fStopstudios wrote:

Yes and no. Nothing scientific (i.e. imatest, and plots), but of course when I first got the 5d, I did plenty of side by sides. More to the point is that having taken well over 100k frames on d200s, and prob around 40-50k on the 5d, I have a pretty good handle on making generalizations when it comes to sharpness. The resolution and sharpness with unsharpned raw isn't that close... at least on my bodies. Again tho, i refer back to my previous post and say in terms of the 85L-- this is noise...

You didn't find a problem comparing a full frame chip with an APS using the same focal length lenses?
I was also curious how the film cameras fit into the comparison.

Livingston Photography wrote:
You didn't find a problem comparing a full frame chip with an APS using the same focal length lenses?
I was also curious how the film cameras fit into the comparison.

No I personally didn't have a problem. If anything, the d200 should be much sharper corner to corner due to the crop. I will make a generalization and say that if your shooting zooms-- yes the d200 was sharper in the corners, but that's a function of crop, not lens. When using the 85L and 135L tho, it was really the first time I've seen something come out unsharpened raw and said, wow-- too sharp as is (e.g. on faces/skin)

And my intention is certainly not to dredge up a c vs n debate, as the d200 has many merits that I miss. In fact, if it wasn't for some of the specific canon glass mentioned in this thread, I would gladly switch back to nikon. In terms of film (which is what I do most of my current nikon shooting on now), I don't even bother trying to compare. Partly because I'm using tri-x 400 most of the time and partly because i use film for 100 other reasons than sharpness.

Stephen Melvin wrote:
On a dSLR, the 85mm f/1.2 has an effective maximum aperture of f/1.4, due to the microlenses on the sensor. One little-reported effect of the microlenses is the light loss due to angular sensitivity at apertures wider than f/2.0

Here's the f-stop, t-stop (Transmission, which is the actual light transmitted) and the light loss for various apertures on the Kodak KAF sensor that Oly puts in the E-1. Most sensors will perform similarly or worse, unless they don't have microlenses. Thanks to Joseph S. Wisniewski for computing the response for each aperture:

fstop tstp loss
1.00 1.32 -0.78
1.21 1.44 -0.52
1.41 1.60 -0.35
1.80 1.92 -0.19
2.08 2.18 -0.13

Note that an f/1.0 lens (such as the 50mm f/1.0) loses nearly 4/5 of a stop when put on a dSLR.

did you graduate from the paul buff school of "effective" ratings?

fStopstudios wrote:
did you graduate from the paul buff school of "effective" ratings?

Ouch! At least you didn't compare me to Gary Fong...

Stephen Melvin wrote:
On a dSLR, the 85mm f/1.2 has an effective maximum aperture of f/1.4, due to the microlenses on the sensor. One little-reported effect of the microlenses is the light loss due to angular sensitivity at apertures wider than f/2.0

Here's the f-stop, t-stop (Transmission, which is the actual light transmitted) and the light loss for various apertures on the Kodak KAF sensor that Oly puts in the E-1. Most sensors will perform similarly or worse, unless they don't have microlenses. Thanks to Joseph S. Wisniewski for computing the response for each aperture:

fstop tstp loss
1.00 1.32 -0.78
1.21 1.44 -0.52
1.41 1.60 -0.35
1.80 1.92 -0.19
2.08 2.18 -0.13

Note that an f/1.0 lens (such as the 50mm f/1.0) loses nearly 4/5 of a stop when put on a dSLR.

But the lost stop can simply be compensated for with a slower shutter speed no? It seems to me the bokkeh, DOF, and optics are what people are buying these lenses for. I'm sure a small majority of people need to shoot wide open because of a low-light situation.

Interesting theory nevertheless.