Follow
on Twitter
White
Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 18/3.5 Distagon @ f/3.5
I’ve just added the first chunk of insights on the Zeiss ZF 18mm f/3.5 Distagon to my Zeiss ZF Lenses review (login required, please see the revision history page). Already there are some very interesting findings on flare, distortion, vignetting, color and examples from the Nikon D3 and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III.
Fall figures
Nikon D3 + Zeiss ZF 18/3.5 Distagon @ f/16
I’ve apparently induced some confusion over DAP (diglloyd’s Advanced Photography). I was certainly exhausted on Wednesday after an unrelenting 9 days of effort to do some behind-the-scenes work for it. In a nutshell, here’s what’s happening:
I am excited that I can now offer incremental material in DAP, ZF and DIP. For example, Zeiss ZF Lenses should see some new pages this weekend on the 18/3.5 Distagon, and DAP will see new pages as well (probably the Voigtlander lenses I’ve discussed in this blog before).
I would prefer to be able to just give away for free all the material I offer. But that requires a really large reader base (for click-through commissions). I still hope that becomes possible, as it’s a lot less complicated for everyone, a huge win/win. You can help: let people know about this site by linking/posting/etc. Search rankings are in large part a popularity contest!
What
cool products! I would love to shoot one of the fotoman cameras of various
shapes and sizes. but this handheld 8X10 unit would surely be fun, and you aren’t going to see a digital version, that’s for sure!
I used to shoot a Linhof 6X17 (and I still have my 4X5), but for pure fun, a huge film format like 8X10 that could be shot handheld would surely be stimulating! The 4X10 and 6X24 formats and several others all use that old fashioned stuff called “film”. At $10 or so a shot (film and processing), and 8X10 camera would not be cheap to shoot, but that just means being careful with one’s compositions.
I’ve
been using the SanDisk 16GB cards since they came out in both Canon and Nikon DSLRs. They work great (I’ve had not a single problem). Right now, B&H
Photo has them for $95.95 after
a $90 rebate. Amazon.com
For a fraction of the price of a Nikon D3, you can insert a pair of these cards in its two slots, and have a mirrored backup of all your shots. Some shooters like smaller cards on the "all eggs in one basket theory", but I personally think 16GB is the best choice for today’s DSLRs if you know you’ll be out shooting for the day. Multiple cards also increases the risk of misplacing one (I have); keeping the card(s) in the camera eliminates that risk.
Regarding SanDisk rebates, be aware of the way the scam works when you submit the paperwork and you’ll be OK (photograph everything you send in before sealing the envelope!). See my May 1, 2007 blog entry for details.
Test a lens not optimized for close up (Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 Planar) using small test charts (where it’s at its worst), and what do you have? A good idea of how the lens performs under those conditions. But not much of an idea of what kinds of images it will make under other conditions (other focusing distances, severe backlighting, ability to hold highlight and shadow detail, etc).
What am I referring to? Reviews like this one at slrgear.com. A good starting point? Yes, all sorts of hints are available from the test data for exploration with field shots. I urge readers to understand the by-the-numbers reviews at slrgear.com (and dpreview.com) in that context; there are many outstanding lenses with unique characteristics that do not acquit themselves well on test charts. A good example is the highly sought-after NOCT-Nikkor. A future article will show just how “bad” it is compared to the Voigtlander 58/1.4—yet its rendering capabilities are unique.
The Zeiss ZF lenses are a mixed bag; all are superb, but in different ways. Some, like the 100/2 Makro-Planar, can hardly be criticized on a test chart. Others, like the 25/2.8 Distagon, look pretty darn bad on a test chart, but are simply marvelous used at farther distances and have highly unusual rendering quality for extreme close-ups.
Blurry mush in the corners of the frame at any aperture might work for the “emperor’s clothes” crowd, but it doesn’t appeal to me for a general purpose zoom that I would use most often at 200mm, where it’s at its worst.
I discovered this issue (later confirmed by Bjørn Rørslett of naturfotograf.com) . See my short article Mush in the Corners comparing it to the Nikon 200 f/2 AF-S VR.
70-200VR
@ f/8
When
I go out for a shoot on foot or bicycle, I want to travel light. For that, there’s no better daypack than the North
Face Recon.
