[kevinWE]

It's whiter in the image on the right — more testimony to better contrast, .

I think the white on the right looks like it's on the verge of being blown-out. I see more definition in the whites on the left. Although I would truly like to see the actual larger image to make that judgement call. Just my 2cents.

[Dan Rentea]

To be sure, as has already been mentioned, there isn't much difference between these two images, but to the extent there is a difference, I prefer the one on the right. The image on the right has more contrast and richer colors. Look at the white cup on the side. It's whiter in the image on the right — more testimony to better contrast, greater clarity, brighter, more vivid images. The image on the right also has, to my eye, a richer, brighter red color, and more attractive tone of green on the strawberry petals.

1. There is too much difference (contrast) between highlights and shadows in the right image; it's visible on the background and on the cup. Remember that these images were taken in controlled light. In less than ideal lighting, the difference can sometimes break an image
2. The red color is too saturated on the right image; in certain areas the details in red are amost gone.
3.The saturated red color and the the transition between highlights and shadows make the right image to pop up (which it may be nice for the ones shooting JPEG), but this means more work to do in post production to balance the colors and when you have less than ideal light like I had when I took the pictures, it's even more difficult to work with the files. The saturated red color of the cheap lens have a direct impact also on skin tones when you shoot portraits
4. The strawaberry on the bottom is too sharp on the right image and it's a distraction because the eyes need to go first on the top area of the images (this was one of the reasons to shoot the image at wide aperture); this is typical for cheap lenses which don't have the smooth transition between focus area and blured area and they will give you the impression of a sharp lens. The strawberry on the bottom in this case was placed there on purpose by the food stylist, but imagine that you have to shoot an event and you want to isolate the main subject from the crowd. The cheap lens will have a less good transition and the people that suppose to be blurred will be sharper, with more saturated color, contrast and depending on the light, to all these you will get also bad chromatic aberations.

I will try tonight when I get home from a business trip to upload the files at a larger resolution because the initial images are at low resolution... But you get the idea why I grab the L lens when I have something important to shoot. It's faster, more accurate, has a lot less chromatic abberations, better colors and contrast, better transition when comes to highlights/shadows and focused areas/blurred areas.

[repaap]

1. There is too much difference (contrast) between highlights and shadows in the right image; it's visible on the background and on the cup. Remember that these images were taken in controlled light. In less than ideal lighting, the difference can sometimes break an image
2. The red color is too saturated on the right image; in certain areas the details in red are amost gone.
3.The saturated red color and the the transition between highlights and shadows make the right image to pop up (which it may be nice for the ones shooting JPEG), but this means more work to do in post production to balance the colors and when you have less than ideal light like I had when I took the pictures, it's even more difficult to work with the files. The saturated red color of the cheap lens have a direct impact also on skin tones when you shoot portraits
4. The strawaberry on the bottom is too sharp on the right image and it's a distraction because the eyes need to go first on the top area of the images (this was one of the reasons to shoot the image at wide aperture); this is typical for cheap lenses which don't have the smooth transition between focus area and blured area and they will give you the impression of a sharp lens. The strawberry on the bottom in this case was placed there on purpose by the food stylist, but imagine that you have to shoot an event and you want to isolate the main subject from the crowd. The cheap lens will have a less good transition and the people that suppose to be blurred will be sharper, with more saturated color, contrast and depending on the light, to all these you will get also bad chromatic aberations.

I will try tonight when I get home from a business trip to upload the files at a larger resolution because the initial images are at low resolution... But you get the idea why I grab the L lens when I have something important to shoot. It's faster, more accurate, has a lot less chromatic abberations, better colors and contrast, better transition when comes to highlights/shadows and focused areas/blurred areas.

I agree with northcoastgreg, Right one has all of those things. Left is then again much more neutral.


The question is then again. Do you feel that you have to boost in PP that 85/1.8 more in order to get it 'right', or does it come out with those differences.

Some things, as also strawberry looking little bigger(one which is on the table) in image at right, is it because lens is not as controlled at the edges(has more of bokeh swirl)? Also 1.8 lens is stopped down less, and that would make blemishes even stronger?

