why is Nikon 1.4g better when Nikon 1.8g is sharper?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
I am new to photography (just 3 to 4 months of experience) and I am looking to buy a new lens (either 35mm or 50mm, but mostly 35mm because I have already decided Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for the creamy bokeh) for general street photography.
I like my images to be as sharp as possible. I went through many websites and youtube videos and many of them mention that Nikon 1.4g is superior to Nikon 1.8g. At the same time they also mention that Nikon 1.8g is sharper. why is Nikon 1.4g better when Nikon 1.8g is sharper ?
lens aperture
New contributor
add a comment |
I am new to photography (just 3 to 4 months of experience) and I am looking to buy a new lens (either 35mm or 50mm, but mostly 35mm because I have already decided Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for the creamy bokeh) for general street photography.
I like my images to be as sharp as possible. I went through many websites and youtube videos and many of them mention that Nikon 1.4g is superior to Nikon 1.8g. At the same time they also mention that Nikon 1.8g is sharper. why is Nikon 1.4g better when Nikon 1.8g is sharper ?
lens aperture
New contributor
1
Can you clarify exactly what lenses you are talking about? I don't think there are any Sigma lenses currently on the market with a designation like "1.4g" or "1.8g". Do you mean for example "F1.4 DG" — or are you referring to Nikon brand lenses?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
I was referring to nikon lenses, I own a Nikon D5600 camera
– Prem Ramman
2 hours ago
1
Can you edit your question to make that clear? The only brand you refer to is Sigma (and there again you use 1.4g, which is confusing).
– mattdm
2 hours ago
add a comment |
I am new to photography (just 3 to 4 months of experience) and I am looking to buy a new lens (either 35mm or 50mm, but mostly 35mm because I have already decided Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for the creamy bokeh) for general street photography.
I like my images to be as sharp as possible. I went through many websites and youtube videos and many of them mention that Nikon 1.4g is superior to Nikon 1.8g. At the same time they also mention that Nikon 1.8g is sharper. why is Nikon 1.4g better when Nikon 1.8g is sharper ?
lens aperture
New contributor
I am new to photography (just 3 to 4 months of experience) and I am looking to buy a new lens (either 35mm or 50mm, but mostly 35mm because I have already decided Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for the creamy bokeh) for general street photography.
I like my images to be as sharp as possible. I went through many websites and youtube videos and many of them mention that Nikon 1.4g is superior to Nikon 1.8g. At the same time they also mention that Nikon 1.8g is sharper. why is Nikon 1.4g better when Nikon 1.8g is sharper ?
lens aperture
lens aperture
New contributor
New contributor
edited 1 hour ago
Prem Ramman
New contributor
asked 2 hours ago
Prem RammanPrem Ramman
62
62
New contributor
New contributor
1
Can you clarify exactly what lenses you are talking about? I don't think there are any Sigma lenses currently on the market with a designation like "1.4g" or "1.8g". Do you mean for example "F1.4 DG" — or are you referring to Nikon brand lenses?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
I was referring to nikon lenses, I own a Nikon D5600 camera
– Prem Ramman
2 hours ago
1
Can you edit your question to make that clear? The only brand you refer to is Sigma (and there again you use 1.4g, which is confusing).
– mattdm
2 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Can you clarify exactly what lenses you are talking about? I don't think there are any Sigma lenses currently on the market with a designation like "1.4g" or "1.8g". Do you mean for example "F1.4 DG" — or are you referring to Nikon brand lenses?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
I was referring to nikon lenses, I own a Nikon D5600 camera
– Prem Ramman
2 hours ago
1
Can you edit your question to make that clear? The only brand you refer to is Sigma (and there again you use 1.4g, which is confusing).
– mattdm
2 hours ago
1
1
Can you clarify exactly what lenses you are talking about? I don't think there are any Sigma lenses currently on the market with a designation like "1.4g" or "1.8g". Do you mean for example "F1.4 DG" — or are you referring to Nikon brand lenses?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
Can you clarify exactly what lenses you are talking about? I don't think there are any Sigma lenses currently on the market with a designation like "1.4g" or "1.8g". Do you mean for example "F1.4 DG" — or are you referring to Nikon brand lenses?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
I was referring to nikon lenses, I own a Nikon D5600 camera
– Prem Ramman
2 hours ago
I was referring to nikon lenses, I own a Nikon D5600 camera
– Prem Ramman
2 hours ago
1
1
Can you edit your question to make that clear? The only brand you refer to is Sigma (and there again you use 1.4g, which is confusing).