Can you believe this 18 ounce pack can carry a Gitzo G1325 tripod, a Linhof TechniKardan 4X5, 4 lenses, two boxes of quickload film, a 1 liter water bottle, a jacket, and the other stuff needed to shoot 4X5? Amazing. It’s the best damn pack I’ve ever found. (Newer versions of this pack have more padding and weigh closer to 28 oz). No, it’s not for checking as luggage, but it works great in a luggage bin.
To carry the lenses (generally some or all of my set of 7 Zeiss ZF Lenses, plus a Nikon or Canon zoom or two), I use neoprene pouches for protection.
Most of the ZF lenses fit into the small to medium-size pouches, but the size will vary by vendor. My least favorite is the style with the clip (the Really Right Stuff one at top right. I prefer the drawstring style best (Zing at middle), as it can be left partially open, or tightened down securely, with a minimum of hard plastic annoyance attached. I also like the flip-top style (Zing at top left).
Over the years I've made the mistake of choosing mostly the same color. My advice is to choose as many different colors as possible
so that you can tell which lens is which at a glance. You can get neoprene pouches like these at BH
Photo or Adorama. There are many different sizes, colors and styles
to choose from. Search for “Zing” or “OpTech”. You can get the North
Face Recon
The Red
4K video camera (twice the linear resolution of HDTV) has many photographers interested in Nikon, Canon and Zeiss ZF lenses.
This RedUser discussion board thread might be interesting to videographers out there, as well as of general interest to those considering Zeiss ZF lenses for DSLRs. The RED camera uses a chip slight wider and narrows than a Nikon “DX” camera.
Reader Leping
Zha (a superb photographer), sent me a link for the Nikon optional picture control
downloads. The downloads are for both the camera and for Nikon Capture NX (separate downloads). I don’t bother that much with Picture Control, but
JPEG shooters might like the extra variety of choices.
The Zeiss ZF 18mm f/3.5 Distagon (see July 7 details) arrived yesterday. It shares the same build quality and ergonomics as the other 7 ZF lenses, but its oddball shape is quite unusual: a narrow lens barrel (about the same diameter as the ZF 50/1.4) that flares outward to accomodate an 82mm filter size and a oversized and substantial metal lens hood. It’s unusual, because only about half of the frontal area is occupied by glass.
The otherwise compact dimensions are greatly inceased visually by the flaring of the lens barrel and the relatively large lens hood, well optimized for coverage, not just a simple round hood as with the rest of the ZF line. Could this be to mitigate the lens flare problem? Keep reading for more on flare below.
Zeiss ZF 18/3.5 Distagon
As readers of this blog and my comprehensive Zeiss ZF Lenses review know, I’m a big fan of the ZF line, shooting them for most of my work. Judging a lens by one performance characteristic is not very useful, unless that performance characteristic is one envisioned for specific uses—
One of my hopes for the 18mm f/3.5 Distagon which I mentioned in my June 25 entry has been dashed: the desire for an ultra wide angle which can be shot directly into the sun with little or no flare (like the ZF 25/2.8 Distagon). That is not to be. The UFOs produced by the ZF 18/3.5 are quite troublesome. See for yourself by mousing over the image below to see the ZF 18/3.5 compared to the Nikon 14-24mm f/3.5G, both at f/8, both shot and processed identically. To be clear, veiling flare (overall contrast) is superb. But the UFOs (ghosts) are prominent.
Mouse over to see Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G
Both lenses shot at f/8, 1/1600 sec, processed identically from RAW
Further field shooting confirms that any light striking the front element results in ghosts. This result is quite unexpected and out of character compared to other ZF lenses. My guess is that the complex design of the ZF 18/3.5 (13 elements in 10 groups) was optimized for performance characteristics that did not allow as effective flare control as with the 10-element 25/2.8 Distagon. But that’s just a guess, and I’m hoping the Zeiss factory can explain why a prime lens is handily outperformed in the flare department by Nikon’s 14-24/2.8 Gzoom lens with 15 elements in 11 groups.
Of course, Nikon’s huge and heavy 14-24mm is tough competition: without a doubt it is the finest wide angle zoom ever produced, certainly the best in its range by a huge margin over anything else. The question is what qualities the Zeiss 18/3.5 offers to make it appeal over and above Nikon’s zoom. My full report will make its way into Zeiss ZF Lenses.
Get the Zeiss 18/3.5 Distagon at BH Photo at Adorama using the direct links at the top right of this page. Get the Nikon AF-S 14-24 f/2.8G ED at BH Photo or Adorama.