It is great to have alternatives. What you said about that FA 77 and DA 70. Especially on crop body it has been known for long that 77 has more PF and what not. Which is quite understandable too because one is optimised for digital and aps-c. Some people just love 77 because of what it is, and I can see why lot of people are pushed away from it. Because it is so unpredictable, and it is also not if you have used it for a long time.


How ever this is no longer a case with modern lenses. I tend to use my (DFA)70-200/2.8 instead of 77, IF I want to be sure. But also 77 is small, and can actually surprise in really nice way.


But then again. 77/1,8 is way different than 85(especially 1,4). I was quite surprised when I tried that Sigma EX 85/1,4 what I have(talk about blemishes ).

[Dan Rentea]

I agree with northcoastgreg, Right one has all of those things. Left is then again much more neutral.

Yes, and for a JPEG user the right image looks better because the left image looks to be a very good RAW and the right image looks to be a contrastly JPEG. It's normal that people get attracted by rich colors. That's why in stores the TVs are set to sport mode most of the time because that option makes colors look more vibrant and people buys them. After you calibrate your TV at home, it takes a few hours to get used to the real colors. Even in perfect light conditions like I had there, there are already a few things that make the left image a lot better for being edited. I will share my opinions later, when I will upload a bigger version of the image.

The question is then again. Do you feel that you have to boost in PP that 85/1.8 more in order to get it 'right', or does it come out with those differences.

I don't make comparisons with images that has been edited and I don't feel that I need to boost in PP the 85mm f1.8 because when comes to the 85mm f1.8 I have to spend time to correct things that I don't have to correct on the images taken with the other lens.

Some things, as also strawberry looking little bigger(one which is on the table) in image at right, is it because lens is not as controlled at the edges(has more of bokeh swirl)? Also 1.8 lens is stopped down less, and that would make blemishes even stronger?

The 85mm f1.8 has a nice bokeh for the price. It was one of the reasons I kept the lens. But it's cheap glass inside and this comes with compromises and I do think that people tend to buy also cheap lenses because they look sharp due to too much saturation and due to that abruptly transition from blurred areas to focus areas which let people believe it has more contrast and better look. L lenses act different and the difference is more visible in challenging situations.

It's similar when people look at 2 images, one taken with a Nikon D3300 (24mp) and the other taken with Nikon D7200 (with the same lens on both cameras). In ideal situations like it was on my example, you need to look very close to see differences because both have 24mp and at ISO 100 we can't talk about noise. But when you go out with them and start shooting, you start to see differences even at ISO 100 due to metering for example, etc. I hope it makes sense what I wrote.

It is great to have alternatives. What you said about that FA 77 and DA 70. Especially on crop body it has been known for long that 77 has more PF and what not. Which is quite understandable too because one is optimised for digital and aps-c. Some people just love 77 because of what it is, and I can see why lot of people are pushed away from it. Because it is so unpredictable, and it is also not if you have used it for a long time.

Yes. It's not only about sharp like someone said that I look for, although I don't want to buy a f1.2 lens that becomes sharp af f2.8 either.

How ever this is no longer a case with modern lenses. I tend to use my (DFA)70-200/2.8 instead of 77, IF I want to be sure. But also 77 is small, and can actually surprise in really nice way.

Yes, new lenses are great regardless of the manufacturer. They are optimized by today standards and this help us. I have tons of examples regarding choices, but there are few who can skip the usual Pentax vs. others and have a nice conversations.

When I said that I tend to shoot portraits at wide apertures and it's nice to have options of lenses, some people jumped at my neck and started to tell me that shooting portraits at f1.4 or f1.8 is for amateurs that like one eye in focus. If I start to post images taken at f1.8 with both eyes in focus, we need a month to look at all. And if people keeps telling me that they shoot portraits at f5.6 or f8 and they also shoot landscapes and therefore they want less weight on backpack, wouldn't be better for them the upcoming Pentax 70-200mm f4 instead of the f2.8 version of the lens? I'm asking because in this case to me it does look better the f4 option as long as they don't shoot landscapes or portraits at f2.8.

