A question about rendering/DOF

[xiaubauu2009]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It depends... Since you're comparing cameras with the same megapixel number, I assume you're talking about Nikon d810? If you're talking about Nikon 85 1.4G, it won't match Leica 100S, period. Nikon's 85mm is worse in terms of sharpness (especially wide open), chromatic aberrations (but can be corrected in software), flare resistance... I'd say they both are quite slow to autofocus, especially in dim light. Unfortunately, I don't have any experience with Otus 85mm, but based on reviews it's a fantastic lens (but no autofocus, if that matters).

 

If you talk about Canon 85mm f1.2ii, it's a stunning lens, amazing for portraits. Same issues as Nikon's 85mm f1.4g, but sharpness at f1.2 is great, autofocus is slow but very accurate, bokeh is fantastic. Canon is rumored to update the lens some time soon with their BR technology that should eliminate nasty purple fringing wide open. 

 

Also keep in mind that Sigma will release 85mm f1.4 Art in September.

 

I've used Leica 100S for some short time, but based on my modest experience the only non-medium format lens that can match Leica 100S in IQ is Canon 200mm f2.0.

 

If you live close to Connecticut, I can give you 100S to try. 

 

You forgot about OTUS 85mm which in my opinion much better optically than the Cron100

But it's not autofocus...

[kparseg]

You forgot about OTUS 85mm which in my opinion much better optically than the Cron100

But it's not autofocus...

Well, I mentioned that I have no experience with Otus, thus can't judge. I wouldn't be so sure that Otus is better (let alone much better) than 100S...Any comparison between both lenses side by side?

[mgrayson3]

The 100S isn't APO. I've barely encountered visible CA from non-APO S lenses, and nothing that doesn't clean up with a click, but if you want to get picky, the OTUS is APO, and that difference is visible. I'm not talking the kind of colors on OOF highlights like you see in older Contax glass. It's difficult to see at all.

 

As far as sharpness, both my S lenses (35 and 70) out-resolve the sensor wide open across the frame. I can get Moiré anywhere. So their resolving power is effectively perfect. If Leica produced a 60MP S, then who knows?

 

And the whole thing is silly. Has anyone compared an OTUS to a Rodenstock? There will always be a sharper lens out there somewhere. If something gives you the look you want, be happy. The 100S has a very nice look, indeed!

 

--Matt

[kparseg]

The 100S isn't APO. I've barely encountered visible CA from non-APO S lenses, and nothing that doesn't clean up with a click, but if you want to get picky, the OTUS is APO, and that difference is visible. I'm not talking the kind of colors on OOF highlights like you see in older Contax glass. It's difficult to see at all.

 

As far as sharpness, both my S lenses (35 and 70) out-resolve the sensor wide open across the frame. I can get Moiré anywhere. So their resolving power is effectively perfect. If Leica produced a 60MP S, then who knows?

 

And the whole thing is silly. Has anyone compared an OTUS to a Rodenstock? There will always be a sharper lens out there somewhere. If something gives you the look you want, be happy. The 100S has a very nice look, indeed!

 

--Matt

Matt, I agree with you. Yes, APO is good thing to have but typically APO lenses do not give a very attractive out of focus rendering. If one wants absolute sharpness, then probably 120S would be a better choice, as it's macro. 

 

In old days, photographers used to take portraits not with sharpest lenses but with those that drew the picture better. I think in this respect, 100S is amazing. 

[mgrayson3]

And the 120S *is* APO. And Macro. And has very nice bokeh, although its transition to OOF is a bit quick. I have a friend who shoots most of his celebrity portraits with the 120S. It's an unreal performer, and probably my next lens. Or the 100S. Or the 24S. Damn.

 

--Matt

[John McMaster]

 120S. It's an unreal performer, and probably my next lens. Or the 100S. Or the 24S. Damn.

 

--Matt

 

Have you got the 45mm and 180mm........ ;-)

 

john

[kparseg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And the 120S *is* APO. And Macro. And has very nice bokeh, although its transition to OOF is a bit quick. I have a friend who shoots most of his celebrity portraits with the 120S. It's an unreal performer, and probably my next lens. Or the 100S. Or the 24S. Damn.

 

--Matt

Oh, I hear you! My ideal setup is 24S, 45CS, 100S and 120CS. I keep working on getting them all together!