Stay tuned for intial impressions on the highly anticipated over the next few days on the Zeiss ZF 18mm f/3.5 Distagon. I expect to receive my evaluation sample within two days.
Zeiss ZF 18/3.5 Distagon
I previously commented and wrote about the CPU usage of multi-core systems. I’m pleased to report that DXO Optics Pro 5.2 makes full use of all four cores of my 3GHz Mac Pro. Thanks to reader James N for pointing this out. I haven’t yet evaluated the many features of DXO Optics Pro so I can’t yet speak to image quality (though several readers have written to say they’re pleased with it), and at least multi-core users will see their hardware investments fully utilized. Get DXO Optics Pro at Adorama or BH Photo or Amazon.com.
Nikon
users can shoot just about any Nikkor lens made in the last 30 years, and many are great performers on the Nikon D3 and D700 (in particular with those
bodies). And since Canon users can use Nikon lenses with an adapter, the range of optics available
is huge. Canon users can also use optics from Leica and Olympus with adapters.
Why shoot older lenses which might test as inferior to newer, “better” lenses like Nikon’s spectacular 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8? Well, every lens has a personality; this includes color rendition and saturation, macro and micro contrast, bokeh (out of focus rendering), field curvature, spherical aberration and other optical characteristics that might not test well “by the numbers”, but might be just the “look” to achieve an artistic goal. (My lens testing always evaluates contrast and resolution as a baseline, but goes much farther afield to find the qualities produced in real images).
A great example of this is the classic and highly sought-after NOCT-Nikkor 58mm f/1.2, now selling used near the US$2500 mark. On the test bench it looks like a “dog”, (and it’s lousy for astrophotography), yet real images made with it are unlike those from just about any other lens (I’ve used 5 samples of the NOCT-Nikkor). So if you have old lenses sitting around, shoot them to see how they perform, but not as to perfect resolution and contrast on a flat field, but whether they render in an interesting way. I sold my NOCT-Nikkor in 2007, a mistake in retrospect, as they are increasingly hard to find.
Zeiss ZF 25mm f/2.8 Distagon close-up
If you do not have older lenses but want something different for your work, look into the Zeiss ZF line and/or Voigtlander line (in addition to older Nikkors, etc). Many of the Zeiss ZF lenses offer the unusual combination of superb resolution and contrast combined with great “personality”—that’s why the majority of my work is done with them.
Adorama is now a diglloyd.com recommended vendor (see vendor sponsored links at top right of page). Like BH Photo, they offer a wide product selection at great prices. And like every vendor I recommend, my personal experience with them has been excellent. Thank you for buying through the sponsored links—your price remains the same, and it helps support this site.
Pick
one subject, not allowing yourself to move more than a fixed distance (eg a 20-foot radius in a garden). The subject should be a challenge—something ordinary,
so that you’re forced to work hard to make an interesting image. Shoot it with as many lenses, angles, apertures, etc as you like, but restrict yourself
to that subject only.
Your homework after the shoot is to analyze your work: did you come up with something new or different from your usual approach?
This exercise is a good one for those outings where you have other duties (eg supervising kids), where you’d otherwise be bored stiff. You can also do it at a restaurant table, lying on your back under a tree, waiting in line at a bus stop, etc.
I’ve written a great deal about the Zeiss ZF lenses, both in this blog as well as in my extensive in-depth review. As always, my comments are based on my own personal use, not specifications or second-hand knowledge. I do recommend products only after I’ve used them enough to have a fair view of how they perform.
For many users, manual focus is simply not feasible, due to subject matter, eyesight issues, etc. So what lenses should you buy to cover the bases?
The answer is simple if you can afford it: in the 14mm - 70mm range, Nikon’s offerings are simply the best, offering outstanding image quality which will require the rumored 24-megapixel D3x to see the limits. (Some readers report mechanical issues with the 24-70, but my 24-70 is perfect, as is my 14-24).
The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED is an amazingly good lens, easily outperforming any prior lens (zoom or not) in its territory, even the Canon 14mm f/2.8L II ! If you like to shoot wide with unbeatable image quality on full-frame, this is the only game in town. It also works on DX cameras, with an equivalent field of view of 21-36mm.
