What’s Your Preference?

vandergus · #71 (**permalink**) 03-25-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

That lens has some ridiculous CA. Its almost as bad as the CA I saw on the 10.5mm fisheye i rented a month ago. And even that was only on the very edges of the frame.

That's downright ghastly.

Ghastly might be overstating it a little, although there is more than I expected to see in a lens like this. I think lens designers are starting to sacrifice things like CA and vignetting for other performance characteristics since those are now more easily corrected in software. Don't know if that's a trend I like or not.

inkista · #72 (**permalink**) 03-25-2009, 06:51 PM

I think the interesting thing, looking at the dpreview test data, is that the CA is actually pretty well controlled wide open @f/1.8. Which is probably where most people are going to be using that lens most of the time. I'd be willing to bet that's one of the reasons the CA is not as well controlled over the rest of the aperture range.

And yeah, I'm an oldschool purist that doesn't like processing corrections as much as corrections in the glass. The fact that everybody who's making EVIL cameras is talking about how they're using in-camera vignetting (and possibly distortion) correction--even in the RAW--disturbs me not a little.

OsmosisStudios · #73 (**permalink**) 03-26-2009, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vandergus

Ghastly might be overstating it a little, although there is more than I expected to see in a lens like this. I think lens designers are starting to sacrifice things like CA and vignetting for other performance characteristics since those are now more easily corrected in software. Don't know if that's a trend I like or not.

Sorry, but it really is. Any lens with CA that bad deserves to never leave the factory.

vandergus · #74 (**permalink**) 03-26-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Sorry, but it really is. Any lens with CA that bad deserves to never leave the factory.

When you're evaluating the performance (or potential performance in this case) of a lens, you have to consider how it will be used. Most people will be using this lens in low light situations where CA isn't really an issue because harsh, high constrast edges aren't as prevalent. As Inkista alluded to above, the lens designers have to decide what the most used range of the lens will be and design its optimum performance in that area. I'd love to use this lens as a compact walk around lens during the day but I may end up using my old kit lens instead if I want to avoid certain IQ issues. For $200, you're not going to get a lens that does everything well.

If you think the level of CA is to high for your personal preferences then that's fine, but to deem it unusable by anybody is going a bit far. Just as thinking a lens is flawless because it comes "Highly Recommended" from a review, is misguided.

Wooglah · #75 (**permalink**) 03-26-2009, 02:34 PM

I'll buy it for sure, lol. My fund for D40 is growing pretty faster than I expected so instead in november I may have it in june, and that means november could be time for getting this baby... Which brings me to another question about 50mm 1.8, but that would be offtopic...

It looks like it is ok fast prime for that money. If Osmosis already has 50mm and is happy with it and has no need for this one, that's another story, but I think this lens is made "for me"

vandergus · #76 (**permalink**) 05-05-2009, 06:09 PM

Well, I said earlier that I would check back after I finally got a hold of one. There's plenty of data and reviews available for the lens by know but I thought I could provide more of a user's perspective than a test bench perspective.

I got the lens a few weeks ago from my local camera store. I was the third on the waiting list but the first two guys didn't answer their phone (no answering machine) so, lucky me! It's a nice package with a pouch and hood included. I'm not a big hood guy (use my hand when needed) but I've left it on the 35mm because it just looks more natural that way. Without it, it just looks kind of short and pudgy. I know, silly reason. The lens balance very nicely on my D40, a little larger than the 50mm AF-D. I would say it is the most natural feeling lens to use on my camera. Everything just sits nicely in my hand without having to fiddle around for the most comfortable position. There are smaller lenses around, which I'm a sucker for, but this one just feels so nice on the camera that I can't complain.

You also have the ability to override the auto-focus at anytime without flipping a switch. Nice feature but the feel of the focus ring leaves a bit to be desired. Mine is a little gritty feeling which makes precise adjustments more difficult. I also use older manual focus lenses frequently so I'm probably a bit spoiled by their smoothness.

If you've read any of the reviews you know all of the technical details by now and yes this lens is SHARP! And not just resolution, but great contrast too. Take a look at this shot. If you look at the large version, you can see that the fence is not at the point of sharpest focus (it's soft) but it still appears sharp in the normal size because of the great contrast in the grain.

Large

You can also see one of the weaknesses of the lens in the tree branches in the upper right, some modest purple fringing and longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA: green/magenta color fringing in out of focus areas). The purple fringing is actually much better than the kit lens, which was a pet peeve of mine, and I haven't found any that I couldn't correct (hide) in post-production. Also note that purple fringing is a characteristic of the camera/lens combination, not just the lens. LoCA is present but it's hard to fault the lens since it is found in just about any fast prime lens. Even uber-lenses like Canon's 85mm f1.2L exhibit it to some extent. Also somewhat correctable in post-production but not to the extent that other types of color fringing are. Up to this point, I haven't noticed any lateral CA worth worrying about.

I've also noticed a couple hiccups in the AF. Sometimes it just misses. It doesn't hunt, it just misses. If I half-press 2 or three times, it will achieve a more accurate focus. Not sure whether this is indicative of the camera's performance or the lens' performance, though. I haven't noticed the same behavior with the kit lens but I'm dealing with much smaller apertures, so it could still be happening, just covered up by the larger depth of field.

So would I recommend the lens? Absolutely. It earns all of its $200 price tag. Unless you're specifically looking for a portrait lens, I would recommend this over the 50mm f1.8 for APS-C users. The field of view is just more versatile than what the 50mm gives you. This is basically the lens I've been waiting for since I got my D40. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 was more than I wanted to pay and bulky. The 50mm is too long and didn't AF. The 35mm f2 didn't AF. There was always some compromise. Well, I finally got my fast normal prime so I can stop whining. Yey!

Shot from the hip. Yey auto-focus!