Showing posts with label Lens Comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lens Comparison. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Tamron SP Lenses - Time for Some Results

**I have replaced the title image of this post with an updated, better quality shot. Also, if you have read this post previous to this update, you'll notice 4 lenses in the image and only 3 in the review. That might be because I got a package in the mail today...stay tuned.

+++

Not too long ago, I was knee-deep in macro lenses hunched over tiny critters and flowers making my way through a hit list of manual focus classics, in an attempt to see first-hand just how well these famed lenses performed. At one point, I owned over 10 macro lenses, 9 of which covered the same focal length. Talk about redundancy. Strangely enough, one of the most talked about manual focus macro lenses, the Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 (52BB) was not in my possession. I had seen and heard much about Tamron adaptall lenses but for some reason just had not made my way into the Adaptall system.

Only a few months later, I have gone 180°. I own 3 of Tamron's famed SP lenses and must be a few feet from my subject before I can focus (these are some of the big boys). Tamron's Adaptall-2 SP line provides some of the most economical alternatives to premium glass. I will say right out, I am very impressed with the performance of Tamron SP glass.

The Test


Having posted some initial reviews of these lenses some time back, it is about time to show some results. I put together a simple comparison which essentially demonstrates how these lenses handle under similar conditions. The shots are not framed exactly the same (to compensate for different focal lengths). Nor are the corner crops in the same location. I would just like to show "what these lenses can do".

Basically, I set up a tripod in the yard that did not move throughout the test. I mounted each lens in series and centered the composition on a specific flower. ISO changed with varying shutter speeds to compensate for subject movement so blur would not be an issue (it was a slightly breezy day). At smaller apertures, blur did occur and as a result I have no included those results.

Below are the Key images for each lens:

Tamron SP 180mm f/2.5 LD-IF

Tamron SP 300mm f/2.8 LD

Tamron SP 400mm f/4 LD-IF

The Results



Wide Open (f/2.5, f/2.8, f/4)

(f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6)

(f/4, f/5.6, f/8)

(f/5.6, f/8, f/11)


As I said, at the later apertures I began seeing blur due to the longer focal lengths and breeze of the day. Consequently I left those results out.

Analysis

As I said, I am quite impressed with the overall performance of these SP lenses. I was a little curious about the CA present in the 400mm wide open. After reading some forums I discovered CA is one of the more prominent issues with Tamron SP lenses and most likely a trade-off in buying non-Nikon or Canon premium lenses. Although I have little experience with longer, professional Nikon lenses, I did get an opportunity to shoot Nikon's older 600mm f/5.6. The results shocked me. While the Nikon did handle CA a little better, the Tamron was right on par in overall sharpness! The contrast in these SP lenses is excellent at all apertures. All the lens hoods are perfectly adequate in handling lens flare. I have also had no issues whatsoever with the Adaptall mounts.

I will add a little more to this in the next couple days. Feel free to share an experience with any of these Tamron SP lenses (or some of the other longer telephoto models not here). It would be great to here more stories!

Monday, March 22, 2010

8-Lens Macro Shoot-Out



- The Contenders -

Purpose


I really just wanted to see a good side-by-side of each of these lenses at 1:1 reproduction ratio. Now I realize flat field reproduction is just one aspect of performance in regards to macro lenses. In choosing a lens, the photographer must consider many things including the fact that in just about every instance outside of copy work, the subject is not a 2-D object. In my first comparison I did on this site, (which was something of a disaster) I attempted to look at sharpness as well as bokeh in the same shot. Not only that, I chose to do it outdoors, with a real subject (a plant) with changing conditions (wind, etc). All because I was tired of looking at relatively unrealistic, uninteresting subject matter in comparisons. Look how far I have come. But seriously, a flat 2-D object does provide me with some information about the performance of the lens over the range of apertures as well as a standard gauge between lenses. This test doesn't really decide the lens I will use most often, so much as it gives me more overall insight about each lens. In fact, of all of them, I shoot with the Tokina the most despite relatively strong CA because of its size, ease of use, and autofocus (which can definitely come in handy at times). The second most used lens would be the Series 1 90mm. Tack sharp wide open. I love this lens!

