My 180mm f/2.8D and my 105 f/2.5 AI-S lens are my favorite lenses for my D800. They are amazing. And while maybe not as sharp wide open as say a modern 70-200, neither are behind it by that much and both are sharp enough even wide open for 30-40 inch gallery quality prints. At like f/4-f/8 both are for practical purposes equal to any modern 70-200 sharpness wise. Anyone who cannot take a look at a shot from one of those lenses and a modern zoom or prime like the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E and see how much more rich, color saturated, contrasty, "3D" and just real the images the older lenses produce are, is in my opinion so artistically and visually illiterate their opinion about lenses is automatically void.
Nikkor 180mm. Absolutely stunning. Bought it because of your recommendation. I don't think there is anything else with such rendering, colors and "personality". You are so right!
This never gets old. Wish you were still on the photography video scene. Not for the casual photography guy because you are counter to what the Companies are selling the masses.
I think that what we are talking about is not resolution of the sensor in terms of pixels (so X,Y dimensions), but resolution of each individual sensor in a third dimension, which would be sensitivity of each individual pixel to colours, and how that interacts with a lens. I suppose that there are quite a few factors in here like how does the lense bend one colour compared to another (like a prism?) so maybe different colours from the same subject source dimensionally might land in a different place on the sensor, and, the fact that the different colour filtered photosites on the sensor are not in exactly the same place which maybe makes things worse. Does that sound about right?
For me micro contrast tonality richness. To keep it simple usually high end well design lenses have it. Even some zoom lens have it. For me the best i have ever have is Canon 300 2.8 IS, Znitar KMZ 50 1.7, Canon fd 24 2.8, Nikkor 105 2.5, Canon 135 2.0 L, Nikkor 35 2.0D, Nikkor 300 4.0 AF-S. In vario lens usually most L-zooms have some and some high end Nikkor zooms have it.
To this day my favorite photographs are ones I've taken with a Canon 5D mark 1 and a 40mm f/2.8 - By modern standards that combination is not sharp, or particularly colour accurate combination but my god those pictures jump off the screen/paper! I have no idea what contributes to it (I'm no physics major) but it has helped me understand that specs, harts and pixel count are far less important than we often believe. p.s. if someone could tell me why the 5D mark 1 pops like it does I'd really appreciate it.
So... in theory, the best camera would be one that splits the light in two and goes through one sensor that is monochrome and then goes through the other that is color and combines the two results into one gorgeous photo?
I love your videos and the information you present, I agree with fully. It would be infinitely more convincing to the masses if you actually included some sample images of the same subject matter taken with different sensors, different lenses, and with and without flash. I realize this would take a lot more effort and time to do, but it would really help to STOP the debates from going on and on endlessly if a proper comparison was presented with actual photographic evidence instead of a he said she said thing... this is a photography topic after all, not a language class. I know that it is easy to see large differences in image fidelity and SNR, even in shrunken images so it could be presented in a video, although links to full size image files would be even better.
TH-camr denaeandandrew did a BnW blind test video using a monochrome leica vs. fuji xt3 bnw simulation. Micro contrast is REAL and VERY noticeable under such a test. I don't like leica but man, it beats fuji by a mile in BnW. If only fuji would answer with a monochrome cam of their own.
Walter Mandler seems to have understood this method of balancing sharpness, microcontrast, OOF transitions etc. It seems he looked at the full image rather than 1 singular lens quality. I prefer his lens designs to the newer Leica glass. Do you feel that Voigtländer has been sort of modifying these old masterpieces (not just Mandler)?
And people who have no clue about photography can tell the difference. When shown comparisons between newer Canon lens shots and shots taken with older vintage lenses, they say that the shots taken with the older lenses look more professional. The shading tonality of the shots from the older lenses makes the images more 3D and usually bokeh is much better as well. Lower element counts and less or no coating. I would like a monochrome camera to take it even further but the cost would likely be too high to justify.
Hi, I'm new to photography and have bought myself a used fuji xt-1 to utilise vintage lenses. Don't know where to start, Do you have any recommendations?
Bentheguy Ken has so many vids on old glass. Just go through the archives and find your focal length. I’m a fan of old Super Takumars personally. Well built, great glass. Try the 28mm 3.5 or the 35mm 3.5 (this ones a razor)
@@bentheguy101 Yeah, Takumars. My favourites are actually the really old preset ones but all the SMC Takumars are good. The 50mm is an obvious starting place but the 55mm is cheap. A dirt cheap and really good lens is the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm. Not as well made as Takumars but the glass is very good. Lots of good old Nikons as well.
