NIKON £100 and £1200 lens can you tell the differance?

which photo was taken with the nikon 85mm F1.4G

  • Total voters
    112
S

straycat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,582
Edit My Images
Yes
i hope i managed to remove the exif [by loading to facebook then back again] :thinking:

anyway i took some photos of my niece the other day

with two recently arrived to me lens



nikon 85mm F1.4G

and a

Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5


a little editing, sharpening and that.

CAN YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS TAKEN WITH WHICH LENS?

ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC JUST TAKE IT AS A BIT OF FUN AND A COMMENT ON EQUIPMENT HUNTING :)




PICTURE A
02854b13.jpg






PICTURE B
01b580ef.jpg




here they are as they came out the camera, i may have been using DOF to try and put you of the scent.




AAA.jpg






BBB.jpg
 
Last edited:
I agree that the second image is with the prime. Perhaps would have been better if you had used the same aperture for both.

How does the zoom perform at f1.4?
 
Last edited:
I agree though I wonder how much of it's down to the lens and how much of it's down to editing?
 
It's only a valid test if the only change is the lens itself... All other settings (including all PP and the aperture) need to be the same...

I think the sharpening on A has been overdone - look at the individual hairs that you can see, and compare it with B...

B looks better to me...
 
I'd have to agree with what most of the above posters have already said. B has a much shallower depth of field and also looks much sharper in the focus areas - the eyes look razor sharp.
 
A = zoom
B = Prime

The contrast, details and the clarity, as well as the shallow and soft dof really separate the 2 images.
 
I have the 28-105 (and the 85/1.4D) the 28-105 lacks the modern nano coating so the colours are not as vibrant as the modern nano coated lenses.

The colours / tones of 'B' look more akin to what I would expect from my 28-105, the colours / tones from 'A' look more like those from my nano coated glass.

But whatever way around they are it shows what good value the £100 28-105 is.

So I would say A = Prime, B= Zoom
 
all in all do you thing there is a big differance?


here they are as they came out the camera, i may have been using DOF to try and put you of the scent.




AAA.jpg






BBB.jpg
 
they're not identical ..............
focal distance/or crop
WB
aperture/speed

INVALID....:D

more definition in lower lip of ''B'' though.....prime..?
 
ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC JUST TAKE IT AS A BIT OF FUN

to quote myself



they are 2 very different lens i think the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 i s very good for the money.

i used it as my travel lens on my motorbike yesterday,i put it on my D700 binned the hood and put it in the lowepro 55 aw i bought here recently along with a cpl.
the D700 has an inbuilt flash so ABC more or less.
it fitted nice and easy in my tankbag and was easy to carry around with all my other bike gear :love:
 
well althought the 2nd picture has less dof, the picture quality between the 2 doesnt warent an extra £1100...... now do the same test hand holding in low light ;)
 
DoubleT said:
well althought the 2nd picture has less dof, the picture quality between the 2 doesnt warent an extra £1100...... now do the same test hand holding in low light ;)
Click to expand...

true,but not the point.
 
A has quite a lot of vignetting and B doesn't - plus A appears to have more noise in the hair (LHS) indicating it needed a faster ISO than lens B.

Methinks B is the 85mm.
 
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I understand the point of this.

We could all take a pair of shots with a £100 lens and a £1000 lens that look very similar. All lenses these days work pretty well, at least in the central part of the image, if you stop them down to f/5.6 and f/8.

But that's not why you spend £1000 rather than £100. Here are some more interesting tests:
  • Take a pair of photos by candlelight at f/1.4 and compare them. Oops, forgot, the £100 lens won't work at f/1.4.
  • Take a pair of photos with fiddly detail in the corners of the frame, and compare them.
  • Take a pair of photos in the driving rain and compare them. If the £100 lens hasn't packed up through water ingress, that is.
  • Beat someone over the head with the lenses and then take a pair of photos and compare them. If there's anything left of the £100 lens to take a photo with.
 
StewartR said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I understand the point of this.


[*]Beat someone over the head with the lenses and then take a pair of photos and compare them. If there's anything left of the £100 lens to take a photo with.
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

In all fairness my 28-105 looks like its previous owner had used it in several war zones and it still works like a charm :D

What would separate them is take a shot of a distant subject and see which has the better resolution of fine detail.
 
Martyn... said:
In all fairness my 28-105 looks like its previous owner had used it in several war zones and it still works like a charm :D
Click to expand...
It LOOKS like it's been used in several war zones.... My point exactly. ;)

Actually, those old-school Nikon designs certainly were tough. You should see the 135mm f/2. It looks and feels like it's been carved out of a solid block of metal. You could use it to hammer in tent pegs and it would still be fine.

