It's a miserable rainy day here in the Arctic north, so I thought I would entertain myself by doing a quick unscientific comparison of three lenses at 85mm on the D2x. I find 85mm an extremely pleasing and useful focal length on DX bodies (127.5mm film equivalent), and I wanted to see how discernable would be the differences in sharpness and color rendition among these three lenses that I enjoy a lot:
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM EX
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF
Nikon 85mm f/2 AIS
Again, my procedure was not intended to be technically exacting, as I am far too lazy to set up a rigorous testing protocol that would control for all the variables in such a comparison. Here are the relevant particulars of how I shot my little test:
-- tripod mounted with shutter released by self-timer
-- WB preset using ambient light sensor (same preset used for each lens)
-- manual exposure measured with incident light meter (f/4 at 1/6s)
-- AF with the Sigma and 85/1.4, MF (obviously) with the 85/2
-- in-camera sharpening Normal
-- JPEG Fine Large
-- Adobe color space, mode I
-- custom tone curve (the one developed by Andrew Raszevski
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=13805782), with -1.3 EV adjustment
-- no post processing, except for cropping and conversion to sRGB
Why the custom tone curve? And why JPEG? Well, I was interested to compare these lenses in "quick and dirty" real world terms, with an absolute minimum of post processing decisions. I didn't want to get into the thorny brambles of which RAW converter to use, nor worry too much about how much Levels and Curves to apply in PS. Of course I do shoot NEF in "mission critical" situations, but truthfully, the JPEG output from the D2x is pretty spectacular for everyday use. And if you're shooting JPEG, Andrew's tone curve comes as close as anything I've seen to producing acceptable "straight from the camera" results.
So, when shot under the conditions detailed above, here are images (and 100% detail) from the three lenses in question:
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM EX
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF
Nikon 85mm f/2 AIS
Conclusions? You are, of course, entitled to your own. What I would say is that:
1. With respect to sharpness, the 85/1.4 (not unexpectedly) was clearly the sharpest performer. The 85/2 came a fairly close second, and the Sigma, while lagging noticeably behind the two Nikon primes, still gave a very good account of itself.
2. With respect to color, the differences were far more subtle. I did examine the WhiBal for neutrality in PS, and all three lenses were largely free of color casts. (The Sigma deviated from neutrality *very* slightly more than the Nikons, but we're splitting hairs here.) To my eye, the 85/1.4 produced, by a small margin, the most saturated colors overall, followed by the Sigma, then the 85/2. I was particularly interested in comparing color differences, because some users/reviewers have not been altogether pleased in this regard with the Sigma (for example, Paul "MontyDog") and the 85/2 (notably Bjorn). Maybe I am fortunate to have especially good samples of these two lenses, because I've been quite satisfied with the color from both.
A few additional caveats to note: 1. For this test, I only shot each lens at a single aperture (f/4). Obviously, sharpness and (to a lesser degree) color will vary at other f-stops. 2. I did nothing in this setup to evaluate bokeh, although from experience I can report that all of these lenses are excellent in that respect, with the 85/1.4 being truly legendary. 3. Each lens was fitted with a high quality UV filter (Hoya HMC Super), which may have a very small impact on performance. 4. There are slight differences in exposure which I did not attempt to equalize in PS. 5. Both conversion to sRGB color space and pbase/Cafe compression will necessarily have affected the images you see in this posting.
So there you have it. I hope the comparison might be interesting and/or helpful to some, especially to those who might be considering either the Sigma or the AIS Nikon, which are mentioned occasionally in other threads but are not as well chronicled as the 85/1.4.
Best wishes,
David
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM EX
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF
Nikon 85mm f/2 AIS
Again, my procedure was not intended to be technically exacting, as I am far too lazy to set up a rigorous testing protocol that would control for all the variables in such a comparison. Here are the relevant particulars of how I shot my little test:
-- tripod mounted with shutter released by self-timer
-- WB preset using ambient light sensor (same preset used for each lens)
-- manual exposure measured with incident light meter (f/4 at 1/6s)
-- AF with the Sigma and 85/1.4, MF (obviously) with the 85/2
-- in-camera sharpening Normal
-- JPEG Fine Large
-- Adobe color space, mode I
-- custom tone curve (the one developed by Andrew Raszevski
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=13805782), with -1.3 EV adjustment
-- no post processing, except for cropping and conversion to sRGB
Why the custom tone curve? And why JPEG? Well, I was interested to compare these lenses in "quick and dirty" real world terms, with an absolute minimum of post processing decisions. I didn't want to get into the thorny brambles of which RAW converter to use, nor worry too much about how much Levels and Curves to apply in PS. Of course I do shoot NEF in "mission critical" situations, but truthfully, the JPEG output from the D2x is pretty spectacular for everyday use. And if you're shooting JPEG, Andrew's tone curve comes as close as anything I've seen to producing acceptable "straight from the camera" results.
So, when shot under the conditions detailed above, here are images (and 100% detail) from the three lenses in question:
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM EX
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Nikon 85mm f/2 AIS
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Conclusions? You are, of course, entitled to your own. What I would say is that:
1. With respect to sharpness, the 85/1.4 (not unexpectedly) was clearly the sharpest performer. The 85/2 came a fairly close second, and the Sigma, while lagging noticeably behind the two Nikon primes, still gave a very good account of itself.
2. With respect to color, the differences were far more subtle. I did examine the WhiBal for neutrality in PS, and all three lenses were largely free of color casts. (The Sigma deviated from neutrality *very* slightly more than the Nikons, but we're splitting hairs here.) To my eye, the 85/1.4 produced, by a small margin, the most saturated colors overall, followed by the Sigma, then the 85/2. I was particularly interested in comparing color differences, because some users/reviewers have not been altogether pleased in this regard with the Sigma (for example, Paul "MontyDog") and the 85/2 (notably Bjorn). Maybe I am fortunate to have especially good samples of these two lenses, because I've been quite satisfied with the color from both.
A few additional caveats to note: 1. For this test, I only shot each lens at a single aperture (f/4). Obviously, sharpness and (to a lesser degree) color will vary at other f-stops. 2. I did nothing in this setup to evaluate bokeh, although from experience I can report that all of these lenses are excellent in that respect, with the 85/1.4 being truly legendary. 3. Each lens was fitted with a high quality UV filter (Hoya HMC Super), which may have a very small impact on performance. 4. There are slight differences in exposure which I did not attempt to equalize in PS. 5. Both conversion to sRGB color space and pbase/Cafe compression will necessarily have affected the images you see in this posting.
So there you have it. I hope the comparison might be interesting and/or helpful to some, especially to those who might be considering either the Sigma or the AIS Nikon, which are mentioned occasionally in other threads but are not as well chronicled as the 85/1.4.
Best wishes,
David
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
), and it seems to me it is not quite as sharp as it can be.
