I've learned scads from you, Casey, but didn't happen to see your reference to this Dirty photography club. Perhaps I can thank CZcams for suggesting this site to me, based on my frequenting Camera Conspiracies. Guess I should humbly count my lucky algorithms. どうもありがとう ... Dōmo arigatō
I love the host's rigor, thought and use of science. This channel and Camera Mystique are unique non- commercial channels that provide unique critical insights into photography.
Despite the Nokton 35 1.2 sooner or later wil be in my set, because I think is the most beautiful serie 35-40-50, and I prefer have variations in normal focal length instead wide or tele, a lens I'm really keen to, more than the 75 Nokton is the Summicron 90mm F2 v3 or M II or "pre-asph" I suggest you to evaluate (focal length is a priority for me and 75 is not enough and I need only one tele )
Thank you for taking the time to talk about this subject. I had no idea. Could you give an analysis about the Nikon 58mm 1.4G? It appears to be an outlier. The sample images i have seen truly impress me, yet I havent seen much in depth overviews of it other than a few cursory and unimpressive reviews .thhank you!
Hi, I have that lens and like it a lot. It is not too sharp at wide apertures ( so it never excels in technical reviews) but the rendering is pleasing and it shows depth almost to the level of the Voigtlander Nokton 58 SL. Out of focus objects look rather creamy, which is the its main strength. The 58mm focal length is somewhat less usable than both wider and longer ones. I use it for portraits.
@@sneye1 Thank you . I read the similar statements about it being a poor performer for sharpness, but i agree that the rendering is gorgeous. Do you think lens design is a tradeoff between color richness/rendering and sharpness ? Im beginning to suspect thats the case. I have even heard that lens coatings can come at the expense of color taking a hit, at least on large format film. Have a great day! Thank you for taking the time to respond and for putting in such tremendous efforts in making these videos. They are a breath of fresh air.
Depends how you look at sharpness. The vast majority of modern lenses, including the 58 G wide open, are sharp at normal viewing distance. The issues start when pixel peeping. I suspect that the compromise between sharpness and rendering is due to the use of extra low dispersion glass. Not coatings. In modern lenses the coatings rarely affect color.
@@sneye1 To be honest, the last few years I started challenging myself to learn more about color, resolution, sharpness , etc. I am beginning to suspect we don’t understand most of these aspects as much as we think we do. Its quite the mindfuck. Which is why I find this thesis about ED glass quite intriguing. I have heard people posit about how the national culture affects lens contrast design as well. So, please, keep sharing this wisdom. Im listening with keen admiration.
@@livejames9374 can be, I've see one. BTW Aspherical is a surface, curved but not spherical so it' aspherical (because spherical surfaces produce the prismatic effect that divide light based on wavelength, causing CA, Sony has studied for example a curved sensor for its Medium Format project apochromatich by design) Quality aspherical elements are molded, but can be hand grounded also, they can be extremely aspherical like sony GM ones. Aspherical is the shape of the lens. Low or extra low dispersion, partial dispersion, abnormal dispersion, are characteristics of high quality optical glass that increases light transmission, decreases light dispersion, and so cuts down on chromatic aberration, or "color fringing". ED is the quality of the glass the lens is made. Some glass lens can be both, to reduce CA by how light is managed in its transmission, physically by its quality (ED) and shape (Asph). Being a surface a lens can have one or to Asph. surfaces.
@@livejames9374 Aspherical is the shape of the surface of the lens, both surfaces can be aspherical. Low, extra low, abnormal, partial -dispersion is the glass, the material of the lens. A lens can be both made of special glass and aspherical, on one or both sides.
@@knnrythanks so it seems like there’s no consistency with nomenclature by different manufactures. Samyang states the 85 1.2 has “Two High Refractive Index lens elements plus a precision aspherical lens element combine to minimize aberrations and increase sharpness.” Not ED but something else??