But then again. 77/1,8 is way different than 85(especially 1,4). I was quite surprised when I tried that Sigma EX 85/1,4 what I have(talk about blemishes ).

Yes, there are differences... Some people, especially the ones used to shoot back in the film days like softer lenses for portraits. Others want as much details as they can get on the files so they use faster lenses or medium format cameras for example. I posted a link to a photographer called Michael Woloszynowicz. For the ones interested in one of the best editing tutorials in market for portraits, Michael Woloszynowicz has it. Even his free tutorials from Youtube are great for the ones who don't have the budget to buy the full version.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 09-17-2019 at 04:13 AM.

[ThorSanchez]

I kind of enjoyed trying to see differences in those two photographs, and I have two of my own that I got confused on. One was taken by my 11-year-old with a K-30 and kit lens in green mode. One with a limited lens on a K-3ii by me. Same subject, slightly different perspective. Can you tell the difference? For you eagle-eyed connoisseurs this should be trivial. Posted here.

[Dan Rentea]

I kind of enjoyed trying to see differences in those two photographs, and I have two of my own that I got confused on. One was taken by my 11-year-old with a K-30 and kit lens in green mode. One with a limited lens on a K-3ii by me. Same subject, slightly different perspective. Can you tell the difference? For you eagle-eyed connoisseurs this should be trivial. Posted here.

Ah, I'm on phone and it's hard to see anything. I like the bottom one more because it's not as "crowded" like the one from the top. It's showing me I'm on the mountain without too much of the mountain.

In the top one the car kind of competing with the mountain and in the bottom image the attention is more on the car and with a little mountain background and the nice sky it makes me think at a road trip to mountains.

Nice comparation by the way.

[Serkevan]

I failed miserably, probably because I was looking for technical aspects instead of trusting the composition gut. The bottom one is better but I somehow like the colour rendering on the car more on the top one.

It's also interesting that the DA 21 at f/9 has quite a bit more CA than the kit lens... although to be fair those snow patches at that angle are almost a torture test.

[repaap]

I kind of enjoyed trying to see differences in those two photographs, and I have two of my own that I got confused on. One was taken by my 11-year-old with a K-30 and kit lens in green mode. One with a limited lens on a K-3ii by me. Same subject, slightly different perspective. Can you tell the difference? For you eagle-eyed connoisseurs this should be trivial. Posted here.

Well first of all. should not underestimate kit lens in good light. Second, kids are great with cameras

From these pictures it looks like bottom one is with limited. upper picture it seems to little fall in part with details and contrast at corners. Hard to tell from those pictures thou. (haven't checked from the link which was which)

---------- Post added 09-17-19 at 21:51 ----------

Yes, and for a JPEG user the right image looks better because the left image looks to be a very good RAW and the right image looks to be a contrastly JPEG. It's normal that people get attracted by rich colors. That's why in stores the TVs are set to sport mode most of the time because that option makes colors look more vibrant and people buys them. After you calibrate your TV at home, it takes a few hours to get used to the real colors. Even in perfect light conditions like I had there, there are already a few things that make the left image a lot better for being edited. I will share my opinions later, when I will upload a bigger version of the image.


I don't make comparisons with images that has been edited and I don't feel that I need to boost in PP the 85mm f1.8 because when comes to the 85mm f1.8 I have to spend time to correct things that I don't have to correct on the images taken with the other lens.

This is actually something what I ment with my question. Ofcourse you don't compare, but you know what you have to do to make it 'work'. With better lens it is always more easy. With some lenses you are willing to go through the trouble, because it has something that you like..

Yes, new lenses are great regardless of the manufacturer. They are optimized by today standards and this help us. I have tons of examples regarding choices, but there are few who can skip the usual Pentax vs. others and have a nice conversations.

I agree, no point of going vs - vs talk. It actually don't matter as much as images.