@@bentheguy101 My favourite lenses are these older Takumars. I have lots of them but they may be more difficult to find now. The SMC ones are much easier to get. www.klassik-cameras.de/Pentax_Takumar_e.html
Right on the spot again, Ken. Believe it or not, but the best micro contrast photos I've ever done and seen, were the one I took with my Smena-8 with B&W Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros. There isn't a software that can create a micro contrast. This is the only thing that make me nostalgic about film and B&W photos.
It makes sense that a larger quantity of elements will result in a picture with less contrast and saturation as each element will produce a non zero amount of diffraction and reflections. These will then add across all elements degrading the image. Nikons 500mm F4e has 16 elements and a basically flat MFT curve. Despite this it produces an impeccable image. How is this the case? Is its just a difference in production quality or a some property of the design?
the hell id doesn't exist, just for example put the Voigtlander 58mm up against any Canon or Nikon or the wonderful Sigmas, a half blind person will see the micro contrast,
Actually in the music, the audio fidelity (speakers) was measured as Hz range, if I remember correctly? Or at least part of the fidelity. Maybe somebody could measure the microcontrast too. I do not need it, but in principle
I had the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for Canon. And something was wrong with this lens compared to the Canon kit lens 18-55 STM. Can’t describe it ... it didn’t had a character...
Ken, you reviewed the Fujinon 16-80mm favorably a while back. How come this item is not in stock anywhere? There are reports on diaper review that it may have "issues." Do you have any info?
You could make a list of the best image fidelity lens starting from the f2.8 billot it would help people to get one of those lens what can bring a “je ne sais quoi” to users. Does most of fuji lens are able to be part of that category?
Dan should have my XT-2 tomorrow for monochrome conversion. Been waiting a year for him to offer this, wohooo!! Can't wait to get it back so that I can take some unicorn images!
@Alessandro LinuxBSD Ken or Dan at MaxMax should have an answer to that. I am getting it converted for monochrome work primarily. I may experiment with IR down the road. I believe Ken has made recommendations on individual lenses that work for IR (don't exhibit hot spot, etc.). I'm more interested in the output of this camera and some very nice (high image fidelity) glass that I've been collecting over the last couple of years.
I always think that the reason people don't see the difference is not the camera or the lenses, but the monitor they are using. It is pretty obvious that a good and faithful file displayed in a poor monitor won't produce the tonal resolution needed for this.
Maybe if you had provided any examples it would’ve been easier to follow your reasoning. As you said, only 1 in 999 photographers can see it. I can’t. I think micro-contrast could be real, but it isn’t measurable. What’s worse: no one can detect it in a blind test. Unless they are explicitly told the brand of the camera and the expensive lens, they are unable to spot it.
Sharp, sharp, sharp lenses lacking microcontrast as compared to lenses exhibiting good microcontrast is like comparing thumbtacks to a quality teddy bear.
hehe i shoot canon/fuji but! i use planars on my canon strictly 50 and 85 (both f1.4 ZE) and! This is what you're talking about, why everyone is asking me, what is that lens?;>
For street, smallest and lightest 50mm or 35mm. (Street photographers are mostly split between these 2 focal points) sharpness and image quality is not important for that genre. Good render of colors is a bonus though.
Nikkor 180mm F/2.8 wow... Still have my AIS manual focus bought for my F3HP and two copies of the 180 D. Almost never leave home without it in bag or pack. Great images on both D700 and D300s. I am sure they will still be fantasic on a D850 when I am able to afford it. Keep up the great work, Ken.
after your videos, when I look at other channels, I am as if in the jungle and monkeys are getting off the banana trees and starting to explain rocket science
Get your point, image fidelity is not an attribute can be read in MTF chart. But what attribute is it you are suggesting. Dont tell me it is not measurable, it is the case, engineer will have no clue to achieve it, or can only get it from sheer luck. Yelling esoteric cannot help audience to make right choice. So can you define what quality of lens make them deliver better image fidelity? Engineers need this to design better lens.
"Microcontrast does not exist" - what are you, blind? ... The more important question to the viewers - you watch the mental outpourings of short-sighted "photographers" .. Virgin explains which pose is the best. - not good enough analogy I will tell it simple too - go watch some masterpiece made with 8x10 film camera (or something like the GFX), then look at the result from the Sh*** you got, analyse the difference, and you will understand. (microcontrast is not only from the lens, I understood that at the beginning)
mr angry photographer i think you should keep secret the intertonal gain. so we could differenciate the real photogeek or just seasonal hobbist. it's really hard to explain this subject when most millenial never experience film camera and never really paying attention to camera and optic knowledge history.
If it helps you sleep at night I'm a seasonal hobbist and after watching this video my understanding of micro contrast has not increased at all. Your secret's safe for now.
