightroom. For whatever reason it's rendering the 105mm macro much softer than DXO 8 or NX Studio. The 105mm has a very clear sharpness advantage in DXO along with fringing etc. NX Studio and Lightroom render the images so they look basically the same sharpness wise. DXO (maybe it's the lens corrections?) renders substantially sharper.

I kept comparing because I just couldn't believe it with the reputation of the 105mm.
105 left/100 right
DXO on the top
Lightroom
NX Studio with +2 quick sharp
NX Studio defaults

DXO renders the 105 substantially better. These are all the same images just different editors.

 

[JAJohnson]

It looks like the culprit is Lightroom. For whatever reason it's rendering the 105mm macro much softer than DXO 8 or NX Studio. The 105mm has a very clear sharpness advantage in DXO along with fringing etc. NX Studio and Lightroom render the images so they look basically the same sharpness wise. DXO (maybe it's the lens corrections?) renders substantially sharper.

I kept comparing because I just couldn't believe it with the reputation of the 105mm.
105 left/100 right
DXO on the top
Lightroom
NX Studio with +2 quick sharp.

DXO renders the 105 substantially better. These are all the same images just different editors.

NX Studio is the only tool which can read and render Nikon RAW files with full fidelity. Other tools make assumptions based on reverse engineering the RAW data.

I’ve read comments from Thom Hogan that DxO builds lens profiles from actual measurements instead of relying on OEM correction profiles. That may account for some of the differences you noted.

 

[Lee R]

NX Studio is the only tool which can read and render Nikon RAW files with full fidelity. Other tools make assumptions based on reverse engineering the RAW data.

I’ve read comments from Thom Hogan that DxO builds lens profiles from actual measurements instead of relying on OEM correction profiles. That may account for some of the differences you noted.

DXO is rendering much better. Strange. All I can assume is the DXO lens profiles really make a difference. My only gripe with DXO is it doesn't have Nikon colors. I actually really like nikons default color profiles.

The TT Artisan really is great for the price. I don't think I have a defective 105 I just think the TT Artisan is also very sharp.

 

[JAJohnson]

DXO is rendering much better. Strange. All I can assume is the DXO lens profiles really make a difference. My only gripe with DXO is it doesn't have Nikon colors. I actually really like nikons default color profiles.

The TT Artisan really is great for the price. I don't think I have a defective 105 I just think the TT Artisan is also very sharp.

Some of the smaller lens manufacturers are producing lenses of excellent quality. Looks like you’ve found one!

 

[Lee R]

Some of the smaller lens manufacturers are producing lenses of excellent quality. Looks like you’ve found one!

It's going to get wild when Viltrox starts producing 400/600mm lenses if they can display the same optical quality they did with the 135 1.8 they just put out.

A Viltrox 600 6.3 for 2000 dollars will rattle the market a bit.

This TT Artisan is very good.

 

[jeffnles1]

Once we get to a certain level of sharpness, I'm not sure our eyes/brain a distinguish one from the other. Most of today's lenses are sharp. What sets one apart from another is usually not sharpness but other factors, some of which are intangible or hard to measure. I had a 105mm Nikkor Macro with my D500 kit. It was not the sharpest macro lens I have ever shot but something about the way that lens rendered flowers was just magic. I now shoot Canon and the 100mm Canon RF macro is clinically sharp but that is part of the reason I don't like it as well as I did the Nikon macro. The Canon lens is so sharp the images can "cut your eyes" but the rendering is not as pleasing to my eye as what I got from that Nikon. I can get the same look in post processing but not straight out of camera.

Jeff

 

[Lee R]

Once we get to a certain level of sharpness, I'm not sure our eyes/brain a distinguish one from the other. Most of today's lenses are sharp. What sets one apart from another is usually not sharpness but other factors, some of which are intangible or hard to measure. I had a 105mm Nikkor Macro with my D500 kit. It was not the sharpest macro lens I have ever shot but something about the way that lens rendered flowers was just magic. I now shoot Canon and the 100mm Canon RF macro is clinically sharp but that is part of the reason I don't like it as well as I did the Nikon macro. The Canon lens is so sharp the images can "cut your eyes" but the rendering is not as pleasing to my eye as what I got from that Nikon. I can get the same look in post processing but not straight out of camera.

Jeff

I definitely prefer the rendering of the Nikon 105 Z. It's got fantastic contrast and color strait away. For someone not looking to spend a lot you can't go wrong with that TT artisan if you don't mind a manual lens or wanted a 2:1.

We're in a world of no bad lenses these days.