It should prove interesting to see how the 14-24mm performs at 18m against the new Zeiss ZF 18m f/3.5. I expect the 14-24mm to hold up very well, with differences showing up in the “edge cases”. Get the Nikon AF-S 14-24 f/2.8G ED at BH Photo or Adorama.
Nikon D3 + 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
The Nikon
24-70mm f/2.8G ED is also a stellar performer, raising the bar over previous Nikon and Canon offerings, both in terms of optical performance as well
as ergonomics.
Edge-to-edge sharpness is there on full-frame cameras. Compared to the older 28-70/2.8 (which I also own, and use for infrared on the Canon 5D), the new 24-70 raises the bar so much higher that it’s definitely worth the upgrade for anyone who regularly uses a mid-range zoom. Invest in good lenses for the 24MP Nikon D3x! Get the Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED at BH Photo.
Nikon D3 + 24-70mm f/2.8G ED @ f/11
Confine
your shooting to one and only one lens today. Do this for as many days as you have lenses, choosing a new lens each day.
If the lens is a zoom lens, tape the zoom ring down so you cannot zoom. Treat a zoom lens like multiple fixed-focal-length (“prime”) lenses. For example, a 24-70mm lens can be taped to its 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and 70mm settings (not necessarily in that order each day).
Why do this? It forces you to make creative choices you otherwise might not make, such as subject matter, distance and perspective, etc.
Reader’s have asked me what I think about Ken Rockwell’s web site. Ken is a 30-year veteran photographer, with a compelling take on the world, both in terms of imagery and perspective. One of his most useful articles is How to Afford Anything. Highly recommended and it dovetails nicely with my recommendation for Secrets of Power Negotiating.
In the past I’ve glanced at Rockwell’s site without digging very far. Well, I have now taken the time to read 15-20 of his pages on various subjects. His enthusiasm and sincerity shows, and his High State of Service comes through (see Secrets of High States, by Jim Dines).
My caveat about Ken’s site is that for many articles additional context from other articles is needed to fill in a gaps/contradictions as to his intent/meaning (eg equipment doesn’t matter, but only large format film is good enough for some applications). Ken’s writing also requires mentally eliminating various unsubstantiated claims (and sometimes outlandish ones). Finally, Ken works in one specific style/mode, and he thinks that everyone else wants to work that way, too. Accept all those issues as a mental note, pan away the dirt, and there are often nuggets left over in his writing.
One trouble is that beginners won’t understand the truths vs drek. However, beginners are not advanced users, and Ken’s writing will send them down a solid path to making photographs without worrying about technical issues too much. Refinements can be added later—little harm done.
This site won’t ever take up Rockwell’s approach. Accuracy and objectivity are key aspects of what I present here, a much higher standard, even if it means more work and applies to a smaller audience.
Update: reader Marc Rochkind wrote to say “I couldn’t disagree more”. Among the things that Marc finds troublesome are the following claims by Ken Rockwell.
1) In Digital Killed my Tripod : “Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness”
diglloyd: This latter claim is especially ludicrous. I wouldn’t be caught dead making such a claim unless I had evidence to back it up. One must read Rockwell’s articles being prepared to mentally eliminate unsubstantiated nonsense like that. But reading the entire article yields the worthwhile viewpoint that much good work can be done without a tripod, and that creativity can suffer (the latter is something I notice in my own work). It’s also true that today’s higher ISOs can eliminate the need for a tripod—up to a point.
I’ll also strongly disagree with Ken on image stabilization: rigorous testing shows that not only is VR good for only one (1) stop for achieving critical sharpness consistently, but ruins some images—see The Sharpest Image. Perhaps that’s why Ken thinks tripods can degrade sharpness—he forgot to switch off VR.
2) In Rockwell’s sRGB vs Adobe RGB: “Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors”.
diglloyd: This is easily refuted with the right example image 1, 2 but then again most images don’t fall out of sRGB gamut, and the few that do often are not far off.
Many photographers, especially those that prefer highly saturated and garish colors (like Rockwell) don’t really care if the colors fall out of gamut. Again Rockwell exposes his lack of rigor but he is right that a huge number of photographers won’t care and/or won’t get it right anyway. His comment is revealing: “After some experimentation, even I discovered that default sRGB was plenty for everything I did.” Well, Ken’s images aren’t about subtlety, so sRGB will work just fine for him. It’s important to understand his context and read his articles understanding that context. Your context might be at odds with his.