I've done a few attempts at testing lenses and keep screwing up but I think the kinks have been worked out and the next round should be more successful. You'll soon have more data to investigate if you want it :P
@@sneye1 Ok, so I posted some pictures for analysis. There are eight 35mm lenses (well, one is a 40mm and some are zooms set at 35mm) and while I shot them all from wide open to the smallest aperture, I only shared photos set at the maximum apertures and set at f/5.6, both in color and black and white (some people equate pop to tonal fidelity and eliminating colors tends to allow better focus on this aspect). The camera was set to aperture priority at the lowest ISO value (100) and all lenses were focused manually on the toy's left eye (our right, the one in the dark patch of fur). Lens correction was turned off in both the camera and the raw processing software, and no editing was done except for using a default preset for black and white conversion. So for all intents and purposes, for better or for worse, the photos are all straight out of camera with no corrections applied. I won't be looking too closely at the pictures for another few days but wanted to share now. The photos are posted individually to allow for closer scrutiny but there are also jpegs displaying all photos by category (max aperture black and white, color photos at f/5.6, etc.). The latter are probably the best place to share any thoughts and will also be where I'll be revealing the lenses in about a week, to give enough time for evaluation while avoiding any bias. You can find the pictures here (assuming the link can be shared): flic.kr/s/aHBqjBAAg7 I'm open to suggestions if you feel the test scene can be improved. I want to repeat the test with an APS-C camera that will add a few more 35mm lenses to the mix but will wait for any recommendations. If all goes well, I'd also like to repeat the process for the 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses I have. Cheers!
Hi, the lenses I would call "poppy" are 1, 5 and 8. 2, 3 and 6 are distinctly flat. I looked at the color images shot at f/5.6. Please let me know when you reveal the identities. Cheers.
@@sneye1 I've completed my own analysis, and though I agree with the poppy lenses you identified, 6 also ranked high for me. Maybe I'll take another look later this week and change my mind :P I'm looking to share the pictures with groups to see what others say before revealing there but didn't want to leave you hanging, so here are the lenses used: 1- Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 (I was pleasantly surprised at how well this one did) 2- Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZE (I was disappointed with this but impressed that you picked it out; I remember you saying it wasn't poppy in another video) 3- Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 II 4- Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 II 5- Nikon Series E 35mm 2.5 (I really like how this one performed, it's probably my favorite of this bunch) 6- Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 35mm f/2.8 7- Canon EF 24-105mm F/4 L (I was really hoping this would do better) 8- Olympus Zuiko Auto-W 35mm 2.8
@@sneye1 That rendering is amazing, despite this (I'm selling the 20 G because of focal length) I'm too attracted by the 24 GM as primary wide angle, but the Nokton is really something in term of rendering and those colors are hypnotic
Not specifically. However, most double Gauss designs from that era are very similar, with quite good depth rendition in my opinion. Look for a channel caled Zenography for information on vintage 50s with many examples.
@@automotivephoto low contrast WO for sure, every other planar gains contrast faster stopping down, I just don't like it. I really think is overpriced.
I wish you could take a look at the voigtlander 55mm f1.2 for nikon f. Reviews seem to imply it's similar to the 58mm but worse, but all the images i see seem almost more pleasing..
@@sneye1 that seems to be the case. Less sharp wide open, worse coma, worse CA.. And yet, very nice sample image, somewhat smoother looking backgrounds wide open...
Another great video on the topic! You mentioned the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 classic is very poppy, how do you think it compares with the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 nokton for Z mount? I'm leaning towards the native Z mount as the MF assist with the Nikon ZF is quite nice and it does require electronic contacts on the lens.
@@kalo3547 Hi, I happen to own the 40/1.2 (VM version) and a ZF. The 1.2 is superior to the 1.4 classic in every way bar 3D pop. Consider using a Techart MTZ 02 adapter and M mount glass. The adapter will give you those contacts with the added benefits of close focusing and AF. Not perfect but worth it.
is ED glass equilvalemt to anomalous partial dispersion glass ? I found that these glass are often present in voigtlander and zeiss glass, while nikon with ED glass
Hi, they are indeed equivalent to my understanding. Different manufacturers call it different names. Sigma has at least two terms for various types of EDs.
my understanding is that too much correction with ED glass and aspherical glass will greatly reduce the chromatic aberation, spherical aberration, distortion, in a way that is over-corrected so the image have a flat, high contrast image without much intertonal transition (rendering). Vintage lens with simple design are less corrected and usually has better intertonal transition and more flaws, the image is more lively and organic, less boring.
CameraMystique and I have different, slightly overlapping approaches. His focus is centred around micro contrast. I try to avoid mentioning it due to lack of a consensus definition of the term. His thoughts are interesting and mostly sound in my opinion.
