So what about that lens ... Thom Hogan timely lens essay.

[DsD]

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/how-does-that-lens-look.html



Seems our own @Nimi is vindicated for the most part as a video guy!

Seriously, I thought this article is a great assessment depending on one's need or desired look.

 

[Nimi]

https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/how-does-that-lens-look.html



Seems our own @Nimi is vindicated for the most part as a video guy!

Seriously, I thought this article is a great assessment depending on one's need or desired look.

I can't tell you how much time I spend to "unharsh" portrait stills and video from the otherwise-perfect (for me) Z 85/1.2s. As far as the Z 1.4s, I'm not crazy about them. Too flat to my eye and the defects are too obvious.

If I were asked to write an article, there would be a third catagory of perfectly-imperfect lenses. The F-mount 35 and 58 1.4s, for example. In new lenses, I've only seen it in cine lenses, never in a zoom, and never with AF. The Cooke SP3 E mount, for example. The Viltox Epic series. These are comparable in price to really good lenses from Nikon and the rest.

 

[fcotterill]

Interesting essay and an accessible overview of complex descriptions in optical physics and tricky concepts
"Clinical versus Well behaved" is a useful metaphor

 

[BillW]

Interesting article. Not sure I like Thom’s labels though. “Clinical” is often used pejoratively in photo forums. If clinical means largely sharp into the corners and edges and well corrected with few aberrations, it seems pretty positive to me. Especially for wildlife and landscape work. Maybe less so for portrait work, as Nimi points out. Certain lenses may be better suited to one task and less for another. I think my Plena and Z 400 mm TC lenses are the best lenses I’ve ever had, whatever the label.

 

[Nimi]

Interesting article. Not sure I like Thom’s labels though. “Clinical” is often used pejoratively in photo forums. If clinical means largely sharp into the corners and edges and well corrected with few aberrations, it seems pretty positive to me. Especially for wildlife and landscape work. Maybe less so for portrait work, as Nimi points out. Certain lenses may be better suited to one task and less for another. I think my Plena and Z 400 mm TC lenses are the best lenses I’ve ever had, whatever the label.

Clinical is more than just overly sharp. When they started stacking all these ED elements to rid of CA, and when they went to zillion (a real number) elements for other aberations, and when they started correcting in-camera, and when they went for lighter glass chemistry, they created very sharp, pure ("clinical") but flat/dead optics. Sigma Art is an example of that. It's less apparent in telephotos when seperation is built into the image, but for anything shorter of about 100mm, to me the difference jumps out. The transition to oof, both the color and the sharpness is completely different and far more abrupt in modern lenses.

 

[fcotterill]

Scrolling through shared images taken with examples of these different lenses. I find the experience absorbing.

The 58 f1.4G is the example that's often quoted in the 'Well Behaved' category; and this prime is remarkably versatile, contingent on the aperture setting. The 105 f1.4E is another

Neo-Noct, the 58mm f1.4G Nikkor

With the Mirrorless optics getting so much attention, it's easy to lose sight of the persisting qualities of certain DSLR lenses. Almost all of them can be adapted to Z mount and in the case of F-mount to many other MILC cameras, and this is the shared advantage of the many primes and Zooms of...

bcgforums.com

Bokeh comparisons here:

Is Background Bokeh really necessary in Wildlife Photography.

With all the movement towards the mirrorless glass these days coming out at 4.5 to 8 does that mean that bokeh is a thing of the past? With the exception of spending over 14,000 on up on a lens. I love my 600 f4 however the new glass is very much out of my reach these days. Just curious how the...

bcgforums.com

 

[ajrmd]

A clinical and largely incomplete conversation on the fidelity of lenses. There are cult followings of particular lenses which create mystical renderings due to lens design, construction, glass doping, coatings, etc. There's a young youtuber I enjoy who comedically addresses the issue of lens "pop".

 

[Nimi]

A clinical and largely incomplete conversation on the fidelity of lenses. There are cult followings of particular lenses which create mystical renderings due to lens design, construction, glass doping, coatings, etc. There's a young youtuber I enjoy who comedically addresses the issue of lens "pop".

He is my favorite! He follows and quotes an obscure YT channel called Dirty Photography Club which goes very deep into this rabbit hole.

 

[Lee R]

A clinical and largely incomplete conversation on the fidelity of lenses. There are cult followings of particular lenses which create mystical renderings due to lens design, construction, glass doping, coatings, etc. There's a young youtuber I enjoy who comedically addresses the issue of lens "pop".

Nobody wants that 2d crab walk look!

 

[daran]

There are cult followings of particular lenses which create mystical renderings due to lens design, construction, glass doping, coatings, etc.

Yeah. Given this is about photography, it is amazing how many long winded lens discussions show zero direct photo comparisons. But then I guess discussions with such direct comparisons simply tend to be a good deal shorter.

 

[sib]

Interesting essay and an accessible overview of complex descriptions in optical physics and tricky concepts
"Clinical versus Well behaved" is a useful metaphor

Agree it was interesting. But I also found it weird that he compares (discusses) the f/1.8 Z lenses against the f/1.4 and the f/2 & f/2.8 lenses, but not against the f/1.2 lenses. Do the f/1.2s fit in one of his two categories? Seems like a miss.