Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA compared to Nikon Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 non-Ai

I find I don't normally need much focal length.  On those occasions when I do, there is the 70-350 G Sony that is actually quite brilliant on the APS-C bodies.  When coupled to the A6000, there's nothing to stop me making a decent image from far away.  Cars and motorcycles at the autodrome.

This leaves me wondering how I've accumulated this many manual focus telephoto lenses.  I still have four of them.

Question: Why have so many long-ish lenses have passed through my hands?  Why I buy them and then after several years sell them on? 

Answer: Manual focus telephoto lenses are a PIA, but... but... but... I get caught up in "this is a great lens that nobody knows about."  

I need to get with the program and remember why I don't like using manual focus telephoto lenses and nip future manual focus telephoto lens purchases in the bud.

Sure, there is focus peaking, but it's really only successful if I'm careful and paying attention.  I've found that my eyes aren't what they used to be.  Either that or I've grown impatient.  AF is Dialing for Dollars at the home of this Grumpy Old Fart.  Am I smart enough to pick up the phone?

Yet... I just can't seem to part with a Nikon Nikkor-P (Xenotar-type) 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai.  I'm not sure why, but I just can't let this one go.  Before deciding once and for all if it stays or goes, I thought I'd better put the 105mm up against the much more modern 55mm f/1.8 Sony ZA.  If the 105mm came out poorly, then I'd know which way to proceed.

While I'm at it, why not compare these against an old Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 Ai?  It's reportedly the "Cat's Meow" when it comes to resolution.  I've never really taken to the Micro-Nikkor 105mm.  An old 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor?  Yes.  That's a brilliant lens from wide open.  This 105mm f/4?  Eh, not so much.  I'll be happy to sell it when a buyer comes along, like in 20 minutes.

This would leave me with two manual focus zooms that pass through 105mm, this Nikkor-P, and a beautiful 16-70mm Zeiss on APS-C that ends at, well, 105mm FF equivalent.  That still makes four 105mm lenses.  Gads, I'm rich in focal lengths I seldom use.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7, 100ISO, 2sec timer, "A" mode
  
• Lenses - 
• Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA
  
• Nikon Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai
• Nikon Micro-Nikkor f/4 Ai
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee -
• Snug up the curves
• With and without "Capture Sharpen" 
• _No_ chromatic aberration correction on any of these lenses
  

 

Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

 

Comments ~

My new (to me) Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA is brilliant from wide open and straight across the field.

The Nikon Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 pre-Ai is a Cats Thin Whisker behind the Sony from wide open and straight across the field.

Wide open the Nikon Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 Ai is visibly softer than the previous two lenses, but cleans up nicely at f/5.6

Add a bit of Rawtherapee Capture Sharpen and things appear quite equal between the three lenses.

It wouldn't cost me a dime to keep the 105mm Nikkor-P and I really should keep it as a "just in case" optic.  The only time I question the move is when I think about picking up an AF Sony 85mm f/1.8 or Sigma 90mm f/2.8 DG DN.  

 

What stops me?  The Sony is large-ish with a 67mm filter diameter and the Sigma suffers from pincushion distortion. The Nikkor-P is pretty much perfectly sized and suffers no distortion.

 

So to me there is no easy, clear answer just now.  If Sigma or Tamron were to make at the "right price" an AF lens as perfect as the Sigma 60mm Art and Sony 50mm SEL OSS are for APS-C, I'd probably reconsider my Nikkor-P.  Until then, I've pretty much decided this old Nikkor-P with current day levels of performance will stay in the kit.  Manual focus will remain an annoyance.

The Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/4 Ai was, in fact, sold 20 minutes after I wrote that earlier sentence about wishing it to be gone.

Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN, Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai comparison

Well, I did it.  I purchased an AF 24mm lens.  It's a Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN for Sony E.  It's a pretty little thing.

There are plenty of comprehensive reviews that look at the Sigma, so I will limit myself to comparing French political newspaper photos between the new lens and  my old Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai.  

I'm getting old.  Redundancy tends to confuse me.  For example, at one point I had 5 different 105mm Nikkors.  Which to use?  It was seldom an easy answer.  Perhaps the best answer for me is to simplify.  That leaves the current question - do I sell the Nikon now that I have the Sigma? 