Procedure



To be as fair as objective as I could, I blindfolded myse....Just kidding. All lenses were shot at 1:1 with necessary extenders and extension tubes if needed. I was sure to check focus every shot. If something appeared out of focus after checking the shot on the screen (zooming in), I took another shot. I used mirror-up to minimize camera vibration, as well as a remote shutter release. Using live view, I focused each image and carefully switched over to M-up. The biggest challenge here, was keeping the plane of focus parallel with the sensor plane. At the micro level, the slightest change in angle can throw off results. Needless to say, with my relatively limited gear, don't believe this test is without errors. Even the dollar bill, though relatively new wanted to curl in the heat of the lamps (It was taped down on all sides and I was sure to keep it flat after each lens). I also used a macro focusing rail to avoid remounting the camera with each new lens, and consequently slightly different minimum focusing distance. Despite this, with some lenses, such as the 55mm, the distance was far greater than the macro rail could account for and the setup had to be completely moved.

- Test Key -


To do this test, I chose to photograph a dollar bill because it is recognizable, reproducible, and convenient to continue with, should I choose (and I am sure I will) in the future, to test a newer lens to compare results. Also, I haven't gotten around to ordering or making a lens test chart just yet! All images taken at ISO 200 on the Nikon D700.

Results


Test Results at the Center
Order of results is as follows (in retrospect, my image labels are tough to read, sorry!):
Nikon 55 | Viv S1 90 | Viv 90 | Kiron 105 | Dine (Kiron) 105 | Viv S1 105 | Nikon 105 | Tokina 100

f/2.5

f/2.8
f/4
f/5.6

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22
f/32


Test Results at the Lower Right Corner
Order of results is as follows (in retrospect, my image labels are tough to read, sorry!):
Nikon 55 | Viv S1 90 | Viv 90 | Kiron 105 | Dine (Kiron) 105 | Viv S1 105 | Nikon 105 | Tokina 100

f/2.5

f/2.8

f/4

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

f/32

Analysis


What to make of it all? After getting all the results in and putting them all together, I find more than ever I want to do it again. With new samples of the lenses too. This was a lot of fun for sure! Also I am curious if the Tokina 100mm is truly as soft at f/2.8 as my results in this test. Also, the Nikon 105mm, I could swear it is a little sharper wide open than this. So perhaps with such shallow depths of field, my focus was slightly amiss, causing this tad miscalculation. Otherwise, all the lenses look pretty good save for the Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 MC which doesn't do so well in the early apertures. In fact, it looks aweful. I have noticed this lens tends to have a mind of its own early on. Around f/8 however, it gets back in the game. As in my other tests, the Vivitar Series 1 105mm tends to be softer (and often has a bit more CA) than it's Kiron siblings. So even though I love it's build and physical design, I now often reach for the Kiron or Dine. Not surprisingly by f/22 and f/32 these lenses are useless. Even f/16 is pretty poor.

**A user, Robin, commented below on the above statement. I made it more in hyperbole. Of course you can use these lenses at high apertures and get good images. Sometime you really do want the most DoF you can get. I was just speaking in terms of sharpness. If you want the sharpest image you can get (for what is in focus), these higher apertures will be affected by diffraction will not yield as sharp of results as the middle apertures of the lens.

Well I don't really care to go into any kind of ranking system here since as I said previously, sharpness and the kinds of things this test demonstrates about a macro lens is only a part of so many other variables in what makes a macro lens, a great lens. I personally am big into bokeh. I would love to do a little bokeh comparison. I also, on a less windy day, would love to do a comparison with a 3-D subject. I will let you make your own decisions based on these findings. I will also tell you the Vivitar Series 1 90mm (Tokina 90mm AT-X) is my favorite lens to use, and it should be yours too! The Kiron/Dines are not far behind. In terms of practicality, a newer, 1:1 capable AF macro, such as my Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X will do just about everything I need with quickness and ease.

Wrap-Up


I suppose I sensed these results. I actually had not even looked at these findings prior to deciding on selling a few lenses. Decidedly, I didn't use the Vivitar 90mm (not the Series 1 version) enough to justify keeping it. I think it was just inconvenient for me and I was never incredibly impressed with the output, especially considering all my other options. Sold. Didn't ever use the Nikon 105mm despite people like Bjorn Rorslett boasting it to be one of the best macros ever designed. Sold. And who really needs this many macro lenses? Don't ask me that question!