– mattdm
2 hours ago
Can you edit your question to make that clear? The only brand you refer to is Sigma (and there again you use 1.4g, which is confusing).
– mattdm
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
1) Sharpness is complicated.
Lens sharpness is just one aspect of the overall resolving power of a camera system. The appearance of crispness is separate from the rendition of detail. And a lens can be sharper in the center but not in the corners, or less sharp overall but consistent across the frame.
And that's not even getting into other factors that affect the system as a whole. Camera shake, subject movement, focus accuracy, diffraction — the list goes on. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that unless you are very meticulous with your technique, you won't ever notice a sharpness difference between these lenses, because any lens difference will be overwhelmed by the other things.
2) Sharpness is overrated.
It's fine it like it, but recognize that sharpness is just one aspect of optical performance. All lens design is about compromise between various factors, and correction for one thing inevitably leads to compromise in another. See What image-quality characteristics make a lens good or bad? for a detailed look at this. Generally, though, when someone is saying that a lens is better than another even though the other is sharper, some of these other factors are probably at the forefront.
3) Don't forget that extra speed.
An f/1.4 lens can stop down to f/1.8. An f/1.8 lens can't open up to f/1.4.
As per 3rd point, does it mean at 1.8 both the lens will take 100% same image ?
– Prem Ramman
1 hour ago
Brief resume of a conversation I had with the cinematographer on a high-budget TV show yesterday.. Him: "We use these old 1970s Fuji refurbs, £25 grand each, for primes" Me: What about those Arri 45-250 zooms you were using on [other movie]?" Him: "Too sharp, these give us a much better feel."
– Tetsujin
1 hour ago
@PremRamman No two lenses will produce 100% the same image at the same settings. The amount of light that reaches the sensor is mainly influenced by the aperture and the shutter speed, yes, but how the light bounces inside the lens is completely dependent on the lens architecture. They will produce a very similar image, though, maybe even so similar that you won't notice the difference.
– Ian
5 mins ago
add a comment |
What did the reviewers say about why they chose one lens over the other?
They have their own priorities and biases. You should evaluate the information they present and decide for yourself whether you agree with their conclusions.
Everyone tests lens sharpness because it's easy. Just photograph a resolution chart and read off the numbers. However, this method really tests lens-camera combinations.
Beyond a certain level of sharpness, most pixel peepers should be satisfied. For me, around 65 lp/mm is "good enough". A lens that is at least that sharp gives me plenty of detail to work with in real images that are not of resolution charts or brick walls.
The difference in sharpness among lenses that exceed sensor capabilities makes no difference to final image quality.
I have two 35-105/3.5 zoom lenses from the 1980s that are quite sharp. The sharpness results are maybe too good and I wonder if I read the chart wrong. Regardless, modern lenses still look just a bit better. (Imagine these are 1"x1" crops from 40"x27" images.)
Canon EF 24-105/4L @ 24/4
Nikon 24-120/4G @ 24/4 -and- Nikon 24-70/2.8E @ 24/2.8
Pentax-A SMC 35-105/3.5 @ 35/3.5 and 35/4.5
There's more to lenses than sharpness.
- veiling glare
contrast
flare ghosts
- focal lengths, zoom range
max apertures – variable vs constant
distortion
- chromatic aberration
- bokeh (quality)
- close focusing / macro mode
color rendering
technology – autofocus, image stabilization, etc.
How you prioritize these factors can result in a completely different lens being "better" for you than for me or anyone else. For instance, I'm much more concerned about veiling glare, than distortion and chromatic aberration. As long as distortion and CA are not out of control, they add "character" to images. But terrible veiling glare can make images useless.
Recently, my sharpest, most advanced lenses have become among my least used lenses. Consider XF 18-135/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. It's an excellent lens by any measure. I consider it an excellent lens, superior to my current favored lens, but it's not suitable for what I want.
- I want the short end to be longer (~28mm).
- I want constant F3.5 or faster variable aperture (2.8-4)
- I want closer minimum-focusing distance.
- I want bokeh with "character".
FujiFilm doesn't make this "perfect" lens for me, so I have to search elsewhere.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Prem Ramman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106657%2fwhy-is-nikon-1-4g-better-when-nikon-1-8g-is-sharper%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
1) Sharpness is complicated.
Lens sharpness is just one aspect of the overall resolving power of a camera system. The appearance of crispness is separate from the rendition of detail. And a lens can be sharper in the center but not in the corners, or less sharp overall but consistent across the frame.