3) In Rockwell’s JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time: “Image quality is the same in JPG and raw”.
diglloyd: This is silly, and good fodder for a future diglloyd article. However, I have seen a steady improvement in JPEG quality over time. With older Nikon DSLRs, my testing showed that in-camera JPEG quality was noticeably inferior to a JPEG made from a RAW=>TIF in Photoshop. But with cameras like the Nikon D3, JPEG quality is superb (set to maximum quality of course). The problem is, one has to “nail” the exposure and white balance in the JPEG, something beginners aren’t likely to do.
Here again, Ken’s comments need context: his bottom line is shooting large numbers of photos, and so for his context, JPEG is the only way to go. One problem: beginners are beginners, and do not “get it right the first time”. Then again, beginners are confused by RAW, so what’s the right answer?
Take
an f/1.2, f/1.4 or f/2 lens, and go out at dusk or just before dawn. Shooting without a tripod, make as many creative
images as you can.
If you’re lucky enough to own the stellar Nikon D3 or Nikon D700, shoot at ISO 3200 on up and have some serious fun being creative with lights and shadows, lines and sky. City shooting can be very enjoyable this way. Other DSLRs should perform fine up to ISO 1600 or 3200; the D3/D700 are especially well suited to low light.
Reader Don K wrote to express his satisfaction with a focusing screen for the Nikon D3 from Brightscreen.com (also available for many other cameras). I have no personal experience with these screens, but a number of readers have emailed to ask about alternatives, so I’m passing it on as an item of interest. One speculative concern I have is metering accuracy; on Canon EOS one has to choose the correct screen in custom settings, even for Canon-supplied screens. Nikon doesn't offer such a setting (and offers only two screens for the D3), so it’s unclear if metering is affected.
Alternative focusing screens for D3 and other cameras (depiction)
My personal preference is for the Nikon D3 Type-E grid screen, for its gridlines. Note that in spite of the BH description, it does not offer on-demand grid-lines; they are etched onto the screen.
While I prefer vignetting for many photos, it’s often considered a defect, offering fodder for virtually every lens review out there.
Yet since Nikon Capture NX 2 (see review) and many other RAW-file converters offer a vignetting control feature which can all but eliminate the “problem”, it should be of little concern for most images. For that matter, many photographers prefer to “burn” (vignette) the corners of their prints!
See the update to my Vignetting article with an interesting finding on color accuracy.
Nikon D3 + 24-70 @ f/2.8 without/with vignetting correction (mouse-over)
Make
all your exposures manually today, preferably recording to RAW.
Use the camera’s R/G/B histogram (see below for examples), and see if you can “nail” the exposure so as not to blow out highlights, yet expose as bright as possible.
After shooting, use exposure compensation for images that are too bright. See if your image quality has improved in the shadows, both in terms of lower noise and in better shadow detail.
Slightly more exposure was feasible here, opening shadows while retaining highlights
(Nikon D2x, Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II)
NIkon’s 24-70 f/2.8 zoom
Following up on Saturday’s commentary on the Shutterbug PC-E 24mm Nikkor drivel, Reader Gary S sent me a link to a puff-piece extraordinaire in (of all places) Rangefinder Magazine. This one takes the cake, “reviewing” the Nikon 24-70/2.8 AF-S, along with the 18-200/3.5-5G ED-IF VR. It must be hard to keep so many lenses separate in one’s mind in the same review; after all, they’re both black and contain glass.
Along with such insightful nuggets such as “Its advanced design and enhanced optical formulas ensure optimum performance”, the author proceeds to describe the non-existent VR II capability of the 24-70:
I shot with it over an extended period of time and there are a number of things that I like about it. First, at f/2.8 for the entire zoom range, it’s fast. Also, the lens has built-in advanced VR II—the latest incarnation of Nikon’s sophisticated vibration-reduction technology. When coupled with the D3’s amazing high ISO capabilities...The proprietary VR II system makes it possible to effectively pick up a few additional stops beyond the lens speed and—when used with the D3—the incredible 25,600 ISO capabilities. The specs say it’s possible to shoot up to four stops slower with VR II activated compared to exposures with it off. That may be a bit optimistic, but two, maybe even three additional stops are realistic.
WTF? Read for yourself, but be prepared for a new low in photographic reporting. An SLR lens in Rangefinder magazine makes no sense anyway, so at least things are consistent.