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Tokina AF 17mm AT-X f/3.5 Ultrawide



While looking for an auto-focus ultrawide some time back, I remember coming across this Tokina AF 17mm AT-X f/3.5. It is indeed the precursor to the AT-X Pro model I previously reviewed here on this blog (Consequently, I will refer to it as version 1 from time to time). Well I just got a crack at one and thought, since often lenses such as this have very little information out there, I would give it a quick whirl for my own curiosity's sake.

First impression, solid built little lens. Although it isn't very much smaller than the AT-X Pro model, for some reason it "seems" considerably smaller. Even despite the fact that the hood is built-in (non-removable).

Specifications



Focal range: 17 mm
Filter diameter: 72mm
Max. aperture: 3.5
Min. aperture: 22
Elements/Groups: 11/9
Angle of view: 103°
Aperture blades: 7
Minimum focus distance: 250mm
Hood: Fixed metal
Weight: 400 g

Performance


Honestly, I haven't spent a whole lot of time with this lens. I don't believe the performance will be all that different from the Pro version. Only optical difference it seems is the addition of Super Low Dispersion glass in the Pro. The hood of the newer Pro also appears to have a bit more coverage than the metal build-in of the first AF version.


Below is a quick comparison between the two versions at the extreme. Wide open and far edge.


f/3.5 @ ISO 200 on D700
I really only saw a difference worth mentioning here. It seems the Pro version is a hair sharper wide open. CA is apparent in both and for all intents and purposes appears to be the same. The difference in color rendering between these lenses is so minute, it would hardly show up through the various processing of a web uploaded image, but I will just say, the Pro version puts out a slightly more saturated image. I like the look and feel of the Pro's images just a hair better than the older version 1.

Visually the coatings of the version 1 lens appear more saturated (on the right) but as stated above, I would believe the coatings of the Pro are more advanced based on the output.

Physical/Cosmetics


The version 1 Tokina AF 17mm lens feels solid. It appears to be an all metal construction, including the hood. The hood is non-removable but that shouldn't be an issue since anyone shooting an ultrawide should have the hood on at all times. The only reason one might want to take the hood off is during storage. Still, the hood isn't all that obtrusive. There is no AF/MF switch or clutch mechanism as on the Pro. Seeing as how the user must engage the MF clutch as well as switch the camera to MF using the Pro version, this isn't any disadvantage. The focus ring and autofocus is a hint noisier than that of the Pro but nothing to worry about. This version 1 also has one of those clear plastic windows to view the distance scale printed on the inner barrel.


One more thing. The AF 17mm AT-X originally came with that signature dark red rectangular leather hard case whereas the newer Pro came with an ugly grey leather sack/thing. Both models have since been discontinued.

Wrap-Up


Overall, this first version is a reliable, robust ultrawide lens. If given the choice between this version and the Pro, go for the Pro. Slightly sharper performance, SD (Super-low Dispersion) glass, and (I'm gonna state an opinion here...) a more aesthetic build. I'm a huge fan of the Tokina "armalite" finish. Other than that, the Tokina AF 17mm f/3.5 is an excellent little ultrawide and is capable of making beautiful images, especially on newer full-frame DSLRs.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

105mm Kiron Iterations



The Kiron 105mm is, in my experience, one of the most talked about third party macro lenses when it comes to manual focus lenses. It excels in performance, goes to 1:1 without the need for clumsy extensions or tubes, and most of all, is quite accessible. The lens can be had for a relatively modest price on auction sites (most of the time). I have heard many stories of them popping up at local shops and garage sales for a couple dollars. The best news is: There are plenty of these lenses to go around! Due to the popularity of this lens when it was first marketed and numerous branding variations, finding a Kiron 105mm really isn't the proverbial "needle in a haystack". In fact, aside from searching Kiron 105mm, there are a number of other cosmetic variations that may get you the same, or similar performance. You just need to know what you are looking for!