I think you have good things to say but you say it in a bad way. Highly intelligent people who have a burning desire to point out the ignorance of others suffer from low self-esteem.
Its 2024 and I'm back for refuelling.
One of the greatest Ken rants of all time. Thank you sir. You are a true original.
My 180mm f/2.8D and my 105 f/2.5 AI-S lens are my favorite lenses for my D800. They are amazing. And while maybe not as sharp wide open as say a modern 70-200, neither are behind it by that much and both are sharp enough even wide open for 30-40 inch gallery quality prints. At like f/4-f/8 both are for practical purposes equal to any modern 70-200 sharpness wise. Anyone who cannot take a look at a shot from one of those lenses and a modern zoom or prime like the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E and see how much more rich, color saturated, contrasty, "3D" and just real the images the older lenses produce are, is in my opinion so artistically and visually illiterate their opinion about lenses is automatically void.
Nikkor 180mm. Absolutely stunning. Bought it because of your recommendation. I don't think there is anything else with such rendering, colors and "personality". You are so right!
This never gets old. Wish you were still on the photography video scene. Not for the casual photography guy because you are counter to what the Companies are selling the masses.
I think that what we are talking about is not resolution of the sensor in terms of pixels (so X,Y dimensions), but resolution of each individual sensor in a third dimension, which would be sensitivity of each individual pixel to colours, and how that interacts with a lens. I suppose that there are quite a few factors in here like how does the lense bend one colour compared to another (like a prism?) so maybe different colours from the same subject source dimensionally might land in a different place on the sensor, and, the fact that the different colour filtered photosites on the sensor are not in exactly the same place which maybe makes things worse.
Does that sound about right?
For me micro contrast tonality richness. To keep it simple usually high end well design lenses have it. Even some zoom lens have it. For me the best i have ever have is Canon 300 2.8 IS, Znitar KMZ 50 1.7, Canon fd 24 2.8, Nikkor 105 2.5, Canon 135 2.0 L, Nikkor 35 2.0D, Nikkor 300 4.0 AF-S. In vario lens usually most L-zooms have some and some high end Nikkor zooms have it.
To this day my favorite photographs are ones I've taken with a Canon 5D mark 1 and a 40mm f/2.8 - By modern standards that combination is not sharp, or particularly colour accurate combination but my god those pictures jump off the screen/paper! I have no idea what contributes to it (I'm no physics major) but it has helped me understand that specs, harts and pixel count are far less important than we often believe.
p.s. if someone could tell me why the 5D mark 1 pops like it does I'd really appreciate it.
So... in theory, the best camera would be one that splits the light in two and goes through one sensor that is monochrome and then goes through the other that is color and combines the two results into one gorgeous photo?
I love your videos and the information you present, I agree with fully. It would be infinitely more convincing to the masses if you actually included some sample images of the same subject matter taken with different sensors, different lenses, and with and without flash. I realize this would take a lot more effort and time to do, but it would really help to STOP the debates from going on and on endlessly if a proper comparison was presented with actual photographic evidence instead of a he said she said thing... this is a photography topic after all, not a language class. I know that it is easy to see large differences in image fidelity and SNR, even in shrunken images so it could be presented in a video, although links to full size image files would be even better.
For some reason all I could think of is alternate reality Ken yelling at this Ken and popping off!
TH-camr denaeandandrew did a BnW blind test video using a monochrome leica vs. fuji xt3 bnw simulation. Micro contrast is REAL and VERY noticeable under such a test. I don't like leica but man, it beats fuji by a mile in BnW. If only fuji would answer with a monochrome cam of their own.
I think micro contrast is easier to understand, if you have worked intensively with BW darkroom techniques, and perhaps with the zone system.
Walter Mandler seems to have understood this method of balancing sharpness, microcontrast, OOF transitions etc. It seems he looked at the full image rather than 1 singular lens quality. I prefer his lens designs to the newer Leica glass. Do you feel that Voigtländer has been sort of modifying these old masterpieces (not just Mandler)?
I'm glad people have no clue about this. It enabled me to build a collection of awesome vintage lenses.
And people who have no clue about photography can tell the difference. When shown comparisons between newer Canon lens shots and shots taken with older vintage lenses, they say that the shots taken with the older lenses look more professional. The shading tonality of the shots from the older lenses makes the images more 3D and usually bokeh is much better as well. Lower element counts and less or no coating.
I would like a monochrome camera to take it even further but the cost would likely be too high to justify.
Hi, I'm new to photography and have bought myself a used fuji xt-1 to utilise vintage lenses. Don't know where to start, Do you have any recommendations?