The article also makes this claim: “there’s no edge or corner lens fall-off or the slightest hint of exposure vignetting”. The author makes a similar claim about the 18-200VR. The claim is nonsense of course, see my August 14 blog entry.
Then there’s the title of the article itself (“New”) when in fact the 18-200VR is several years old. Finally this comment refers to the 28-70, when the review is about the 24-70: “Focusing is smooth, but not quite as smooth as the 28–70mm”. Thanks to sharp-eyed reader Adam F for those latter two.
I use the 24-70, and it’s an extraordinary lens, though it’s big and heavy as one might expect. I highly recommend it when autofocus and zooming are required. The rest of the time I shoot my ZF lenses. Get the Nikon AF-S 24-70 f/2.8G ED at BH Photo.
I use manual focus lenses a great deal; any visual help is a big plus. If you’re a Nikon shooter I recommend the DK-17M magnifying eyepiece (1.2X) for the Nikon D2x/D3 or the DK-21M for the D200/D300/etc. Try one today—it might just increase your “keeper” rate when shooting manual focus lenses such as the Zeiss ZF optics.
NIkon DK-17M for Nikon D3
I use/have used the DK-17M on the Nikon D3 and D2x. Especially on the D3, there’s no optical drawback that I can discern; swapping back and forth with the stock eyepiece I unequivocally prefer the DK-17M. The 1.2X magnification definitely makes seeing focus with fine detail significantly easier, and even when using AF lenses, I prefer the enlarged view. The eyepiece does protrude more than the stock eyepiece, which can tend to make it “catch” slightly on ones’ clothing, something one notices and then quickly forgets about.
The rectangular DK-21M fits on a variety of Nikon DX camera bodies (D300/D200/Dxx). Perhaps due to its shape and smaller area it is not as unequivocally superior as the DK-17M, but it offers the same 1.2X magnification benefit for manual focusing—unless you are focusing near the corners, which go slightly blurry and darker. I used it for more than a year on the Nikon D200 and felt it was an improvement for most uses, keeping it on the camera permanently.
As I do not wear eyeglasses, I cannot speak to the issues with them, but a friend of mine uses eyeglasses with his D3/DK-17M combo and prefers it as I do. Results might vary with the D300/D200/Dxx + DK-21M combo.
With the high price of fuel these days, even short trips are very expensive—and it’s not just the fuel, it’s the depreciation on the vehicle.
One solution: you can order all kinds of “stuff” including groceries from amazon.com with free two-day shipping via the amazon prime program. At $79/year it’s no freebie, but weighed against the cost of driving and the shipping you might otherwise pay, it can be a bargain for some, not to mention that the toothbrush you need for your trip can show up overnight for $3.99 shipping or $0.00 shipping in two days. Do the math, and see if it makes sense for you.
I only recommend products or services that I use myself; this is a good one! And with a free trial, it’s worth checking out.
The August 2008 Shutterbug has a “review” of the Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45/2.8 by George Schaub. Be sure to understand what a review means!
A “review” in many magazines these days means a rehashed press release and specifications along with a few snapshots. It must not offend the manufacturer in any way, and certainly can’t offer anything stronger than wet-noodle criticism. Reviews in most “rags” these days are really paid advertisements, with the quid-pro-quo coming from the ads found elsewhere in the publication.
While greased palms are a fact of life, misleading readers on key concepts is a journalistic sin which is intolerable. In this case, Mr. Schaub seems clueless about how a tilt/shift lens actually works, stating:
“Don’t have enough depth of field even at f/22 to keep a receding stone wall or fence sharp from near to far? Simply shift the lens to match or closely match the angle at which it recedes...”
Someone who has never used a view camera or a tilt/shift lens will take this advice at face value and be very confused. In fact, shifting the lens does nothing to affect the plane of focus or depth of field. It’s the tilting of the lens that makes the magic happen; the tilt alters the plane of focus relative to the sensor (or film). One also wonders whether Mr. Schaub has evaluated the reduction in image quality at f/22 from diffraction.
The shift/tilt error might be understandable in the context of a wider article, but in an article about a tilt/shift lens, it’s offensive. You see, it’s nice for readers to be able to pretend it’s a review, but when key factual errors are made, that convenient illusion vanishes, along with the credibility of the author.