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7, 100ISO, 2sec timer, "A" mode
  
• Lenses - 
• Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN
  
• Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee -
• Snug up the curves
• With and without "Capture Sharpen" 
• Automated chromatic aberration correction on the Nikkor
  

 

Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

 

Comments ~

Previously I realized that the corners of the Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai could clean up rather nicely by using a little Rawtherapee Chromatic Aberration correction.  I originally found a manual way of doing this and had set the sliders to +0.004 to get a good clean image all the way into the corners.  

 

While preparing this comparison I'd forgotten where the manual sliders were and stumbled across an automated function.  So I tried that this time around and, well, the results are about the same as what I'd performed manually.  Maybe my eyes aren't as bad as I think they are?

Looking at the center of the field, there's not much difference between the Sigma and the 40 year old Nikkor.  If I stare intently enough, I can see that the Sigma appears to be slightly sharper.

 

On the other hand the Nikkor gives a nice "meaty" sense of resolution.  I'll say more about this in another post, but this kind of "sharpness" is what I see in my new Sony ZA 35mm and 55mm lenses, as well as nearly every single Nikon Nikkor I've ever looked at.  There's something in common going on, here.  I suspect is has to do with optical design philosophies.

Considering the edges, there are three things that I see.  First, the Sigma is behaving like a very nice Flat Field lens.  It's sharp clear across the field into the corners.  As with before, the Nikkor corners clean up well by f/5.6 where it begins to look very "current" in it's rendition.

 

The second thing I see is that the Rawtherapee Chromatic Aberration correction works nicely on the Nikkor.  It's nice to note that this correction is not at all needed/useful with the Sigma.  The Sigma is beautiful in this regard where the Nikon benefits from a little (not much, really) help.

The third thing I see in the corners is that there is a bit more distortion in the Sigma than there is in the Nikkor.  The Nikkor looks quite "neutral" where the Sigma "pulls" a bit.  If I didn't have these side by side I'm not sure I'd notice much of anything.  But since we're here, I thought I'd better say something about it.

 

So where does this leave me?  We'll see, but I'm leaning toward selling the Nikon lens so someone else can benefit from its beautiful performance.

Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA compared to Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai ~ part Two

Still thinking about edge softness in old lens designs and the article Thom posted that asks the question of "Do lenses have character?" I thought I'd better have another look at my Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai. For completeness, as it were.  Just to verify I'd looked at as much I could before I let the pretty little lens find a new home.

In a prior post I looked at chromatic aberration software corrections and their limited effect on a Nikon Nikkor-O 35mm f/2 pre-Ai.  Since there wasn't much change after applying chromatic aberration corrections with the Nikkor-O I thought maybe the 24mm lens wouldn't clean up well either.

 

The Toy Drawer is getting ever lighter as lenses are being sold on.  What I've found for myself is that having too many lens options causes me to get wrapped around the axle a little more often than I'd like.  It's not very conducive to being productive at image creation.  I'm now wondering if I should keep any manual focus lenses "just in case."  These comparisons are helping me sort my feelings.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7 - ISO100, 2sec timer, +1EV, AWB, etc...
  
• Lenses - 
• Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA
• Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee -
  
• Snug up the curves
• With and without Capture Sharpen
• With and without chromatic aberration corrections (set to +0.004)
  

Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

Comments ~

With and without Capture Sharpening at anything wider than f/5.6 shows the 24mm's edges fail to clean up.  At f/5.6 on down, however, I can see that edge performance is looking nice and good, though it's still not up the Sony ZA 35mm's consistant across the field rendition.

Using RawTherapee's "Chromatic Aberrations" sliders, I moved them until the image at the edges looked "good" to my eyes.  It didn't take much, +0.004.  On close inspection the edges do, in fact, "look" better than the un-corrected versions.  It's subtle, but to me visible.

Adding "Capture Sharpen" to the chromatic aberration corrected images really makes the edges "pop".  These are quite usable, now.  What a contrast to my experience with the 35mm Nikkor-O!

Of course, wouldn't you know it?  After the previous comparison out of frustration I ordered a Sigma 24mm f/3.5 I.  The lens choice was made based on reviews seen across the "internets" for 24mm lenses with AF for the FE mount.  

NOTE on "internets": Thank ewe George B. Jr. for coining the word.  I'll never forget/forgive you for this.  

With this comparison I now wonder if I did the right thing?  OK.  OK.  Yes.  The whole Roto-Till Effort is to go all AF from now on.  Failing eyes and increased shaking hands.  Still, this Nikkor is pretty special for any lens of any age.  