And that's not even getting into other factors that affect the system as a whole. Camera shake, subject movement, focus accuracy, diffraction — the list goes on. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that unless you are very meticulous with your technique, you won't ever notice a sharpness difference between these lenses, because any lens difference will be overwhelmed by the other things.
2) Sharpness is overrated.
It's fine it like it, but recognize that sharpness is just one aspect of optical performance. All lens design is about compromise between various factors, and correction for one thing inevitably leads to compromise in another. See What image-quality characteristics make a lens good or bad? for a detailed look at this. Generally, though, when someone is saying that a lens is better than another even though the other is sharper, some of these other factors are probably at the forefront.
3) Don't forget that extra speed.
An f/1.4 lens can stop down to f/1.8. An f/1.8 lens can't open up to f/1.4.
As per 3rd point, does it mean at 1.8 both the lens will take 100% same image ?
– Prem Ramman
1 hour ago
Brief resume of a conversation I had with the cinematographer on a high-budget TV show yesterday.. Him: "We use these old 1970s Fuji refurbs, £25 grand each, for primes" Me: What about those Arri 45-250 zooms you were using on [other movie]?" Him: "Too sharp, these give us a much better feel."
– Tetsujin
1 hour ago
@PremRamman No two lenses will produce 100% the same image at the same settings. The amount of light that reaches the sensor is mainly influenced by the aperture and the shutter speed, yes, but how the light bounces inside the lens is completely dependent on the lens architecture. They will produce a very similar image, though, maybe even so similar that you won't notice the difference.
– Ian
5 mins ago
add a comment |
1) Sharpness is complicated.
Lens sharpness is just one aspect of the overall resolving power of a camera system. The appearance of crispness is separate from the rendition of detail. And a lens can be sharper in the center but not in the corners, or less sharp overall but consistent across the frame.
And that's not even getting into other factors that affect the system as a whole. Camera shake, subject movement, focus accuracy, diffraction — the list goes on. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that unless you are very meticulous with your technique, you won't ever notice a sharpness difference between these lenses, because any lens difference will be overwhelmed by the other things.
2) Sharpness is overrated.
It's fine it like it, but recognize that sharpness is just one aspect of optical performance. All lens design is about compromise between various factors, and correction for one thing inevitably leads to compromise in another. See What image-quality characteristics make a lens good or bad? for a detailed look at this. Generally, though, when someone is saying that a lens is better than another even though the other is sharper, some of these other factors are probably at the forefront.
3) Don't forget that extra speed.
An f/1.4 lens can stop down to f/1.8. An f/1.8 lens can't open up to f/1.4.
As per 3rd point, does it mean at 1.8 both the lens will take 100% same image ?
– Prem Ramman
1 hour ago
Brief resume of a conversation I had with the cinematographer on a high-budget TV show yesterday.. Him: "We use these old 1970s Fuji refurbs, £25 grand each, for primes" Me: What about those Arri 45-250 zooms you were using on [other movie]?" Him: "Too sharp, these give us a much better feel."
– Tetsujin
1 hour ago
@PremRamman No two lenses will produce 100% the same image at the same settings. The amount of light that reaches the sensor is mainly influenced by the aperture and the shutter speed, yes, but how the light bounces inside the lens is completely dependent on the lens architecture. They will produce a very similar image, though, maybe even so similar that you won't notice the difference.
– Ian
5 mins ago
add a comment |
1) Sharpness is complicated.
Lens sharpness is just one aspect of the overall resolving power of a camera system. The appearance of crispness is separate from the rendition of detail. And a lens can be sharper in the center but not in the corners, or less sharp overall but consistent across the frame.
And that's not even getting into other factors that affect the system as a whole. Camera shake, subject movement, focus accuracy, diffraction — the list goes on. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that unless you are very meticulous with your technique, you won't ever notice a sharpness difference between these lenses, because any lens difference will be overwhelmed by the other things.
2) Sharpness is overrated.
It's fine it like it, but recognize that sharpness is just one aspect of optical performance. All lens design is about compromise between various factors, and correction for one thing inevitably leads to compromise in another. See What image-quality characteristics make a lens good or bad? for a detailed look at this. Generally, though, when someone is saying that a lens is better than another even though the other is sharper, some of these other factors are probably at the forefront.
3) Don't forget that extra speed.
An f/1.4 lens can stop down to f/1.8. An f/1.8 lens can't open up to f/1.4.
1) Sharpness is complicated.