@@sneye1 I did, no worries! Just wanted to tell you, in case you use premiere, there's an AI cutting tool now, that identifies fill words and cuts them out automatically. Really practical ^^
@@sneye1 always interesting to see different approaches. Mainly because I don't always see this 3D pop, so I'm still wondering if it's more a lighting, perspective and composition thing mostly, or if there really is such a difference in lenses. Got a color ultron 50mm, and it's a nice lens, but in most conditions I don't see any more pop than on fuji lenses or even the sigma 56mm. Same with cheap, low element Chinese lenses (7artisans mostly)
@@sneye1 Thanks for the reply! Will try to look for some without ED elements (Although that's sometimes difficult to find / see if it does indeed contain those elements) Cheers :)
He's the 3D pop detective we didn't know we needed :)
Thanks. Detective? Maybe not ;)
Got to know about the detective from you, thanks Casey! @cameraconspiracies
Casey always looking for 3d pop😂
I've learned scads from you, Casey, but didn't happen to see your reference to this Dirty photography club. Perhaps I can thank CZcams for suggesting this site to me, based on my frequenting Camera Conspiracies. Guess I should humbly count my lucky algorithms.
どうもありがとう ... Dōmo arigatō
You gotta try the Helios 44-2, man. It's the perfect lens you have been looking for! 3D pop and vintage soviet design!
I love the host's rigor, thought and use of science. This channel and Camera Mystique are unique non- commercial channels that provide unique critical insights into photography.
I am honoured to be mentioned in the same breath with Camera mystique.
Despite the Nokton 35 1.2 sooner or later wil be in my set, because I think is the most beautiful serie 35-40-50, and I prefer have variations in normal focal length instead wide or tele, a lens I'm really keen to, more than the 75 Nokton is the Summicron 90mm F2 v3 or M II or "pre-asph" I suggest you to evaluate (focal length is a priority for me and 75 is not enough and I need only one tele )
Thank you for taking the time to talk about this subject. I had no idea. Could you give an analysis about the Nikon 58mm 1.4G? It appears to be an outlier. The sample images i have seen truly impress me, yet I havent seen much in depth overviews of it other than a few cursory and unimpressive reviews .thhank you!
Hi, I have that lens and like it a lot. It is not too sharp at wide apertures ( so it never excels in technical reviews) but the rendering is pleasing and it shows depth almost to the level of the Voigtlander Nokton 58 SL. Out of focus objects look rather creamy, which is the its main strength. The 58mm focal length is somewhat less usable than both wider and longer ones. I use it for portraits.
@@sneye1 Thank you . I read the similar statements about it being a poor performer for sharpness, but i agree that the rendering is gorgeous. Do you think lens design is a tradeoff between color richness/rendering and sharpness ? Im beginning to suspect thats the case. I have even heard that lens coatings can come at the expense of color taking a hit, at least on large format film. Have a great day! Thank you for taking the time to respond and for putting in such tremendous efforts in making these videos. They are a breath of fresh air.
Depends how you look at sharpness. The vast majority of modern lenses, including the 58 G wide open, are sharp at normal viewing distance. The issues start when pixel peeping.
I suspect that the compromise between sharpness and rendering is due to the use of extra low dispersion glass. Not coatings. In modern lenses the coatings rarely affect color.
@@sneye1 To be honest, the last few years I started challenging myself to learn more about color, resolution, sharpness , etc. I am beginning to suspect we don’t understand most of these aspects as much as we think we do. Its quite the mindfuck. Which is why I find this thesis about ED glass quite intriguing. I have heard people posit about how the national culture affects lens contrast design as well. So, please, keep sharing this wisdom. Im listening with keen admiration.
@@sneye1 what is the best way to contact you? תודה!
Keep up the good work.
Samyang XP 85mm f/1.2 and Samyang XP 50mm f/1.2 both have wonderful rendering and pop, and do not have any LD elements whatsoever.
Mitakon 85 1.2 also has a beautiful rendering, and TTartisan 90mm 1.25 too.
in 50mm the Nokton 1.2 weights 1/3 of that Samyang
Aren’t aspherical elements LD elements?
@@livejames9374 can be, I've see one.
BTW Aspherical is a surface, curved but not spherical so it' aspherical (because spherical surfaces produce the prismatic effect that divide light based on wavelength, causing CA, Sony has studied for example a curved sensor for its Medium Format project apochromatich by design)
Quality aspherical elements are molded, but can be hand grounded also, they can be extremely aspherical like sony GM ones.