Bentheguy Ken has so many vids on old glass. Just go through the archives and find your focal length.
I’m a fan of old Super Takumars personally. Well built, great glass. Try the 28mm 3.5 or the 35mm 3.5 (this ones a razor)
@@bentheguy101 Yeah, Takumars. My favourites are actually the really old preset ones but all the SMC Takumars are good. The 50mm is an obvious starting place but the 55mm is cheap. A dirt cheap and really good lens is the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm. Not as well made as Takumars but the glass is very good. Lots of good old Nikons as well.
@@bentheguy101 My favourite lenses are these older Takumars. I have lots of them but they may be more difficult to find now. The SMC ones are much easier to get.
www.klassik-cameras.de/Pentax_Takumar_e.html
Right on the spot again, Ken. Believe it or not, but the best micro contrast photos I've ever done and seen, were the one I took with my Smena-8 with B&W Fujifilm Neopan 100 Acros. There isn't a software that can create a micro contrast. This is the only thing that make me nostalgic about film and B&W photos.
Nailed it! That’s the best mic drop on TH-cam.
that is why I buy the lens based on your previous Best Microcontrast lens video 2017.
So light behaving like a particle and wave at the same time it’s definitely a thing in physics….but good video on contrast in optics
Foveon doesn't need a colour filter... don't know if sigma still uses them . would be interesting in a L-mount camera with Leica glass...
Sigma Faveon photos are unreal sharp. First time I saw such a photo I was blown away. Bit it looks kinda unreal..
It makes sense that a larger quantity of elements will result in a picture with less contrast and saturation as each element will produce a non zero amount of diffraction and reflections. These will then add across all elements degrading the image. Nikons 500mm F4e has 16 elements and a basically flat MFT curve. Despite this it produces an impeccable image. How is this the case? Is its just a difference in production quality or a some property of the design?
Could you make a video on old contax lenses? What would you pick? Based on microcontrast
I heard a gray haired man say that micro contrast was just sharpness, lol
Does that man have a photographer as a wife ?
@@SamSpeed90 It's Tony, It's always Tony.
the hell id doesn't exist, just for example put the Voigtlander 58mm up against any Canon or Nikon or the wonderful Sigmas, a half blind person will see the micro contrast,
If you can see it, why can't you measure it?
@@nickdsnik1675 measurewhat do you eyes to see the difference when you compare the two side by side WTF
@@YOJIMMIE No, it doesn't exist, you can't measure it, so it's not there. Please go on with your rage
@@gavingynert2455 got a couple of werds fer u GFYS
@@YOJIMMIE Yeah, whatever man, but please don't get a heart attack
Actually in the music, the audio fidelity (speakers) was measured as Hz range, if I remember correctly? Or at least part of the fidelity.
Maybe somebody could measure the microcontrast too.
I do not need it, but in principle
It’s like having thick Monster Cables on your expensive speakers and claiming the sound is much better 😋😜
I had the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 for Canon. And something was wrong with this lens compared to the Canon kit lens 18-55 STM. Can’t describe it ... it didn’t had a character...
Ken, you reviewed the Fujinon 16-80mm favorably a while back. How come this item is not in stock anywhere? There are reports on diaper review that it may have "issues." Do you have any info?
You could make a list of the best image fidelity lens starting from the f2.8 billot it would help people to get one of those lens what can bring a “je ne sais quoi” to users. Does most of fuji lens are able to be part of that category?
no, only a couple lenses
Theoria Apophasis thank you but that’s unfortunate does all of those are primes or it includes the red badges as well?
Dan should have my XT-2 tomorrow for monochrome conversion. Been waiting a year for him to offer this, wohooo!! Can't wait to get it back so that I can take some unicorn images!
wooot!!
@Alessandro LinuxBSD - I didn't see this model listed on their website (maximal.com).
Sorry, maxmax.com
@Alessandro LinuxBSD Ken or Dan at MaxMax should have an answer to that. I am getting it converted for monochrome work primarily. I may experiment with IR down the road. I believe Ken has made recommendations on individual lenses that work for IR (don't exhibit hot spot, etc.). I'm more interested in the output of this camera and some very nice (high image fidelity) glass that I've been collecting over the last couple of years.
Lov the channel!! do you have a top ten list of lenses with dimensional rendering or 3d pop that can be adapted to e-mount?
This reminded me of Tony Northup's video about filters for long exposure for some reason. People who say something is not necessary/doesn't exist.
Why are you so mad though?
im not mad, laugh more
Theoria Apophasis okay. I’m not laughing, it was a genuine q. Good day
I always think that the reason people don't see the difference is not the camera or the lenses, but the monitor they are using. It is pretty obvious that a good and faithful file displayed in a poor monitor won't produce the tonal resolution needed for this.