When I said that I tend to shoot portraits at wide apertures and it's nice to have options of lenses, some people jumped at my neck and started to tell me that shooting portraits at f1.4 or f1.8 is for amateurs that like one eye in focus. If I start to post images taken at f1.8 with both eyes in focus, we need a month to look at all. And if people keeps telling me that they shoot portraits at f5.6 or f8 and they also shoot landscapes and therefore they want less weight on backpack, wouldn't be better for them the upcoming Pentax 70-200mm f4 instead of the f2.8 version of the lens? I'm asking because in this case to me it does look better the f4 option as long as they don't shoot landscapes or portraits at f2.8.

Well about that 70-200/2,8 or /4, why not 24-70/2.8 compared to 24-105/4 or 28-105/4-5,6. If one is shooting anyway landscapes or portraits, why to go for faster lens. I think we actually have discussed about this before. I think that there is place and need for all of those lenses. And primes. But. You can't achieve same with 70-200/4 than you can with /2.8. For example when it get little more dark, you have to bump little more of that ISO. And if 70-200/4 is not super sharp from wide open, which means you have to stop it down, it will be even worse.


This is not perhaps a good example. I have really old M 75-150/4 zoom. It is small and delight to use, I wished many times modern version of that lens(do you know how small it is). But then again, I have used it couple times indoors, or little dim outside light. Then it all begin to fall a part. With fast prime you can't cover it or wont get angle that you like ... zoom can be handy.


I'm interested of that new 70-200/4. That said, I won't propably buy it. I will more likely buy (roadmap)70-300 if it will come out, if we talk about backpack. I like my DA 55-300 WR. It is just not good enough for my (needs) with K-1.

[biz-engineer]

the upcoming Pentax 70-200mm f4 instead of the f2.8 version of the lens?

There is no 70-200 f4 planned by Canon. The new RF 70-200 is an f2.8 lens. Same with Nikon... no 70-200 f4 for the Z mount. Sony have an FE70-200 f4, and Panasonic have one for the L mount, but neither Canon nor Nikon.

[northcoastgreg]

I think the white on the right looks like it's on the verge of being blown-out. I see more definition in the whites on the left.

Over exposure's not the fault of the lens. Assuming that the two images, right and left, are shot with the same exposure, if the right side suffers from over-exposure that suggests better light transmission for the lens in question, either because of fewer groups of elements in the lens and/or better anti-reflective coatings.

The saturated red color and the the transition between highlights and shadows make the right image to pop up (which it may be nice for the ones shooting JPEG), but this means more work to do in post production to balance the colors and when you have less than ideal light like I had when I took the pictures, it's even more difficult to work with the files. The saturated red color of the cheap lens have a direct impact also on skin tones when you shoot portraits

Maybe you're right about portrait shooting, but I'm more concerned with capturing aesthetically pleasing (as opposed to "realistic") color data for landscapes, so I bring a completely different perspective to this issue. If there's a loss of data in the red on the left image, again, I would say that's an exposure issue (it's very easy to clip the red channel). But if more red data (or, rather, a larger percentage of the red part of the color spectrum), that's a testimony to greater light transmission and more color data being captured by the sensor (and more data to work with in post).

[Dan Rentea]

Here are the comparison images, uploaded with a different program which I hope it doesn't mess with the files. The images can be downloaded from this link ( test ? imgbb.com ). After you look at the images, take a look also at my observations on the images (the images with observations can be downloaded from this link ( test-with-comments ? imgbb.com ).

---------- Post added 09-19-19 at 08:47 AM ----------

There is no 70-200 f4 planned by Canon. The new RF 70-200 is an f2.8 lens. Same with Nikon... no 70-200 f4 for the Z mount. Sony have an FE70-200 f4, and Panasonic have one for the L mount, but neither Canon nor Nikon.