Aspherical is the shape of the lens.
Low or extra low dispersion, partial dispersion, abnormal dispersion, are characteristics of high quality optical glass that increases light transmission, decreases light dispersion, and so cuts down on chromatic aberration, or "color fringing".
ED is the quality of the glass the lens is made.
Some glass lens can be both, to reduce CA by how light is managed in its transmission, physically by its quality (ED) and shape (Asph).
Being a surface a lens can have one or to Asph. surfaces.
@@livejames9374 Aspherical is the shape of the surface of the lens, both surfaces can be aspherical.
Low, extra low, abnormal, partial -dispersion is the glass, the material of the lens.
A lens can be both made of special glass and aspherical, on one or both sides.
@@knnrythanks so it seems like there’s no consistency with nomenclature by different manufactures. Samyang states the 85 1.2 has “Two High Refractive Index lens elements plus a precision aspherical lens element combine to minimize aberrations and increase sharpness.” Not ED but something else??
I've done a few attempts at testing lenses and keep screwing up but I think the kinks have been worked out and the next round should be more successful. You'll soon have more data to investigate if you want it :P
@@HoggetBlanker Course I do! Bring them on :)
@@sneye1 Ok, so I posted some pictures for analysis. There are eight 35mm lenses (well, one is a 40mm and some are zooms set at 35mm) and while I shot them all from wide open to the smallest aperture, I only shared photos set at the maximum apertures and set at f/5.6, both in color and black and white (some people equate pop to tonal fidelity and eliminating colors tends to allow better focus on this aspect). The camera was set to aperture priority at the lowest ISO value (100) and all lenses were focused manually on the toy's left eye (our right, the one in the dark patch of fur). Lens correction was turned off in both the camera and the raw processing software, and no editing was done except for using a default preset for black and white conversion. So for all intents and purposes, for better or for worse, the photos are all straight out of camera with no corrections applied. I won't be looking too closely at the pictures for another few days but wanted to share now. The photos are posted individually to allow for closer scrutiny but there are also jpegs displaying all photos by category (max aperture black and white, color photos at f/5.6, etc.). The latter are probably the best place to share any thoughts and will also be where I'll be revealing the lenses in about a week, to give enough time for evaluation while avoiding any bias.
You can find the pictures here (assuming the link can be shared): flic.kr/s/aHBqjBAAg7
I'm open to suggestions if you feel the test scene can be improved. I want to repeat the test with an APS-C camera that will add a few more 35mm lenses to the mix but will wait for any recommendations. If all goes well, I'd also like to repeat the process for the 28mm, 50mm and 135mm lenses I have.
Cheers!
Hi, the lenses I would call "poppy" are 1, 5 and 8.
2, 3 and 6 are distinctly flat.
I looked at the color images shot at f/5.6.
Please let me know when you reveal the identities.
Cheers.
@@sneye1 I've completed my own analysis, and though I agree with the poppy lenses you identified, 6 also ranked high for me. Maybe I'll take another look later this week and change my mind :P
I'm looking to share the pictures with groups to see what others say before revealing there but didn't want to leave you hanging, so here are the lenses used:
1- Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 (I was pleasantly surprised at how well this one did)
2- Carl Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZE (I was disappointed with this but impressed that you picked it out; I remember you saying it wasn't poppy in another video)
3- Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 II
4- Canon EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 II
5- Nikon Series E 35mm 2.5 (I really like how this one performed, it's probably my favorite of this bunch)
6- Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 35mm f/2.8
7- Canon EF 24-105mm F/4 L (I was really hoping this would do better)
8- Olympus Zuiko Auto-W 35mm 2.8
I'd like your opinion about the 21 1.4 Nokton
Love it.
@@sneye1 That rendering is amazing, despite this (I'm selling the 20 G because of focal length) I'm too attracted by the 24 GM as primary wide angle, but the Nokton is really something in term of rendering and those colors are hypnotic
Rokkor 40 F2 v2 (no numbers on the front) has it
That doesn't surprise me. Lots of older lenses do.
Thank you! Can you tell something about contax zeiss 50 f 1.4 t* ( ninja blades apperture)
Not specifically. However, most double Gauss designs from that era are very similar, with quite good depth rendition in my opinion. Look for a channel caled Zenography for information on vintage 50s with many examples.
