Jump to content

Otus vs SL Primes


Csacwp
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The effect is seen at different magnifications, but it is possible that there were microscopic differences in focusing between the two lenses. I slightly preferred the Otus rendering, but I get more keepers with the Summicron due to autofocus. In the end, the differences are subtle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/25/2020 at 2:56 PM, isleofgough said:

I wonder if the differences in color moire are related to the angle light is hitting the sensor. [...]

As I understand it, Moire is spatial aliasing. If the spatial frequency of your subject is similar to the spatial frequency is your sensor (Beyer pattern) then you get aliasing. If you have a lens’s with low resolution the lens attenuates the high frequencies and voila, Moire is gone. And is you have a very high resolution sensor with small pixel size (I.e. high spatial frequency) Moire gets pushed hour to spatial frequencies that are fairly irrelevant for many practical imagine applications.

If my understanding is correct, then Moire does not depend on the angle of light. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/26/2020 at 12:16 AM, isleofgough said:

I would have thought the purpose of an adapter is to maintain the distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor, equivalent of the camera for which the lens was originally made. That does not mean that the distance of the rear element on a Leica lens to sensor would necessarily be the same as on a Nikon. The angle of view should be the same (if both were exactly 50mm lenses) but that is different from rear lens to sensor distance. The actual angle of light to the sensor from the rear element would not have to be the same either between the two different camera systems.

 I hadn't tried RawTherapee or Silkypix but a quick try of them didn't really seem to have an advantage over the programs I know better. I can get very close in C1P, but I have to turn moire removal up to 75/100. LR at 45 (brush) works pretty well but causes some color shifts that are undesirable. Rawtherapee did not work well with 1-2 iterations using AMaZE but Sinkypix wasn't too bad on its default settings. I actually could get a better result in C1P, but that is probably because I know that program. One things I am not seeing is a difference in sharpness between the two lenses, which would be strange if the moire is completely related to lens sharpness.

The register distance must be identical otherwise the lens will not focus correctly, irrespective of camera brand. It has nothing to do with angles of light-which are not determined by the position of the rear element BTW but by the design of the lens as a whole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This may not be of interest to others, but here are two side by side pictures taken within minutes of each other, both with tripod and SL2 camera comparing Otus and Summicron shot at f2 with no difference in processing. It just shows differences in color and bokeh and was not intended to be a good photo.

Edited by isleofgough
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both at f2. I was surprised too when I saw the difference in out of focus areas. I shot images at f1.4 and f2 and the image above is from f2 to give a more fair comparison. Here is with f1.4 and added dog. All images were focused on one of the bolts on the chair closest to the camera.

Edited by isleofgough
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, isleofgough said:

Both at f2. I was surprised too when I saw the difference in out of focus areas. I shot images at f1.4 and f2 and the image above is from f2 to give a more fair comparison. Here is with f1.4 and added dog. All images were focused on one of the bolts on the chair closest to the camera.

Usually, that is always the case with fast glass shoot at the same aperture compare to slower glass. Fast glass will always have shallower DOF, (one thing I notice is slower glass usually have more mechanic vignette which in turn reduce equivalent aperture and induce more DOF ) though I don't expect such a huge difference. This is the most I ever seen from such a comparison. One thing would be nice to test is if either Zeiss or Leica was really at f2. For example compare f1.4 and f2 OTUS image and compare shutter speed and exposure of OTUS and Leica to make sure nothing wrong with the lens. 

I appreciate your images. I personally really like OTUS, the only negative is size and weight. I sold my ZF.2 version after leave Nikon a few years ago and then buy back the ZE version used on SL2, I just love its rendering and focus transition. and the ZE version also have leica direction for focusing turn, a big plus in additional to auto aperture. I might keep them forever. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the dog pictures, you can see even better the narrower depth of field with the Otus. This photo, like the dog photos above, was shot at f2 using the Otus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I was not aware that fast glass has a different depth of field compared with slower lenses if one uses the same f stop. I did know that the quality of the out of focus areas can be different. I don't know about the 50mm SL Summilux (I didn't want to carry the weight) but the very narrow depth of field of the Otus at f1.4 meant that I threw out the majority of my photos at that aperture. Realistically, at f1.4, not only was one eye in focus but the other not - but sometimes the iris was in focus but the eyelashes were not. Even with EVF or live view on a SLR with high magnification, it was really hard to nail the focus. Since the human eye has the equivalent of f2-f8 range (depending on ambient light), images at f1.4 can look a little fake to me.

Edited by isleofgough
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, isleofgough said:

BTW, I was not aware that fast glass has a different depth of field compared with slower lenses if one uses the same f stop. I did know that the quality of the out of focus areas can be different. I don't know about the 50mm SL Summilux (I didn't want to carry the weight) but the very narrow depth of field of the Otus at f1.4 meant that I threw out the majority of my photos at that aperture. Realistically, at f1.4, not only was one eye in focus but the other not - but sometimes the iris was in focus but the eyelashes were not. Even with EVF or live view on a SLR with high magnification, it was really hard to nail the focus. Since the human eye has the equivalent of f2-f8 range (depending on ambient light), images at f1.4 can look a little fake to me.

Then maybe you haven’t seen enough comparison? or have you done some comparison back it up? :) 

There might be a case that there is no difference just I haven’t seen. I don’t have files on hand to show you, but so far, of all lens comparison I have seen or done, fast glass always have more blur at the same aperture. And there is a reason: slow lens usually have smaller body size, smaller front element and severer cat eyes bokeh ball.


for example: 85mm f1.4 vs f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 vs f1.8/f2. The tree leaves, blue disc size will be different and fast glass usually have more blur. 

DOF is also a function of subject distance. There is no rule that you have to have both eyes in focus if they are not in the same focal plain. And if both eyes are indeed at the same focal plain, they both will be in focus no matter what aperture you choose. I personally don’t mind far eye is not in focus as long as transition is smooth and natural, saw that all the time in Hollywood movie:) that is also how our eyes work when we see things, not everything in focus.

It is a personal choice for sure. I also like use f1.4 glass at f1.8-2.5 range, not just for DOF but it also give nicer bokeh around corner. (It will be smoother than native f1.8/f2 glass as mentioned)

however, for me and maybe only for me personally,  carry OTUS size and weight without using f1.4 is unacceptable  LOL

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 9/30/2020 at 1:33 AM, isleofgough said:

In the dog pictures, you can see even better the narrower depth of field with the Otus. This photo, like the dog photos above, was shot at f2 using the Otus.

Thanks for sharing these. This is the first time, I want to say the Otus is prettier than the SL. Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 17.5.2018 um 23:54 schrieb jplomley:

Are these lenses so "perfect" that they have lost all character? Are we entering the clinical era of photography? I was just looking at some images a guy posted wit the 35 Cron R on his SL, and they looked so well rounded and organic. Not razor sharp and brittle which is where we seem to be headed. Do we really need all this optical "perfection" for such an imperfect world? It's seems the manufacturers are targeting measurebators more than photographers these days.

50/1.4 is not clinical at all. It is just sharp and smooth at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...