Yes, there isn't. For the moment there is only half option for the ones interested in Canon mirrorless -> to buy one of the current 70-200mm f4L lens and use it with adapter. Given how fast Canon and Nikon are moving in releasing lenses for mirrorless, we may have some surprises and see a RF 70-200mm f4 lens sometime next year. Canon's roadmap represents only what Canon wanted to tell to press and it doesn't cover 2020 and 2021. Rumors based on patents and some insight informations say that these will be the lenses that Canon is going to announce in 2020-2021:

• Canon RF 100mm f/1.4L USM Lens (Rumored coming in second part of 2020)
• Canon RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Lens (Rumored coming in third quarter of 2020)
• Canon RF 12-20mm f/2L Lens
• Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L USM Lens (Rumored coming in early 2020)
• Canon RF 14-21mm f/1.4L USM Lens
• Canon RF 15-35mm f/4L Lens (Rumored coming in third quarter of 2020)
• Canon RF 17-35mm f/4-5.6 USM Lens
• Canon RF 17-70mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens
• Canon RF 24mm f/1.4L USM Lens (Rumored coming in early 2020)
• Canon RF 28mm f/2.8 Lens
• Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L USM Lens
• Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L DO Lens
• Canon RF 400mm f/2.8L DO Lens
• Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM Lens (Rumored coming in second part of 2020)
• Canon RF 500mm f/4L IS USM Lens
• Canon RF 70-135mm f/2L USM Lens
• Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens (Rumored coming in third quarter of 2020)
• Canon RF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
• Canon RF 90mm f/2.8L IS Macro Lens

And we don't know how many third party lenses are going to be released in the next 2 years for RF mount... The bold lenses above indicates that Canon will have a new f2 trinity lenses which looks interesting.


---------- Post added 09-19-19 at 08:57 AM ----------

Over exposure's not the fault of the lens. Assuming that the two images, right and left, are shot with the same exposure, if the right side suffers from over-exposure that suggests better light transmission for the lens in question, either because of fewer groups of elements in the lens and/or better anti-reflective coatings.

It's the lens "fault" on the right image. Continuous light and the same settings were on both images.

Maybe you're right about portrait shooting, but I'm more concerned with capturing aesthetically pleasing (as opposed to "realistic") color data for landscapes, so I bring a completely different perspective to this issue. If there's a loss of data in the red on the left image, again, I would say that's an exposure issue (it's very easy to clip the red channel). But if more red data (or, rather, a larger percentage of the red part of the color spectrum), that's a testimony to greater light transmission and more color data being captured by the sensor (and more data to work with in post).

You don't want to spend lot of time in post to correct the "faults" of a lens, trust me. If you shoot a sunset or a sunrise and you will have blown highlights or over saturated reds in the sky, you may end up spending a lot of time in post dealing with these problems. Not to mention if you shoot products for example and you want the exact colors to be reproduced and you find out that the images taken with the cheap lens have: a blue/green color instead of a grey color of the background, an over saturated red or green color, lots of CA, and blown highlights.

For the left image I needed in post to: dial -5 on highlights, +5 on whites, +10 on shadows and it was good to go.
For the right image I had to: eliminate the blues on the background, dial -8 on red saturation channel and - 4 on luminance, -25 on highlights, +10 on shadows, remove chromatic aberations. And this for a simple image taken in controlled environment with very good lights available. Given the fact that this is a lens used on portraits and events, the light available is way less good and the differences in quality of files is very evident.

I saw a similar behavior on landscape photographers shooting with cameras that have a big difference in dynamic range: the ones with less dynamic range had to take care of slightly blown highlights while the ones using cameras with great dynamic range had more balanced highlights and shadows in their images.

[northcoastgreg]

It's the lens "fault" on the right image. Continuous light and the same settings were on both images.

Same settings are irrelevent if one lens features better light transmission than the other. If I shot in identical settings, identical light with the DA 40 and the Tamron 70-200 (the older version), I would not get the same exposure because the Tamron has a lot more glass and the glass is not as well coated as the DA 40. DA 40 shots would be brighter. Perhaps, if I were not careful, the DA 40 shots would be overexposed. But that's not, properly speaking, the lens's fault; it is the photographer's fault for not compensating for the fact that the DA 40 has better light transmission than the Tammy.

You don't want to spend lot of time in post to correct the "faults" of a lens, trust me. If you shoot a sunset or a sunrise and you will have blown highlights or over saturated reds in the sky, you may end up spending a lot of time in post dealing with these problems.