@@automotivephoto The Planar!
Low contrast. Overpriced.
@@knnry haha. Whong. Wanna see commercial projects on it?
@@automotivephoto I know is good for video, but If I could get a deal for a very good copy I'll choose a Topcor 58.
Btw that's really mushy Imho
@@automotivephoto low contrast WO for sure, every other planar gains contrast faster stopping down, I just don't like it.
I really think is overpriced.
I wish you could take a look at the voigtlander 55mm f1.2 for nikon f. Reviews seem to imply it's similar to the 58mm but worse, but all the images i see seem almost more pleasing..
Both lenses have nearly identical designs, so the results should be similar. Perhaps the 55 would be less sharp wide open.
@@sneye1 that seems to be the case. Less sharp wide open, worse coma, worse CA.. And yet, very nice sample image, somewhat smoother looking backgrounds wide open...
Another great video on the topic! You mentioned the Voigtlander 40mm 1.4 classic is very poppy, how do you think it compares with the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 nokton for Z mount? I'm leaning towards the native Z mount as the MF assist with the Nikon ZF is quite nice and it does require electronic contacts on the lens.
@@kalo3547 Hi, I happen to own the 40/1.2 (VM version) and a ZF. The 1.2 is superior to the 1.4 classic in every way bar 3D pop. Consider using a Techart MTZ 02 adapter and M mount glass. The adapter will give you those contacts with the added benefits of close focusing and AF. Not perfect but worth it.
@@sneye1 indeed!
many people goes crazy for the sonnar-C 50mm 1.5 zm, not my case, sonnar can be poppy but also ugly out of portrait distsnce
I'm sure it makes errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr a errrrrrrrrrrrr difference
is ED glass equilvalemt to anomalous partial dispersion glass ? I found that these glass are often present in voigtlander and zeiss glass,
while nikon with ED glass
Hi, they are indeed equivalent to my understanding. Different manufacturers call it different names. Sigma has at least two terms for various types of EDs.
my understanding is that too much correction with ED glass and aspherical glass will greatly reduce the chromatic aberation, spherical aberration, distortion, in a way that is over-corrected so the image have a flat, high contrast image without much intertonal transition (rendering). Vintage lens with simple design are less corrected and usually has better intertonal transition and more flaws, the image is more lively and organic, less boring.
@CameraMystique thoughts?
Interesting contents, your presentation would benefit from adobe premiere's fill word filter
Sorry for the slow presentation. Just increase the speed.
CameraMystique and I have different, slightly overlapping approaches. His focus is centred around micro contrast. I try to avoid mentioning it due to lack of a consensus definition of the term. His thoughts are interesting and mostly sound in my opinion.
@@sneye1 I did, no worries! Just wanted to tell you, in case you use premiere, there's an AI cutting tool now, that identifies fill words and cuts them out automatically. Really practical ^^
@@sneye1 always interesting to see different approaches. Mainly because I don't always see this 3D pop, so I'm still wondering if it's more a lighting, perspective and composition thing mostly, or if there really is such a difference in lenses. Got a color ultron 50mm, and it's a nice lens, but in most conditions I don't see any more pop than on fuji lenses or even the sigma 56mm.
Same with cheap, low element Chinese lenses (7artisans mostly)
Hey there - Do you perhaps have a list of rather poppy lenses? Maybe even poppy zooms (Really hard to find). Cheers :)
I don't use zooms very often. Older ones sometimes show some pop. Look for zooms that don't contain ED glass.
@@sneye1 Thanks for the reply!
Will try to look for some without ED elements (Although that's sometimes difficult to find / see if it does indeed contain those elements)
Cheers :)
Shaul, empirically or theoretically, is there a "poppy" 35mm Nikkor, ideally AF, in either F or Z? Thank you
Yes. 35mm f1.4 G. Also the very new Z 35/1.4 may be, according to its optical design.
@sneye1 thank you. That new one looks interesting. I think I'll opt for the G so I can use it on my GFX body.
Can you AF F glass on GFX? Also, do not expect the 35G to resolve those sensors.
@sneye1 yes, using a Fringer. It's the older GFX 50r, seems to do fine with my other AF-S. And for what I'm using it for, sharpness isn't critical.