My suggestion: subscribe to a magazine that offers accurate and informative articles such as Photo
Techniques
Update: several readers have emailed to basically say “What do you expect from Shutterbug anyway”? Fair enough. :)
Today I shot the PC-E 45/2.8 on my most demanding outdoor test target: the mural at Stanford Memorial Church. I’ll work up a detailed lens review over the next month or so, but let’s just say that if you are interested in this lens get one before the waiting lists get too long: it is an outstanding performer. Get the Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 ED at BH Photo (in stock as this was written).
Update: this lens is reviewed in more detail as part of diglloyd’s Advanced Photography (DAP).
Peak performance is reached by f/5.6 for up to ~6mm of shift and by f/8 fully shifted 11.5mm. Performance declines visibly past those apertures due to diffraction. I also compared it to the Nikon 45mm f/2.8P. The PC-E Micro Nikkor 45/2.8 PC is vastly more sophisticated optically than the 45/2.8P, and result is simply “no contest” at any aperture.
Entire frame, 11.5mm vertical shift
(Nikon D3 + PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45/2.8 @ f/8)
Actual pixels, extreme corner of shifted frame
(Nikon D3 + PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45/2.8 @ f/8)
See also yesterday’s comments.
See my Aug 3 comments on the useful and creative things one can do with with a “tilt” lens.
Among other things, the plane of sharp focus can be tilted to be non-parallel to the sensor, which means that wide open at f/2.8 it’s
possible to make crisp images from near to far. Depending on the angle, this can mean a sacrifice of sharpness in other areas, a great creative effect
(the glass is half full). The fence image below is just as sharp at the bottom as the top at f/2.8, something impossible with a non-tilt lens.
Follow the fence
(Nikon D3 + PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45/2.8 @ f/2.8)
The difference in depth of field achievable using tilt is enormous. Move your mouse over the image below to see it without tilt. Both images taken at f/3. In this example, the tilt operation provides depth of field roughly equivalent to stopping down to f/16, probably f/22. The “tilted” image renders sharp results even at f/3. By stopping down to f5.6 - f/8 (this subject matter is not completely planar), the tilted image would be of of a quality impossible to achieve without tilt. (A non-tilted image taken at f/16 or f/22 image would suffer badly from diffraction). Get the Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 ED at BH Photo. See also my first impressions of the Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 24mm f/3.5 ED.
Mouse over to see image without tilt
(Nikon D3 + PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45/2.8 @ f/3)
Or is it a raven? This fellow, enjoying a gushing fountain, had intelligent eyes that discerned the lack of threat from me and my children. It’s rare to see these highly intelligent birds come within camera range, and so I sensed that s/he must not have been far from his/her demise. This individual seemed to almost speak with eyes and posture evoking wisdom and age.
End of days
(Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Leica 280/4 APO, ~50% actual pixels)
The crop below represents approximately 9 megapixels of a 21 megapixel image from the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. With 21 megapixels, there is room to crop and still have substantial resolution left over. Now if only the horse had cooperated...but I liked the tree and the late-day lighting with it.
In search of something green
(Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Leica 280/4 APO)
Protect yourself—be informed. As the US (and the world) now face what appears to be a stealthy deflation*, in spite of the Fed’s cutting of interest rates, now is never a better time to read The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. Could a global currency collapse and a depression also be around the corner? Read.
* deflation being a contraction in the money supply (the inverse of inflation or an expansion in the money supply). Credit is drying up—interest rates for consumers and businesses is unavailable or comes at a premium.
While you’re at it,Secrets of Power Negotiating is something
you’ll regret never having read before, once you read it (or listen to it).
As I write this, the newly-released Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED is in stock at BH Photo. Along with the new PC-E 24mm and 85mm, the PC-E 45mm offers both “tilt” and “shift”.
The “shift” capability has traditionally been used for correcting converging verticals, and is a welcome and necessary feature. However, the “tilt” capability is much more useful: it allows the plane of focus to be made more parallel to the film/sensor, increasing the available depth of field dramatically. In essence, you can “cheat” and obtain the depth of field of f/16 at f/2.8! Subject matter can be more or less cooperative of course; we’re talking about planar alignment here, and lots of subjects don’t fall into a plane.
The tilt capability also allows many creative possibilities by forcing portions of the subject out of focus deliberately. Many of the images of Vincent LaForet use this technique in his essay The Cloud is Falling. See other examples in my first impressions of the PC-E 24mm.
My recommendation: tilt-capable lenses are a must-have for evading the diffraction/contrast/sharpness issue with today’s high resolution cameras, not to mention the creative possibilities, correction of converging verticals, etc. See also my 28mm Shift Lenses review.