 

[wotan1]

It has been my experience that nx studio is far better than LR when it comes to evaluating an image for sharpness and focus. I don't presume to know why this is the case but it is troubling . It is almost like LR is subtly sabotaging image quality on my Nikon RAW images. Is it just a screen rendering thing and I should not worry or what is going on here.

 

[JAJohnson]

It has been my experience that nx studio is far better than LR when it comes to evaluating an image for sharpness and focus. I don't presume to know why this is the case but it is troubling . It is almost like LR is subtly sabotaging image quality on my Nikon RAW images. Is it just a screen rendering thing and I should not worry or what is going on here.

See my post above, #14.

 

[DRwyoming]

DXO renders the 105 substantially better. These are all the same images just different editors.

Are all the editors, in particular LR, set up to import based on Camera Settings or are they processing RAW files based on their various default and slider settings?

I agree with the others that NX Studio often does the best job straight out of the box but comparisons like these can get tricky if we rely on software defaults or slider settings instead of camera settings.

 

[Lee R]

Are all the editors, in particular LR, set up to import based on Camera Settings or are they processing RAW files based on their various default and slider settings?

I agree with the others that NX Studio often does the best job straight out of the box but comparisons like these can get tricky if we rely on software defaults or slider settings instead of camera settings.

Set to camera settings. DXO did have lens corrections on.

I tend to trust NX Studio the most as it’s Nikons software. It’s probably less obvious in the screen captures but DXO really shows a sharpness difference with its lens corrections on. That could also just be some fancy sharpness boost though which is why I included NX with the quick sharp setting +2.

I do want to rent the new Tamron at some point and have a look at it. I was torn between which of them to buy and still have second thoughts.

 

[Len Shepherd]

I’m not sure photographing a dollar bill is the best test of a macro lens. I’d choose a subject with sharper lines.

I agree - though part + 1
I would go so far as to say photographing a dollar bill is a subject far short of what is needed to discern macro lens fine detail performance.
Beyond this, I would also say which post processing option renders the image in which way is a distraction as to whether or not you might have a defective Nikon macro lens.

When the F mount version was introduced about 18 years ago, it was the market leader although eventually some other brands caught up and even went a little ahead.
When Nikon launched the Z version they reported a dramatic increase in optical performance compared to the old F mount version.
Having made the upgrade I find Nikons claim fair and reasonable.
This lens is not just good for macro distances due to utilising a multi focus system, backed up by up to 5 stops Syncro VR.

The Nikon greater contrast is easily discernible with the subject where ink bleeds into paper making it far from satisfactory for testing macro lens resolution

A macro subject with much better fine detail should clarify you have an outstanding performing lens.

Off topic the current UK street price of £690 including 20% sales tax is a modest 15% more than when I got the F mount version in 2006.

 

[Lee R]

I agree - though part + 1
I would go so far as to say photographing a dollar bill is a subject far short of what is needed to discern macro lens fine detail performance.
Beyond this, I would also say which post processing option renders the image in which way is a distraction as to whether or not you might have a defective Nikon macro lens.

When the F mount version was introduced about 18 years ago, it was the market leader although eventually some other brands caught up and even went a little ahead.
When Nikon launched the Z version they reported a dramatic increase in optical performance compared to the old F mount version.
Having made the upgrade I find Nikons claim fair and reasonable.
This lens is not just good for macro distances due to utilising a multi focus system, backed up by up to 5 stops Syncro VR.

The Nikon greater contrast is easily discernible with the subject where ink bleeds into paper making it far from satisfactory for testing macro lens resolution

A macro subject with much better fine detail should clarify you have an outstanding performing lens.

Off topic the current UK street price of £690 including 20% sales tax is a modest 15% more than when I got the F mount version in 2006.

With the dollar bill it was much more about resolving the fibers in the bill rather than the print.

I’ve shot the two lenses now with a variety of subjects and there really isn’t much difference in sharpness. Other features the Nikons better but the TT artisan is pretty great for the price.

NX Studio and DXO.

There is a very slight difference in sharpness going for the Nikon, Nikon color/contrast and everything else is much better overall. I don't think the Nikon is defective I just think the TT artisan is very sharp. Unless any of you see something wrong with the Nikon 105 I have. It's the better lens for sure. I'm left really wondering about the Tamron though.

Also the DOF on the TT artisan is far deeper even if the lens is closer which maybe is something to do with it being a 2:1 lens? I shot it at 1:1 or near that on its scale to try to match up with the Nikon.

Mexican sage bush flowers. Very small fine hair like fuzz on them.