Model Variation


The Kiron 105mm was incarnated in a number of other iterations. I am still finding (and people are bringing to my attention) more lenses that are rebranded Kirons. Thus far, I am aware that the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 lens can be found in these physical iterations:

- Kiron 105mm f/2.8
- Lester A. Dine 105mm f/2.8 (Dental lens, often labeled with a dental focusing guide)
- Rikenon 105mm f/2.8
- Rolleinar 105mm f/2.8
- Vivitar 105mm f/2.5
- Vivitar 100mm f/2.8

While differing cosmetically, each of these lens variations contains an identical optical formula and is manufactured by Kino Precision, according to everything I have read thus far. The Kiron and Lester Dine models look the same with only extremely minor differences (noted below). The Vivitar 100mm and Rikenon 105mm models also look relatively the same. The Vivitar Series 1 105mm is unique in it's appearance. I have also just been informed of a possible Rolleinar incarnation, the Rolleinar 105mm f/2.8.

Kiron 105mm f/2.8

The Kiron 105mm f/2.8 lens in its sleek, black glory.


Lester A. Dine 105mm f/2.8

The Lester A. Dine version is typically identical looking to the Kiron, just marketed to dentists. It will have some extra markings on the distance scale and possibly a supplementary adhesive scale specifically designed for dental photography denoting intra-oral regions. The version pictured below on the left demonstrates the "field size" markings in contrast to the original Kiron version on the right.


Below is an image I found on the Pentax forums showing the adhesive dental scale:



Rikenon 105mm f/2.8

Below is the rarer Rikenon 105mm version of this lens*.


Rolleinar 105mm f/2.8


It has been brought to my attention (Thanks JC) that Rollei may well have rebranded a Kiron 105. The Rolleinar 105mm f/2.8 looks cosmetically and mechanically identical to the Kiron 105. I haven't yet come across any optical diagrams of the Kiron to compare with that of this Rollei but the current similarities lead me to believe the Rolleinar is Kiron's optically identical sibling. Here is a page on Rollei lenses with the 105mm midway down the page.

Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5



Vivitar 100mm f/2.8

Similar to the Rikenon 105mm, the Vivitar 100mm iteration appears to have the same overall proportions, grip, and built-in hood, but with lens notation printed on front of the barrel, near the optics, rather than the outer edge.




*Images I have not made on this blog will be noted by the originator (in this case, osgood521 and Samy's Camera). I request permission to use them. I do however often put them on white, tweak WB, add some curves, retouch, and finish the overall layout.


+++

Performance


After collecting a few of these iterations, my curiosity led me to a comparison. First off, it should be noted, with any lens, there can be variation in image quality even between two identical models. So along with looking into differing image quality between these models, I also can be sure (if they truly are identical optical formulas) my assessment of the lens sharpness is accurate.

All the talk on the web tends to hyperbolize the greatness of this lens, namely that this is the greatest macro lens ever made. I would have to disagree with that statement, based on optical performance. Not that the Kiron 105mm isn't an excellent lens, but the best ever made, no. Below I have, as many others, used a $1 bill as a practical subject matter. The left crop is the eye in the tip of the pyramid while the right is a small detail near the upper right corner of the frame. I have only chosen to include the wide open performance crops. Stopped down, these lenses are excellent. Certainly as sharp as most anyone will need. Below is a key to where the crops came from:

I often interested in how a lens will do wide open (because why buy a fast lens, if it won't perform at that aperture?). At f/2.8 (the Vivitar 105mm version is marked f/2.5 but is actually f/2.8) this is the performance of each iteration:

Lester A. Dine 105mm f/2.8 Crop
Kiron 105mm f/2.8 Crop
Vivitar 105mm f/2.5 Crop

For the sake of argument, I actually do own a lens that is sharper wide open than these 105's. My favorite Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5. Interestingly enough, these lenses tend to go for a considerable amount less than any of the 105mm version lenses, despite being sharper. My assumption is this is due to the fact that the 105 can go all the way to 1:1 reproduction rate without the need for extension tubes or macro extenders (such as the 90mm).

Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 Crop

Conclusion

The Kiron and Dine do appear a tad sharper than the Vivitar. This could be due to tester error though I was sure to check focus every shot. Also, it could be due in part to the aforementioned sample variation. The Vivitar just may be a softer sample. Either way, the tests show consistent CA wide open. The S1 90mm has always been stunningly sharp wide open. In this test, center appears a tad softer than the center of the Dine but through field use, the 90mm always proves extremely sharp wide open (as well as MTF charts etc). This is the largest reason I love this lens. It is an f/2.5 lens, and can be used optimally, at f/2.5! Also the CA does appear to be more controlled (though upon very close inspection, especially under more severe circumstances, the 90mm definitely does produce some CA). The 105's are unmistakeably excellent lenses. Focusing distance, easy 1:1 focusing, beautiful industrial design, etc. Although I did not have the opportunity to test the other variations, I would believe they will perform very similarly.

