whitewolfowner

Nikon's 28-105mm lens is not a pro lens either; but rather a lower level prosumer lens.

therwol Loc: USA

I also sent you this privately and later decided to share it. It's interesting that I had the same question almost as soon as I bought my Nikon D810 two years ago. I did a quick, informal test comparing my 50mm f/1.4 AF-D against a 28-105 AF-D at 50mm out in the field. (Actually came out to 52mm). This is not a current lens (1998-2005), but it isn't too shabby up to about 85mm (in my experience).

At the end of this is a link that should take anyone to a folder with 4 photos. Why not upload them here? Files are too large to be allowed. I don't want to cut them down and degrade the images.

So there are two images of a "landscape", one taken with each lens. The caveat is that I really didn't take any steps to optimize IQ (apertures too small, for one, ISO 320 for another, hand held for another). Keeping this in mind, do a little pixel peeping and guess which lens took which picture.

The other two pictures were taken with the zoom. Quality may not be "the best" but certainly adequate. Before anyone criticizes anything, I've gotten better with the camera since then. I just haven't performed this experiment with other lenses since then. I can only send what I have.

Here. I hope this link works.

https://1drv.ms/f/s!AnGsrXt0Zehk6Ba__aEOkDq4IqW3

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I don't understand why apertures in the range f/7.1 - f/11 should be an issue for a 36mp FF camera

therwol Loc: USA

If you have looked at the pictures, the aperture on one is f/11 and the other f/13. Everything I've read says that diffraction becomes a factor by f/11 in a full frame lens. If I were really trying to maximize the sharpness of the pictures, I would have used aperture priority at f/5.6 or f/8 with the camera on a good tripod at ISO 64. It was an informal experiment on the spur of the moment. I wish I had performed it with a more modern zoom lens, but that was the one I took on my vacation to the UK that year, having put off buying a newer zoom because I already had that one and didn't want to spend the money. Nevertheless, I think that one would have to agree that while you can see a difference in IQ between the pictures, you pretty much have to go looking into the details to see it. Would you see it in a 12x18 print on your wall. Doubtful.

I'm trying to make a case for zooms, and believe me, I have a bucket full of primes to work with.

therwol Loc: USA

And a PS to that. These are jpegs right out of the camera. jpegs vary in size according to the amount of fine details in the pictures. One of the landscape scenes is 27.6 megs and the other 27.8 megs. Pretty close. A grossly inferior lens would produce smaller jpegs. The picture of Nandos (one of my favorite places to eat in the UK) is 25.5 megs. There is less fine detail in the scene. Hint, the largest of the files was produced by the 50mm prime.

IBM

That was a few years ago and it was that lens, and the article was written by Thom Hogan , in every test it out preformed the primes in that range, and they were $1200 plus lenses. I'm only quoting what I read , and when they came out with the 10 to 20m. Sigma Thom was
So taken back by that lens , he put it on his nikon dx and put his Nikon d 7000 lens in a cuboard. When I read that I bought the
Sigma 10-20 myself , but I hardly ever use it , that was $500 something plus tax, if I did not get one I would have got the 16-35 sig
When it hit the market ,

IBM

This was all to $1400 lens in that 16 -35 mm range not that 24mm nikon with big bulb head for $1900 , I just about bought one ten years
Ago for $ 1600 but decided to stick with dx camera .

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I have the 18-35mm Sigma and it is a good DX zoom, but unfortunately there are no quality prime lenses for the DX series. This is what started the conversation and all things being equal a top end prime lens will always beat a zoom if for no other reason than light transmission at equal aperture.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Diffraction. It's noticeable by F5.6, not an issue at F8, but by F11 it can be concerning but lost sharpness can be retrieved in post process, but you are irrevocably losing the finest details, and by F16 it's a real issue.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Diffraction is not a lens characteristic. It is about circles of confusion, sensor size and resolution. And the ability for the human eye to see detail diminishes with distance, so you don't need to render all that fine detail if you are printing large. As you step away from the print, the detail vanishes. Think of that the next time you see an iPhone billboard.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

My undergraduate degree was in mathematics; my physics minor included a course called "Intermediate Optics", so I know about diffraction from both experimental and practical viewpoints. I don't believe something just because others say it.

Inspired by what some had done here with the small-sensored Canon SX-50, several years ago I purchased a Pentax Q-7, a 4.65-crop MILC, planning to adapt one of my K-mount lenses to use with it. Having five K-mount lenses that go out to 300mm, I tested all five of them at 300mm
* Takumar 300mm
* Ricoh 75-300mm
* AdaptAll 60-300mm
* Sigma 70-300mm
* Pentax-DA 55-300mm

I tested in my backyard using a paper target I had found on-line, placing the target at one end of our yard and myself with camera at the other end. Because I was going to do all the shooting and then all the analyzing, I tried each lens from its maximum opening down to f/11 {everyone knows that the Q-7 is diffraction-limited starting at a very wide opening, despite the fact that Pentax allows its lenses to go down to f/8}. I cleaned up each image with minor PP, including cropping down to the same tiny zone on the target so I would be comparing the same detail each time.

I had been told by others that I was wasting my time, that I would be better off taking pictures with my APS-C K-30 and then cropping, so I took pictures with that camera also.

I know the only prime in this collection is also the oldest. This was not a test of prime vs zoom. At the time, the purpose of this testing was to decide on the contents of my birding kit; today I am using this as a demonstration of aperture effects

The results of my analysis were unequivocal.

The K-30 was outmatched; it just didn't have nearly enough pixels at this level.

The Takumar was the worst lens and the Sigma was the best {Pentax-DA was close second}

Almost every lens improved at each step towards smaller aperture. If I had been doing the analysis as I collected the results, I would have tested the Sigma and Pentax lenses at f/16 just to confirm that nothing was better than the f/8-f/11 results I had.

This is the basis for my asking the question I did. I would test at various apertures as well as other variables, because I'm not convinced you know apriori that a particular {wide} aperture is the end of sharpness.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

In my comment above I meant to say that I understand diffraction from both a theoretical and a practical pov.

therwol Loc: USA

Agreed. I've used it extensively and can tell you everything that's wrong with it. It's prone to flare. CA starts to kill the sharpness at the longer focal lengths. Edge softness is the one thing that bothers me the most. I was simply saying that you might not notice that on a DX camera using a smaller sensor that effectively crops out the problem areas. I also still think that it's a bargain used if you're not too critical.

whitewolfowner

I agree. It was about the only low level prosumer lens I ever bought ad I bought for it's price and extended range in mm. For it's price it is really a good lens but does have it's limitations for sure. And when I bought I was using a D80, so having the crop sensor helped it a lot. I have not used it on a full frame camera but I can say that I did not notice all the problems people have mentioned with it on the crop sensor. With all that said; would I redo the purchase of that lens; probably not.