But modern consumer-spec lenses just aren't engineered he same way.
 
StewartR said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure I understand the point of this.

We could all take a pair of shots with a £100 lens and a £1000 lens that look very similar. All lenses these days work pretty well, at least in the central part of the image, if you stop them down to f/5.6 and f/8.

But that's not why you spend £1000 rather than £100. Here are some more interesting tests:
  • Take a pair of photos by candlelight at f/1.4 and compare them. Oops, forgot, the £100 lens won't work at f/1.4.
  • Take a pair of photos with fiddly detail in the corners of the frame, and compare them.
  • Take a pair of photos in the driving rain and compare them. If the £100 lens hasn't packed up through water ingress, that is.
  • Beat someone over the head with the lenses and then take a pair of photos and compare them. If there's anything left of the £100 lens to take a photo with.
Click to expand...

thats not the point


CAN YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS TAKEN WITH WHICH LENS?

ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC JUST TAKE IT AS A BIT OF FUN AND A COMMENT ON EQUIPMENT HUNTING
 
Probably not with the posted examples, but that doesn't mean that they are equal, the higher price lens will start to show its qualities in the conditions that have been described earlier. Almost any lens nowadays will take a good detailed snapshot and if thats all you want, buy a cheap lens.
But, if you want consistant results, good low light shots, nice creamy bokeh, good colour reproduction, sharp corners and fine detail on heavily cropped photos, you need to pay for it.

I would be happy with photo B. A looks a little false coloured, the hair is exhibiting pixelation and the image looks very flat.

Allan
 
StewartR said:
Beat someone over the head with the lenses and then take a pair of photos and compare them. If there's anything left of the £100 lens to take a photo with.
Click to expand...

Surely that really depends on how hard you beat them with it, and whose head it is :D seriously though i have done tests before with cheap lens V expensive and yes a lot of the time you can only tell a slight difference in some aspects, but as has already been mentioned in low light conditions speed, Bokeh and photo quality on the more expensive will win every time, however it just shows how good some of the cheaper end lenses can do nowadays, and if your not using in a pro capacity with low light conditions you can get some great results, posts like this always interest me so thanks for taking the time for doing the comparision (y)
 
i would of done it more scientific same aperature focal length etc.but it was a bit of fun.:)

how anyone can think i dont realise the advantages of my 85mm F1.4G or the D before that i dont know :D

nice as it is though its got no wideangle nor macro :thinking:
 
Yes everyone could tell the difference. So does that make the prime worth the extra money?

Nope.

What Stewart wrote above is what makes the lens worth the extra money so I think it is you who has missed the point. :wacky:
 
joescrivens said:
Yes everyone could tell the difference. So does that make the prime worth the extra money?

Nope.

What Stewart wrote above is what makes the lens worth the extra money so I think it is you who has missed the point. :wacky:
Click to expand...

is this aimed at me?if so i dont see the point of your trolling comment and insult.

look at my first post i wrote in capitals so even the trollest could see


CAN YOU TELL WHICH ONE IS TAKEN WITH WHICH LENS?

ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC JUST TAKE IT AS A BIT OF FUN AND A COMMENT ON EQUIPMENT HUNTING


if i was to beat anyone around the head with the 28-105 they would be in pain its built as tough as the the 85mm not the sort of thing i do though. .:)

i have just come back from France on my motorbike i took one lens only the 28-105 and my D700 i have a D3s and many lens from 20mm to 300mm i know what i am doing so there must have been a reason i took it?

f6f40b9e.jpg
 
Why bother making the 2 images of the same girl, if you're not using the same settings etc then you might as well compare completely different images and ask us to identify which one was the prime.
 
Oh Jeez, is everyone so fixated with scientific mumbo jumbo they have forgotten what taking pictures is about?

Straycat - I see EXACTLY what you were on about.

Everyone who thinks they need to hide their light under a bushel because they don't have the latest Nanbread technology in their bag can come out and realise that their cheapo lens will still produce some worthwhile pictures. THAT WAS THE POINT. Nothing else...you all had to look hard to tell the difference. That was with the two pictures side by side. Now take one and put it on YOUR sideboard in a frame....take the other to Auntie Sheila's in John O'Groats and put it in a frame on HER sideboard...then tell them apart.(y)

The first one has too red a skin tone, but I think that was done in the confuser, not in camera. I think the picture of the bike is more telling...lack of contrast and some flare creeping in, but for a ton of squids it doesn't do a bad job does it.

Besides, anyone who rides a Kwacker doesn't deserve anything better than a kit lens!:geek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top