Lens sharpness is just one aspect of the overall resolving power of a camera system. The appearance of crispness is separate from the rendition of detail. And a lens can be sharper in the center but not in the corners, or less sharp overall but consistent across the frame.
And that's not even getting into other factors that affect the system as a whole. Camera shake, subject movement, focus accuracy, diffraction — the list goes on. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that unless you are very meticulous with your technique, you won't ever notice a sharpness difference between these lenses, because any lens difference will be overwhelmed by the other things.
2) Sharpness is overrated.
It's fine it like it, but recognize that sharpness is just one aspect of optical performance. All lens design is about compromise between various factors, and correction for one thing inevitably leads to compromise in another. See What image-quality characteristics make a lens good or bad? for a detailed look at this. Generally, though, when someone is saying that a lens is better than another even though the other is sharper, some of these other factors are probably at the forefront.
3) Don't forget that extra speed.
An f/1.4 lens can stop down to f/1.8. An f/1.8 lens can't open up to f/1.4.
answered 2 hours ago
mattdmmattdm
123k40357654
123k40357654
As per 3rd point, does it mean at 1.8 both the lens will take 100% same image ?
– Prem Ramman
1 hour ago
Brief resume of a conversation I had with the cinematographer on a high-budget TV show yesterday.. Him: "We use these old 1970s Fuji refurbs, £25 grand each, for primes" Me: What about those Arri 45-250 zooms you were using on [other movie]?" Him: "Too sharp, these give us a much better feel."
– Tetsujin
1 hour ago
@PremRamman No two lenses will produce 100% the same image at the same settings. The amount of light that reaches the sensor is mainly influenced by the aperture and the shutter speed, yes, but how the light bounces inside the lens is completely dependent on the lens architecture. They will produce a very similar image, though, maybe even so similar that you won't notice the difference.
– Ian
5 mins ago
add a comment |
As per 3rd point, does it mean at 1.8 both the lens will take 100% same image ?
– Prem Ramman
1 hour ago
Brief resume of a conversation I had with the cinematographer on a high-budget TV show yesterday.. Him: "We use these old 1970s Fuji refurbs, £25 grand each, for primes" Me: What about those Arri 45-250 zooms you were using on [other movie]?" Him: "Too sharp, these give us a much better feel."
– Tetsujin
1 hour ago
@PremRamman No two lenses will produce 100% the same image at the same settings. The amount of light that reaches the sensor is mainly influenced by the aperture and the shutter speed, yes, but how the light bounces inside the lens is completely dependent on the lens architecture. They will produce a very similar image, though, maybe even so similar that you won't notice the difference.
– Ian
5 mins ago
As per 3rd point, does it mean at 1.8 both the lens will take 100% same image ?
– Prem Ramman
1 hour ago
As per 3rd point, does it mean at 1.8 both the lens will take 100% same image ?
– Prem Ramman
1 hour ago
Brief resume of a conversation I had with the cinematographer on a high-budget TV show yesterday.. Him: "We use these old 1970s Fuji refurbs, £25 grand each, for primes" Me: What about those Arri 45-250 zooms you were using on [other movie]?" Him: "Too sharp, these give us a much better feel."
– Tetsujin
1 hour ago
Brief resume of a conversation I had with the cinematographer on a high-budget TV show yesterday.. Him: "We use these old 1970s Fuji refurbs, £25 grand each, for primes" Me: What about those Arri 45-250 zooms you were using on [other movie]?" Him: "Too sharp, these give us a much better feel."
– Tetsujin
1 hour ago
@PremRamman No two lenses will produce 100% the same image at the same settings. The amount of light that reaches the sensor is mainly influenced by the aperture and the shutter speed, yes, but how the light bounces inside the lens is completely dependent on the lens architecture. They will produce a very similar image, though, maybe even so similar that you won't notice the difference.
– Ian
5 mins ago
@PremRamman No two lenses will produce 100% the same image at the same settings. The amount of light that reaches the sensor is mainly influenced by the aperture and the shutter speed, yes, but how the light bounces inside the lens is completely dependent on the lens architecture. They will produce a very similar image, though, maybe even so similar that you won't notice the difference.
– Ian
5 mins ago
add a comment |
What did the reviewers say about why they chose one lens over the other?
They have their own priorities and biases. You should evaluate the information they present and decide for yourself whether you agree with their conclusions.
Everyone tests lens sharpness because it's easy. Just photograph a resolution chart and read off the numbers. However, this method really tests lens-camera combinations.
Beyond a certain level of sharpness, most pixel peepers should be satisfied. For me, around 65 lp/mm is "good enough". A lens that is at least that sharp gives me plenty of detail to work with in real images that are not of resolution charts or brick walls.