I also recommend the PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED (see my first impressions). I expect, if anything, that the 45mm will be as good or better than the PC-E 24mm, because a 45mm lens is generally easier to design than a 24mm lens.
Nikon PC-E Micro-Nikkor 45mm f/2.8D ED
A brief followup on my March Wither the Honeybees commentary—I learned recently that large numbers of hives are now imported from Australia (never to return of course). Is this a last gasp for the pollination of America’s vast and productive fruit and nut orchards, and can it be sustained? Time will tell, but Australians are deeply concerned about keeping their honeybee population free of the deadly mites that plague the US honeybees. If you have a garden, do your part: include some bee-friendly plants, and use no pesticides.
Pollinators wanted
A grateful thank you to those people clicking through the BH Photo or amazon.com links (“Support this blog”). So far, the number of such supporters is quite modest, but every bit helps, so please consider using those links when you buy from BH or amazon—your price is not affected.
Unveiling
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Leica 280/4 APO
This shot might look innocent enough, but it puts severe strain on the imaging capabilities of the Canon’s flagship EOS 1Ds Mark III. The intense yellows and deep blues (no polarizer here folks) demand very high performance from the camera—and the 1DsM3 doesn’t quite deliver.
The Highlight Priority mode seemed wise due to the intense yellow petals, results might differ with that mode disabled. What’s startling is that at ISO 200 there is quite obnoxious chroma (color) noise in the sky. Granted, I did “push” the exposure by 1/2 stop, making it effectively ISO 300, but this godawful noise is something I expect from a $400 digicam, not an $8000 top-of-the-line digital SLR.
Chroma (color) noise. Red channel is filled with “chunks”
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III @ ISO 200, pushed 1/2 stop
Equally interesting, the blue channel is pinned (pure black) over key portions of the image, with obvious posterization. Compare the red and blue channels below.
Red channel at top, blue channel at bottom
Don’t even think about working with such an image in the sRGB color space, it’s hopeless—the blue channel becomes one big black blob.
sRGB color space—blue channel
Perhaps my expectations are simply too high. The Nikon D3 needs a similar workout to see how it performs on such extreme subject matter.
At any rate, the shot isn’t as sharp as I’d like, hand-holding, manual focus, and a wobble-inducing breeze didn’t help. But it’s sure fun to shoot such things and get nice detail from 10 feet away!
close (not actual pixels)
Even the single honeybee present here is a surprise, given the effective extinction of wild honeybees in America. Explanation: a beekeeper maintains a dozen or so hives within 1/3 mile of my garden.
I’ve commented previously on digicam-like noise at ISO 200 with the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. But there is a solution: over the past few months I’ve experimented more and more with ISO 50 (when practical), and I’ve found that the results are worth it. While ISO 50 is not a true ISO (the tonal curve and dynamic range are different), I’m pleased with the image quality it offers. So the next time you’re shooting on a tripod, experiment with ISO 50 on the 1DsM3 (and ISO 100 on the Nikon D3). Get a Canon 1Ds Mark III at BH Photo.
The image below was processed with Daylight color balance and Neutral setting in Canon’s Digital Photo Professional—nothing was tweaked for visual appeal. At ISO 50, there is some posterization in a few areas, but given that the luminance (L) channel reads “1” (the first level over pure black), criticism is hardly warranted. A planned future comparison might well show that the Nikon D3 does better under such circumstances—that certainly is my subjective impression so far, and would not be surprising given the D3’s much larger photosites.
Rose on Green
Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III + Leica 280/4 APO, ISO 50, 1 sec
Compare the red/green/blue channels below. These are from the Wide Gamut version. There is some posterization in the blue channel.
Red/green/blue channels from Wide Gamut RGB. Note posterization in blue channel
An interesting thing happens when converting to sRGB (in 16-bit mode): posterization of the red channel, and complete loss of detail in the blue channel (pure black).
Red/green/blue channels from Wide Gamut RGB. Note posterization in blue channel
This is a good example of where the narrow-gamut sRGB color space fails miserably to preserve image detail: it can’t describe the color of this image very well at all. Using 16-bits cannot save the day; the color is out of gamut, and 16-bits can do nothing about it, which leads to the tried and true rule: use 16-bit mode in a wide-gamut color space for image manipulation.