[mgrayson3]

Have you got the 45mm and 180mm........ ;-)

 

john

 

John,

 

I've never found myself using those focal lengths. I know they are superb optics, but I'd just never use them. I used the 28 Cron constantly on the M, 35 S on the (006), Schneider 35XL on the IQ140, 43XL on the IQ160. Always the same field of view. Sometimes wider, (Zeiss 21 Distagon on FF, Sony 16-35 on A7II) but that's the one I gravitate to. Using the 70 S has been an education, as that's also a FoV I seldom use, but it was my first S lens, and so it got some exercise! For portraits, I'd want the 100 or 120. I have the Contax 140, and it's not ideal. Anything longer, and I'd choose something like a big Cannon for its IS and AF tracking.

 

Best,

 

Matt

[Daedalus2000]

Have you got the 45mm and 180mm........ ;-)

 

john

 

Just out of curiosity, what is the overall opinion about the rendering from the 180? How does it compare for portraits to the 100mm or the 120mm?

[ynp]

Just out of curiosity, what is the overall opinion about the rendering from the 180? How does it compare for portraits to the 100mm or the 120mm?

Very good rendering.

This thingy is very useful with the 180mm APO.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[erlingmm]

Strongly recommend the 24, a fantastic lens, especially for landscape - drama queen ;-)

[ynp]

Just out of curiosity, what is the overall opinion about the rendering from the 180? How does it compare for portraits to the 100mm or the 120mm?

I own the Elpro-s and have access to the S180mm APO, which belongs to my friend.

I also have the S100mm. and the Summicron is my main Leica portrait lens. It's light and wonderfully compact. My S120mm Macro died and I swapped it for the S100mm. No regrets. I can use the Contax and Hasselblad HC macro lenses with adapters when I need the repro quality.

 

The S180mm. is an interesting lens. First I started to use it for stitching of some textile photos instead of the Macro. I know that it's an unusual application, but it works for me.

 

I tried to use it for occasional portraits and paired it with the Hasseelbad HC 50-110mm and found it difficult to work in continuous light (too heavy and long) and even with strobes, when there were no real worries of camera shake, the interaction with the subject (unprofessional) was difficult because of the distance between us. Then I borrowed the Elpro-S and eventually bought it and now I want to buy my own S180mm. With the Elpro-S it became a very nice portrait lens, the 180mm on the S sensor does not flatten the face as the longer lenses do.

 

I am not the right person to talk about rendering, for me it's exceptional.

 

IMHO

 

Yevgeny

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Daedalus2000]

I own the Elpro-s and have access to the S180mm APO, which belongs to my friend.

I also have the S100mm. and the Summicron is my main Leica portrait lens. It's light and wonderfully compact. My S120mm Macro died and I swapped it for the S100mm. No regrets. I can use the Contax and Hasselblad HC macro lenses with adapters when I need the repro quality.

 

The S180mm. is an interesting lens. First I started to use it for stitching of some textile photos instead of the Macro. I know that it's an unusual application, but it works for me.

 

I tried to use it for occasional portraits and paired it with the Hasseelbad HC 50-110mm and found it difficult to work in continuous light (too heavy and long) and even with strobes, when there were no real worries of camera shake, the interaction with the subject (unprofessional) was difficult because of the distance between us. Then I borrowed the Elpro-S and eventually bought it and now I want to buy my own S180mm. With the Elpro-S it became a very nice portrait lens, the 180mm on the S sensor does not flatten the face as the longer lenses do.

 

I am not the right person to talk about rendering, for me it's exceptional.

 

IMHO

 

Yevgeny

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Thank you. So, how do you choose between the 100 and the 180? Is it the case that the 180 is more for headshots and tigher shots in general?

[ynp]

Thank you. So, how do you choose between the 100 and the 180? Is it the case that the 180 is more for headshots and tigher shots in general?

Yes. Correct. At least for me, the S100mm is a universal fast lens, wide enough on the S sensor for a loose composition from a reasonable distance. The 180mm is tighter.

 

The better solution for a beauty/tight headshot type of the work is the S120mm. I use the Contax 645 lenses with the extension tubes for that.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Daedalus2000]

I have been thinking a bit more about the question of the rendering of the S system vs a (smaller sensor), and I realised by looking at the pictures I have from the S that part of the reason why I like the files so much is the combination of the tonal transitions together with the sharpness. I may be wrong of course and correct me if that is the case, but there seems to be some sort of "sweetness" of how tones and colours change and a robustness to how the files react to post processing (within limits of course). 

 

Here is an example that may show what I mean. I do not know if the jpeg shows what I see in the raw file, but this is a case where we have transitions from black to complete white (it is a B/W conversion but the bike was black) and when I see the whole image it just gives you a beautiful rendering.  

 

P.S. Looking at the post now, I do not think the jpeg shows clearly what I am talking about, but I hope those that have seen S files know what I mean.... What is also interesting is that my jpeg was about 450K but it uploaded as about 180K... Is there some processing that is applied to our files when we upload them?