The difference in sharpness among lenses that exceed sensor capabilities makes no difference to final image quality.
I have two 35-105/3.5 zoom lenses from the 1980s that are quite sharp. The sharpness results are maybe too good and I wonder if I read the chart wrong. Regardless, modern lenses still look just a bit better. (Imagine these are 1"x1" crops from 40"x27" images.)
Canon EF 24-105/4L @ 24/4
Nikon 24-120/4G @ 24/4 -and- Nikon 24-70/2.8E @ 24/2.8
Pentax-A SMC 35-105/3.5 @ 35/3.5 and 35/4.5
There's more to lenses than sharpness.
- veiling glare
contrast
flare ghosts
- focal lengths, zoom range
max apertures – variable vs constant
distortion
- chromatic aberration
- bokeh (quality)
- close focusing / macro mode
color rendering
technology – autofocus, image stabilization, etc.
How you prioritize these factors can result in a completely different lens being "better" for you than for me or anyone else. For instance, I'm much more concerned about veiling glare, than distortion and chromatic aberration. As long as distortion and CA are not out of control, they add "character" to images. But terrible veiling glare can make images useless.
Recently, my sharpest, most advanced lenses have become among my least used lenses. Consider XF 18-135/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. It's an excellent lens by any measure. I consider it an excellent lens, superior to my current favored lens, but it's not suitable for what I want.
- I want the short end to be longer (~28mm).
- I want constant F3.5 or faster variable aperture (2.8-4)
- I want closer minimum-focusing distance.
- I want bokeh with "character".
FujiFilm doesn't make this "perfect" lens for me, so I have to search elsewhere.
add a comment |
What did the reviewers say about why they chose one lens over the other?
They have their own priorities and biases. You should evaluate the information they present and decide for yourself whether you agree with their conclusions.
Everyone tests lens sharpness because it's easy. Just photograph a resolution chart and read off the numbers. However, this method really tests lens-camera combinations.
Beyond a certain level of sharpness, most pixel peepers should be satisfied. For me, around 65 lp/mm is "good enough". A lens that is at least that sharp gives me plenty of detail to work with in real images that are not of resolution charts or brick walls.
The difference in sharpness among lenses that exceed sensor capabilities makes no difference to final image quality.
I have two 35-105/3.5 zoom lenses from the 1980s that are quite sharp. The sharpness results are maybe too good and I wonder if I read the chart wrong. Regardless, modern lenses still look just a bit better. (Imagine these are 1"x1" crops from 40"x27" images.)
Canon EF 24-105/4L @ 24/4
Nikon 24-120/4G @ 24/4 -and- Nikon 24-70/2.8E @ 24/2.8
Pentax-A SMC 35-105/3.5 @ 35/3.5 and 35/4.5
There's more to lenses than sharpness.
- veiling glare
contrast
flare ghosts
- focal lengths, zoom range
max apertures – variable vs constant
distortion
- chromatic aberration
- bokeh (quality)
- close focusing / macro mode
color rendering
technology – autofocus, image stabilization, etc.
How you prioritize these factors can result in a completely different lens being "better" for you than for me or anyone else. For instance, I'm much more concerned about veiling glare, than distortion and chromatic aberration. As long as distortion and CA are not out of control, they add "character" to images. But terrible veiling glare can make images useless.
Recently, my sharpest, most advanced lenses have become among my least used lenses. Consider XF 18-135/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. It's an excellent lens by any measure. I consider it an excellent lens, superior to my current favored lens, but it's not suitable for what I want.
- I want the short end to be longer (~28mm).
- I want constant F3.5 or faster variable aperture (2.8-4)
- I want closer minimum-focusing distance.
- I want bokeh with "character".
FujiFilm doesn't make this "perfect" lens for me, so I have to search elsewhere.
add a comment |
What did the reviewers say about why they chose one lens over the other?
They have their own priorities and biases. You should evaluate the information they present and decide for yourself whether you agree with their conclusions.
Everyone tests lens sharpness because it's easy. Just photograph a resolution chart and read off the numbers. However, this method really tests lens-camera combinations.
Beyond a certain level of sharpness, most pixel peepers should be satisfied. For me, around 65 lp/mm is "good enough". A lens that is at least that sharp gives me plenty of detail to work with in real images that are not of resolution charts or brick walls.
The difference in sharpness among lenses that exceed sensor capabilities makes no difference to final image quality.