The Sigma should be here shortly.  As soon as it arrives I'll put this Nikkor 24mm up against the Sigma.

Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA compared to Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai ~ part One

I must enjoy the pain, the strain, the bloodshot eyes.

Not leaving well enough alone, I wanted to see if it's worth keeping a pretty little Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai that I have.  I wanted to see how it compared to the Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA and see if I need to try, say, something else, something modern, something AF.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7, 100ISO, 2sec timer, "A" mode
  
• Lenses - 
• Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA
• Nikon Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 Ai
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee to snug up the curves, with and without "Capture Sharpen"
  

Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

 

Comments ~

Looking at the center crops from f/2.8 on down there's not much difference between the new and old lenses.  Incredibly (to me, at least), both look nice and sharp.  This continues to hold true after Capture Sharpening.  

 

Wide open at f/2.8 the Nikkor does not show the common under-corrected spherical aberration that Nikon seems to have deliberately designed into their old SLR lenses.  Wide open is where the original Nikon "magic pixies" live.  But in the center this c.1980 24mm "feels" very modern.  It clearly keeps up with a lens 40 years newer.

The corners OTOH show clear differences between the newer Sony and the older Nikkor.  The Nikkor's edges never really clean up, though I can see that stopping down does help edge performance in the old lens.  I didn't even try to Capture Sharpen the edges for this comparison.

The f/5.6 Nikkor corners don't look exactly bad.  It's mainly in comparison to the Sony 35mm that I get the "feeling" that the Nikkor isn't quite as "modern" as I first hoped.

At this point in my Massive All Consuming Roto-Till of old Nikon manual focus glass into New Modern Wowy Zowy AF Must Have To Be In With The In Crowd, it looked like maybe the Nikon 24mm Ai is a candidate to be tilled into something else.

Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA compared to Nikon Nikkor-O 35mm f/2 ~ part Two

I'm still pixel-peeping until the eyes go bloodshot.  I can't help myself.  I'm addicted to trying to understand differences between different optical designs and implementations and I'm between photo-opportunities with way too much time on my hands.

I noticed something just as my eyes were going bloodshot.  It concerns the edges of the field of the Nikon Nikkor-O 35mm f/2 pre-Ai that I have.  Yes, they are soft.  

Shortly after I noted the edge softness Thom posted an article that asks the question of "Do lenses have character?"  I found it a rather interesting history of lens design and its evolution.  

Something that caught my eye was his comment that "...a common thing I observe in lens characteristics, and one of the things that forms my use of the "old school" shorthand: the older the lens design, the less likely it performs well as you move closer to the corners..."

Indeed, one of the things I see at the edges is that the softness includes chromatic aberrations.  Unlike in 1971 when this lens was manufactured we now have software that can "correct" for this kind of aberration.  Might cleaning up the chromatic faults help make the corners appear sharper on this "old school" lens?  Here's my look at it.

 

As background, I'm still trying to figure out with of the last Nikon Nikkors I'll keep as my "just in case" lenses.  Not yet sure if I'll keep the Nikkor-O, but it does have some things I like about its rendition, so for now it'll stay in the Toy Drawer.

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7
• Lenses - 
• Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA
• Nikon Nikkor-O 35mm f/2
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee to snug up the curves, with and without chromatic aberration corrections and Capture Sharpen
  

Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Comments ~

As I previously said, without Capture Sharpening the Nikkor's edges never really clean up, though I can see that stopping down does help edge performance in the old lens.  Capture Sharpening the Nikkor-O at the edges begins to look decent starting at f/4 and looks pretty good at f/5.6, but it never ever comes close to that more current Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA.

Using RawTherapee's "Chromatic Aberrations" sliders, I moved them until the image looked "good" to my eyes.  It didn't take much, +0.003 or +0.004 depending on the aperture.

At f/2 and f/2.8 the chromatic aberration corrected images don't look all that much better than before.  The differences are subtle and take a bit of study to see.  At f/4 and f/5.6 things are coming a little closer to the Sony 35mm, but are still a bit away from the ZA's sense of perfection.

In the case of this Nikkor-O I really haven't added much to Thom's conversation other than to confirm this lens' edge is soft at wider apertures.  Maybe the lesson is in situations that demand it to stop down to f/4 to get it to behave more fully up modern lens standards.

Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA compared to Nikon Nikkor-O 35mm f/2 ~ part one

After pixel-peeping lens comparisons until the eyes go bloodshot, one obvious question is how much change has been made since the 1960's in optical design and manufacturing?  Now that I have a couple lenses that were designed 50 years apart, perhaps I can have a look?

 

As background, I'm trying to figure out with of the last Nikon Nikkors I'll keep as my "just in case" lenses.  I still have a very pretty Nikon Nikkor-O 35mm f/2 pre-Ai.  How does it compare with a more recent Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA?

Setup ~ 

• Camera - 
• Sony A7
• Lenses - 
• Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA
• Nikon Nikkor-O 35mm f/2
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee to snug up the curves, with and without "Capture Sharpen"
  

Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Comments ~

In the center from f/2.8 on down there's not much difference between the new and old lenses.  Both look nice and sharp.  This continues to hold true after Capture Sharpening.  Wide open at f/2, the Nikkor-O shows the common under-corrected spherical aberration that Nikon seems to have deliberately designed into their old SLR lenses.  Wide open is where the original Nikon "magic pixies" live.

The corners show clear differences between the newer Sony and the older Nikkor-O.  Without Capture Sharpening the Nikkor's edges never really clean up, though I can see that stopping down does help edge performance in the old lens.  With, however, Capture Sharpening the Nikkor-O is beginning to look decent starting at f/4 and looks pretty good at f/5.6.

The performance of a c.1970's lens matching modern optics?  OK, so the old Nikkor could use a bit of software support to clean up the corners.  Still. I'd say Nikon did a pretty good job designing and manufacturing the fast f/2 35mm optic 50 years ago.

Roto Till Time ~ mid-Till ~ part Five

The Sony 35mm f/2.8 FE ZA is a very fine optic. So I naturally thought about it as a replacement for the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN I have for the APS-C cameras that live here.

Except, it might not be as easy as I first hoped.  Comparing the Sony ZA to the Sigma was pretty easy.  But...

The Sony 35mm ZA failed repeatedly to focus accurately on this day and under these circumstances on an A6000.  It focused and still focuses correctly on an A7, a NEX-7, and a NEX-5T.  

To arrive at some meaningful understanding of what's going on, I manually focused the Sony to see if I could isolate the problem.

 

 

I like using le Canard as my comparison subject.  The typeset print gives a nice crisp transition from light to dark.

Setup ~ 

• Cameras - 
• Sony A7
• Sony A6000
• Lenses - 
• Sony 35mm f/2.8 ZA
• Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN 
• Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN
  
• Bogen tripod
  

• RawTherapee to snug up the curves, without "Capture Sharpen"
  

Comparison ~

As always, click on the image and enlarge to 100percent to see whatever there is to be seen.

 

Comments ~

Straight away it's clear that the Sony and Sigma lenses, with one camera/lens combination exception, do what they're supposed to.  That is, they are sharp from wide open across the field.

 

I also confirmed that my ability to manually focus these lenses in general is not as good as cameras AF systems.  Here is the reason I've decided to unload my beautiful manually focused old Nikon Nikkor lenses.  I feel the need for automated support for these old eyes.

Looking at the case of the Sony A6000 and 35mm ZA, the "missed focus" is evident wide open and at f/4.  By f/5.6 things clean up pretty well.  Looking closely at the AF series from this combination it "feels" to me like the actual focus point isn't all that far off the intended point.  

 

Am I making too much of this?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  

 

I've since gone back and tried this camera/lens combination on other subjects and it seems to focus correctly.  What happened during the comparison shown here?  I have no idea.  All I can say is that I turned the camera on and off several times and the contact points for the communications between the lens and camera looked to be OK.

I guess I'll have to file this under the heading of "Bizarre Unknowns."

 

 

Sony NEX-5T with good for nothing 16mpixel sensor,
Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN at f/4
Handheld.
Not half bad for a lens and camera that
are no longer made...

As for the comparison of the Sony 35mm ZA and Sigma 30mm on APS-C, the original reason for doing this comparison, can you see any difference between them?  I can't.

If for only the reason of uncertainty of focusing the ZA on the A6000, perhaps I'd do best to hold onto the old jewel Sigma 30mm.  The old Sigma is a great little optic.  

 

Why did Sigma stop making them?  Maybe there's no market for small/light/inexpensive/sharp lenses?  No.  I don't believe that.  Not for a moment do I believe that.