Antonio J Pérez Castro Exactly. Most monitors are only 8 bit!
On a crappy monitor you can see it too. Not so clear but you see it.
Perhaps you could make a complete video on how to judge a lens...
Is the fuji 50mm f2 best for micro contrast? And by the way wheres your sunflower butter?
Waiting on Fuji for an XT3 Monochrome.
Set the vid at 2x speed and enjoy!
It's easy to get microcontrast, just go see some Sigma reviews; super sharp, but something's missing...that 's microcontrast.
HOW DARE YOU TELL THE TRUTH
@@KenTheoriaApophasis I prefer to look at this like a conspiracy theory thing; the fewer people know about it, the better... for them😜
Maybe if you had provided any examples it would’ve been easier to follow your reasoning. As you said, only 1 in 999 photographers can see it. I can’t. I think micro-contrast could be real, but it isn’t measurable. What’s worse: no one can detect it in a blind test. Unless they are explicitly told the brand of the camera and the expensive lens, they are unable to spot it.
Sharp, sharp, sharp lenses lacking microcontrast as compared to lenses exhibiting good microcontrast is like comparing thumbtacks to a quality teddy bear.
hehe i shoot canon/fuji but! i use planars on my canon strictly 50 and 85 (both f1.4 ZE) and! This is what you're talking about, why everyone is asking me, what is that lens?;>
For a brilliant man who owns some very very good Microphones, I wonder why your sound Sucks ? Are you using the Preamps in camera?
No he is screaming and ranting too loud 🤪🤪
What lens would you recommend for street photography and landscape photography? I have Nikon d3300
For street, smallest and lightest 50mm or 35mm. (Street photographers are mostly split between these 2 focal points) sharpness and image quality is not important for that genre. Good render of colors is a bonus though.
@@Almarillion I have the 35mm f1.8 lens
@@ganstaboii2332 that is a 50mm ff eq for you. Which f1.8 btw?
@@Almarillion nikon f1.8g lens
Hey.... Hey.... HEY!!! You forgot your intro music.
Du du tudu du du
@@Marshallchandra Excellent!
Very informative, but I won't be able to sleep now....
Nikkor 180mm F/2.8 wow... Still have my AIS manual focus bought for my F3HP and two copies of the 180 D. Almost never leave home without it in bag or pack. Great images on both D700 and D300s. I am sure they will still be fantasic on a D850 when I am able to afford it. Keep up the great work, Ken.
love this video im looking a lens for my s1h
Guru Boy wants the Kentucky Fried.
As usual there are the non believers on DPreview. You have to have a look there, it’s hilarious 🤣
after your videos, when I look at other channels, I am as if in the jungle and monkeys are getting off the banana trees and starting to explain rocket science
Lol, bananas. Absolutely bananas 🤠
Another one of these videos, huh? 😆
Great Explanation!!!!!
Get your point, image fidelity is not an attribute can be read in MTF chart. But what attribute is it you are suggesting. Dont tell me it is not measurable, it is the case, engineer will have no clue to achieve it, or can only get it from sheer luck. Yelling esoteric cannot help audience to make right choice. So can you define what quality of lens make them deliver better image fidelity? Engineers need this to design better lens.
nice 😱 Thank you sir 🙏
can u please go back to uploading 1080p footage
Ultimate Microchimp 🔬
one of the raw editing programs i used before has a microcontrast slider...
Zo ken ik je weer!
"Microcontrast does not exist" - what are you, blind? ...
The more important question to the viewers - you watch the mental outpourings of short-sighted "photographers" ..
Virgin explains which pose is the best. - not good enough analogy
I will tell it simple too - go watch some masterpiece made with 8x10 film camera (or something like the GFX), then look at the result from the Sh*** you got, analyse the difference, and you will understand. (microcontrast is not only from the lens, I understood that at the beginning)
📸
I know its salt when you say you think light is lol
Nailed it for sure! (Y)
mr angry photographer i think you should keep secret the intertonal gain. so we could differenciate the real photogeek or just seasonal hobbist. it's really hard to explain this subject when most millenial never experience film camera and never really paying attention to camera and optic knowledge history.
If it helps you sleep at night I'm a seasonal hobbist and after watching this video my understanding of micro contrast has not increased at all. Your secret's safe for now.
everything is SNR!
Yup, that was definitive! Thank you! VA1TIM
Simple put some lenses are better than others. The end.
I think you have good things to say but you say it in a bad way. Highly intelligent people who have a burning desire to point out the ignorance of others suffer from low self-esteem.