Lenses don't cause oversaturated reds; over-exposure in the camera causes that. If you're shooting sunsets or red flowers, you need to check your color histogram, because it's easy to overblow your red channel, regardless of the lens you're using. If at the same settings lens A blows the red channel lens B doesn't it's because more of the red part of the color spectrum is passing through lens A.

Would it better to shoot a lens that transmits less of the red part of the color spectrum? I doubt most photographers, and certainly most lens designers, would say so. The Pentax HD coatings transmit more of the red part of the color spectrum than the SMC coatings. Does that mean the HD coatings constitute a step backwards in terms of lens performance?

[Dan Rentea]

Same settings are irrelevent if one lens features better light transmission than the other. If I shot in identical settings, identical light with the DA 40 and the Tamron 70-200 (the older version), I would not get the same exposure because the Tamron has a lot more glass and the glass is not as well coated as the DA 40. DA 40 shots would be brighter. Perhaps, if I were not careful, the DA 40 shots would be overexposed. But that's not, properly speaking, the lens's fault; it is the photographer's fault for not compensating for the fact that the DA 40 has better light transmission than the Tammy.



Lenses don't cause oversaturated reds; over-exposure in the camera causes that. If you're shooting sunsets or red flowers, you need to check your color histogram, because it's easy to overblow your red channel, regardless of the lens you're using. If at the same settings lens A blows the red channel lens B doesn't it's because more of the red part of the color spectrum is passing through lens A.

Would it better to shoot a lens that transmits less of the red part of the color spectrum? I doubt most photographers, and certainly most lens designers, would say so. The Pentax HD coatings transmit more of the red part of the color spectrum than the SMC coatings. Does that mean the HD coatings constitute a step backwards in terms of lens performance?

In other words you're telling me that the 85mm f1.8 which costs 350$ is better at light transmision than the 85mm f1.4L lens and it also better than the L lens because of color transmision (red color in this case) which you think is better on the cheap lens. If you are interested in this subject, please make a test with both lenses when and if you will get a chance and please come back with your conclusions. For the moment I keep my observations I wrote above based on my shooting experience with both lenses.

In the meantime, the firmware update for R and RP was released and I start to feel that Sony will have to work very hard to impress once the Canon pro body will be released because the eye af of EOS R has become not good, but very good. And with the RF f1.2 lenses it can get focus in very dark rooms way easier than 5D Mark IV which is also pretty good in this regard. Even the lag in the EVF has been reduced a little, but in this department there is room for improvement because it still has a lag when shooting fast birds.

The RP has been improved also with this firmware update, but to me it seems that somehow the difference in af speed and target aquisition became a little more visible between R and RP after the update.

I think that Canon really wanted to sell a few more 5D Mark IV cameras until next year and that's why they put only one memory card slot in EOS R. If EOS R had 2 card slots I think it would have killed 5D Mark IV sells given also the difference in price.

[Rondec]

In other words you're telling me that the 85mm f1.8 which costs 350$ is better at light transmision than the 85mm f1.4L lens and it also better than the L lens because of color transmision (red color in this case) which you think is better on the cheap lens. If you are interested in this subject, please make a test with both lenses when and if you will get a chance and please come back with your conclusions. For the moment I keep my observations I wrote above based on my shooting experience with both lenses.

In the meantime, the firmware update for R and RP was released and I start to feel that Sony will have to work very hard to impress once the Canon pro body will be released because the eye af of EOS R has become not good, but very good. And with the RF f1.2 lenses it can get focus in very dark rooms way easier than 5D Mark IV which is also pretty good in this regard. Even the lag in the EVF has been reduced a little, but in this department there is room for improvement because it still has a lag when shooting fast birds.

The RP has been improved also with this firmware update, but to me it seems that somehow the difference in af speed and target aquisition became a little more visible between R and RP after the update.

I think that Canon really wanted to sell a few more 5D Mark IV cameras until next year and that's why they put only one memory card slot in EOS R. If EOS R had 2 card slots I think it would have killed 5D Mark IV sells given also the difference in price.

Well, there is a difference between f stops and t stops. Most camera makers don't publish t stops for their lenses so hard to say for sure.

[surfar]

CameraHouse Orstralia has it for $A 1099 which equates to ,U$ 760....