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[menos I M6]

What do you mean by this? Do you mean in terms of sharpness? BTW, I was trying to use a more theoretical setup to try to understand the benefits of MF when we match some other properties. Thanks.

 

The benefit of medium format over 35mm format (even Leica's much smaller than traditional 6x6 or 6x4.5 medium format sensor) is NOT a thin depth of field.

Thin depth of field is actually the one single major downside of medium format, as one is constantly struggling for shutter speed, keeping the ISO sensitivity as low as possible and having to stop down the lenses usually to f4 or preferably f5.6 (and beyond).

 

The major benefits from medium format are resolution, tonality, dynamic range, acuity, better lens performance, …

 

When one is looking to compare two systems simply based on two sets of bodies + lenses to achieve a similar depth of field at the same framing of a subject you will see vast differences in perspective, the transition of depth of field (not to mention, benefits listed above).

 

When slim depth of field is very high on the shopping list, a full frame 35mm system with a set of really fast lenses is much, much easier to handle (not to mention, less costly) than any digital MF system.

 

… but then again are film based medium format systems going for peanuts these days so it is bet to experience first hand ;-)

[mgrayson3]

I have been thinking a bit more about the question of the rendering of the S system vs a (smaller sensor), and I realised by looking at the pictures I have from the S that part of the reason why I like the files so much is the combination of the tonal transitions together with the sharpness. I may be wrong of course and correct me if that is the case, but there seems to be some sort of "sweetness" of how tones and colours change and a robustness to how the files react to post processing (within limits of course). 

 

 

 

I completely agree, and as a Mathematician, it bothers me that I can't state precisely what it is the I love about MF rendering. Of course the pure optics matters - theoretical DoF - but the look of FF, MF, and LF are all different even when the numbers are equalized, and I can't explain it.

 

With LF film, the smooth rolloff even with very narrow DoF is hauntingly beautiful. The S lenses have their own characters - the 120/2.5 has a sharper transition than the 100/2 - but I still don't know what I mean by that! Yes, the information should be somewhere in the entire high dimensional optical description of the lens. I wonder how lens designers think about it.

 

(Let's see, pick two planes, "entering" and "exiting". I'm making no claims about nodal, principal, or focal planes. Rays cross the first plane entering the lens with two location dimensions, two direction dimensions, three color+intensity dimensions ( actually, color is vastly worse, as it is a distribution, so we should really just label each ray by its intensity and frequency). They leave with a different set, so a lens is a map from 6-dimensional space to itself. Actually, a different map for each focus setting and aperture (well, aperture "should" just restrict the domain and range of the maps, but like I said, I'm a mathematician, not a lens designer.) What I'm getting at is that the few numbers we use to describe a lens, even with MTF charts, is very very far from capturing the full description of the optical transfer function. Even if we put in restrictions like that the lens should "focus" objects with reasonably low field curvature, we still have a ton of unspecified behavior, mostly about what happens OOF)

 

Well, that didn't help anyone,

 

Matt

[tom0511]

I completely agree, and as a Mathematician, it bothers me that I can't state precisely what it is the I love about MF rendering. Of course the pure optics matters - theoretical DoF - but the look of FF, MF, and LF are all different even when the numbers are equalized, and I can't explain it.

 

With LF film, the smooth rolloff even with very narrow DoF is hauntingly beautiful. The S lenses have their own characters - the 120/2.5 has a sharper transition than the 100/2 - but I still don't know what I mean by that! Yes, the information should be somewhere in the entire high dimensional optical description of the lens. I wonder how lens designers think about it.

 

(Let's see, pick two planes, "entering" and "exiting". I'm making no claims about nodal, principal, or focal planes. Rays cross the first plane entering the lens with two location dimensions, two direction dimensions, three color+intensity dimensions ( actually, color is vastly worse, as it is a distribution, so we should really just label each ray by its intensity and frequency). They leave with a different set, so a lens is a map from 6-dimensional space to itself. Actually, a different map for each focus setting and aperture (well, aperture "should" just restrict the domain and range of the maps, but like I said, I'm a mathematician, not a lens designer.) What I'm getting at is that the few numbers we use to describe a lens, even with MTF charts, is very very far from capturing the full description of the optical transfer function. Even if we put in restrictions like that the lens should "focus" objects with reasonably low field curvature, we still have a ton of unspecified behavior, mostly about what happens OOF)

 

Well, that didn't help anyone,

 

Matt

 

Matt,

I feel the same. What I mean is for example: portrait with shallow DOF, lets say one eye is sharp. with ff or smaller sensors its abrupt changing from sharp to blurred, which can look disturbing. With MF transition seems much "softer"