As can be seen in the upper left hand corner of the Key image, the dollar tended to curl a tad despite being taped down. This test was improvised and a bit hurried.

Links/Resources

For a larger scale test incorporating more than just the Kiron 105's check this macro comparison out.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Ultra-Wide 17mm Lens Comparison

Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 - Tokina 17mm f/3.5 - Spiratone 18mm f/3.5

To fulfill my curiosities, including my inquiry as to whether an alternative to the Nikon 17-35mm existed, which still retained relatively good image quality but was of considerably smaller size and cost, I did a quick comparison of a couple other ultra-wides I have picked up over the past few months.


I just took the trio out to the deck, took shots with each lens at every aperture, slightly adjusted exposures (same adjustment for every shot by any one lens) because each lens appears to have a mind of its own. Also, the conditions probably weren't optimal but I do what I can when I have the time. **I have made some changed since my first posting of this.** It was up a whole 8 hours before I decided, I really need to take a closer look for this comparison to mean anything. Originally, the exposures seemed all over the place. I was looking at the histograms and the detail shots side-by-side trying to understand what was happening. I figured it out! Just a user error on my part. Forgot a step with one batch and it threw off the others. Either way, the sample images just looked muddy and underexposed. After some tweaking I have the images where they should be for optimal comparison. Still the Tokina does tend to need just a bit more exposure compensation (which I have done) than the Nikon, but nothing too severe. Likewise, the Spiratone is really just here to demonstrate what you can expect out of an older MF $100 ultrawide. I did all global changes and only in batches per lens (I performed no alterations on any one single frame or portion of a frame). I then sampled a small square from the center and near the bottom right corner.


My results can be seen below:

f/2.8

Nikon 17-35mm

f/3.5

Nikon 17-35mm

Tokina 17mm

Spiratone 18mm

f/4

Nikon 17-35mm


Tokina 17mm

Spiratone 18mm

f/5.6

Nikon 17-35mm

Tokina 17mm

Spiratone 18mm

f/8

Nikon 17-35mm

Tokina 17mm

Spiratone 18mm

f/11

Nikon 17-35mm

Tokina 17mm

Spiratone 18mm

f/16

Nikon 17-35mm

Tokina 17mm

Spiratone 18mm

f/22


Nikon 17-35mm

Tokina 17mm

Analysis

After really taking a look at the results, I am actually even more happy with the nikon 17-35mm. It is an amazing lens. The Tokina does continue to defend the company's reputation of quality glass, however. I am actually amazed at how well it holds up to the Nikon. Although here and in general use I have noticed it consistently underexposes images a bit (until I figure out why I can just compensate accordingly), it produces a crisp, contrasty image with good sharp detail. The CA is a bit of a problem but it often easily fixable in post. Also, I have noticed the light fall-off is more severe than the Nikon. As far as the spiratone, well for $100, you can get an ultra-wide field of view, but that may be about all. As much as I like this little lens, it just doesn't hold up here. Lacks quite a bit of contrast, severe CA, and probably a lot more. Also, as noted it my previous write up, it has an odd tendency to pull objects just outside the frame of the other 17mm lenses, into the frame. Such as the corner of the deck. A strange optical formula (and Tokina made actually!).

So? If you can afford it, and need the performance, the Nikon AF-S pro line costs a lot for a reason. These lenses do things right. If you are just looking for a solid lens, but don't mind some extra steps in post and can use the extra cash, the Tokina is quite the little gem. I'm sad to hear it has been discontinued so as I said before, if you see one, grab it! There is also an earlier version which has a built-in (or permanently attached rather) hood. From what I have read, the hearsay is that the formula is either very close to this pro version or the same altogether, just with the older body style. I haven't had the chance to check it out but it may very well perform equally to the pro.

I love ultrawides. They are just another optic that allows us to see things in a new, fresh way. Next stop, 14mm rectilinear.