I have two 35-105/3.5 zoom lenses from the 1980s that are quite sharp. The sharpness results are maybe too good and I wonder if I read the chart wrong. Regardless, modern lenses still look just a bit better. (Imagine these are 1"x1" crops from 40"x27" images.)
Canon EF 24-105/4L @ 24/4
Nikon 24-120/4G @ 24/4 -and- Nikon 24-70/2.8E @ 24/2.8
Pentax-A SMC 35-105/3.5 @ 35/3.5 and 35/4.5
There's more to lenses than sharpness.
- veiling glare
contrast
flare ghosts
- focal lengths, zoom range
max apertures – variable vs constant
distortion
- chromatic aberration
- bokeh (quality)
- close focusing / macro mode
color rendering
technology – autofocus, image stabilization, etc.
How you prioritize these factors can result in a completely different lens being "better" for you than for me or anyone else. For instance, I'm much more concerned about veiling glare, than distortion and chromatic aberration. As long as distortion and CA are not out of control, they add "character" to images. But terrible veiling glare can make images useless.
Recently, my sharpest, most advanced lenses have become among my least used lenses. Consider XF 18-135/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. It's an excellent lens by any measure. I consider it an excellent lens, superior to my current favored lens, but it's not suitable for what I want.
- I want the short end to be longer (~28mm).
- I want constant F3.5 or faster variable aperture (2.8-4)
- I want closer minimum-focusing distance.
- I want bokeh with "character".
FujiFilm doesn't make this "perfect" lens for me, so I have to search elsewhere.
What did the reviewers say about why they chose one lens over the other?
They have their own priorities and biases. You should evaluate the information they present and decide for yourself whether you agree with their conclusions.
Everyone tests lens sharpness because it's easy. Just photograph a resolution chart and read off the numbers. However, this method really tests lens-camera combinations.
Beyond a certain level of sharpness, most pixel peepers should be satisfied. For me, around 65 lp/mm is "good enough". A lens that is at least that sharp gives me plenty of detail to work with in real images that are not of resolution charts or brick walls.
The difference in sharpness among lenses that exceed sensor capabilities makes no difference to final image quality.
I have two 35-105/3.5 zoom lenses from the 1980s that are quite sharp. The sharpness results are maybe too good and I wonder if I read the chart wrong. Regardless, modern lenses still look just a bit better. (Imagine these are 1"x1" crops from 40"x27" images.)
Canon EF 24-105/4L @ 24/4
Nikon 24-120/4G @ 24/4 -and- Nikon 24-70/2.8E @ 24/2.8
Pentax-A SMC 35-105/3.5 @ 35/3.5 and 35/4.5
There's more to lenses than sharpness.
- veiling glare
contrast
flare ghosts
- focal lengths, zoom range
max apertures – variable vs constant
distortion
- chromatic aberration
- bokeh (quality)
- close focusing / macro mode
color rendering
technology – autofocus, image stabilization, etc.
How you prioritize these factors can result in a completely different lens being "better" for you than for me or anyone else. For instance, I'm much more concerned about veiling glare, than distortion and chromatic aberration. As long as distortion and CA are not out of control, they add "character" to images. But terrible veiling glare can make images useless.
Recently, my sharpest, most advanced lenses have become among my least used lenses. Consider XF 18-135/3.5-5.6 R LM OIS WR. It's an excellent lens by any measure. I consider it an excellent lens, superior to my current favored lens, but it's not suitable for what I want.
- I want the short end to be longer (~28mm).
- I want constant F3.5 or faster variable aperture (2.8-4)
- I want closer minimum-focusing distance.
- I want bokeh with "character".
FujiFilm doesn't make this "perfect" lens for me, so I have to search elsewhere.
edited 8 mins ago
answered 35 mins ago
xiotaxiota
12.1k41864
12.1k41864
add a comment |
add a comment |
Prem Ramman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Prem Ramman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Prem Ramman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Prem Ramman is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106657%2fwhy-is-nikon-1-4g-better-when-nikon-1-8g-is-sharper%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Can you clarify exactly what lenses you are talking about? I don't think there are any Sigma lenses currently on the market with a designation like "1.4g" or "1.8g". Do you mean for example "F1.4 DG" — or are you referring to Nikon brand lenses?
– mattdm
2 hours ago
I was referring to nikon lenses, I own a Nikon D5600 camera
– Prem Ramman
2 hours ago
1
Can you edit your question to make that clear? The only brand you refer to is Sigma (and there again you use 1.4g, which is confusing).
– mattdm
2 hours ago