105mm FX shoot out. What do you think?

Four shots from four different lenses: two primes and two zooms. In no particular order, they are

Nikon 28-105mm 3.5-4.5D AF (paid $120 used)
Nikon 105mm 2.8 G ED AF-S VR (paid $500 used)
Nikon 105mm 2.5 (old manual lens, paid $75 used)
Sigma 70-300mm 4-5.6 AF (bought new, right now about $150 online)

Sorry for the big file sizes, but it would be great if you would tell me what you think is the best of these four pictures. They were all shot at f5.6 at 1250 shutter speed. The EXIF data has been stripped out, and the photos are not in the order listed above (or maybe they are??). Each shot is a crop from the original full sized file, resized for 72 ppi. I should figure out a better way to let you see the full-sized original file. (Hate to admit this, but I had turned off RAW last night to do a few HDR shots, and forgot to turn RAW back on before the test.)

Shot on a tripod, VR turned off (on that lens), all filters removed. Nikon D600 body.

You can right click each photo, and choose "Open in New Tab/Window" to see the image bigger than the window viewer.

Please tell me which image you think is best overall, or which one has the best color, clarity, contrast, bokeh, etc. I will be honest and say I see little difference on my big HD TV monitor.

I had to click on the links to see the pictures, this has the disadvantage that I could not compare them directly to each other.

I´m not the person that compares the chromatic aberration on extreme sides of the pictures and I have to confirm that they all looked very acceptable when going through them.
The question might be if the difference is essential and to whom? Certainly some will go crazy on minuscule differences, but is that your target public?

Nikon 105mm 2.5 (old manual lens, paid $75 used) looks like a fantastic deal combined with the D600.

Out of the 4, with my untrained eye, I liked "testb" just slightly more than "testd", which was a close second. "testa" is out, because the bokeh just didn't seem the same quality as the rest, and it lost some detail. "testc" also lost a little bit of the detail. Again, just my opinion as viewed through our piddly little work monitors. Perhaps I should take a closer look at home on the Mac.

You make a good point; when I get home I will do a crop at 100% and paste them all next to each other the way Rockwell does it.

The manual 105mm 2.5 is a good lens, but when used on a modern DSLR there is no split screen focusing aid like we used in the film days.

Pretzel, I don't even remember which is which, so will check my list at home.

Pretzel said:

Out of the 4, with my untrained eye, I liked "testb" just slightly more than "testd", which was a close second. "testa" is out, because the bokeh just didn't seem the same quality as the rest, and it lost some detail. "testc" also lost a little bit of the detail. Again, just my opinion as viewed through our piddly little work monitors. Perhaps I should take a closer look at home on the Mac.

Click to expand...

Wow, Pretzel, you eye is pretty darn good, even using a piddly little work monitor. You ranked the lenses pretty much as should be expected from their manufacturer, original cost, and production history:

Testb: Nikon 105mm 2.8 G ED AF-S VR (though VR not used here).
Testd: Nikon 105mm 2.5 manual lens
Testa: Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF
Testc: Sigma 70-300mm 4.5-5.6

Tough for me to tell, without having side-by-side comparison capability. Forced to choose (and just returning from an NFL Draft Party), I pick #4. Plus, you're comparing 3 different types of lenses for 3 different purposes, making them all shoot the same thing. Makes me wonder what would happen if I shot the same shot with all my lenses. It might make me crazy(er). GO RAMS!

Blade Canyon said:

Wow, Pretzel, you eye is pretty darn good, even using a piddly little work monitor. You ranked the lenses pretty much as should be expected from their manufacturer, original cost, and production history:

Testb: Nikon 105mm 2.8 G ED AF-S VR (though VR not used here).
Testd: Nikon 105mm 2.5 manual lens
Testa: Nikon 28-105 3.5-4.5 AF
Testc: Sigma 70-300mm 4.5-5.6

Click to expand...

That's it! Now I'm gonna start a site to compete with Rockwell and support my family. Click my links NOW! LOL

Cool comparison, and glad to know that my eye is properly calibrated!!

The size of these 100% crops do not encompass the same amount of image because of slight variables in each lens, plus the zooms weren't exactly on 105mm. All pretty close for online use, but I have to give the edge to the 105mm 2.5 manual lens for IQ, but the regular 105mm 2.8 prime for ease of use (AF-S, macro) combined with IQ. From a value and convenience standpoint, however, I can still foresee days when I will use the Sigma 70-300, even though I just bought a heavy metal Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRi.

Didn't you have a different name before, singlerosa? You and I agree that testD, the manual lens 2.5, was best overall. I posted this pic before seeing your post.

But your point about using all lenses to shoot the same thing is well taken. Each lens serves a certain purpose. This test was shot at f5.6 for all lenses, completely eliminating the value of having 2.8 and 2.5 in the primes. Still, the primes won for IQ, but would lose if the the subject was more suited to 50mm or 200mm.

I just realized as I was typing this (after looking at at the images) that the lenses were tagged in 10:21 post. Nevertheless, there are details that show in B & D that do not show in A & C (Like spot near disk edge at Violet).

Eyelight said:

I just realized as I was typing this (after looking at at the images) that the lenses were tagged in 10:21 post. Nevertheless, there are details that show in B & D that do not show in A & C (Like spot near disk edge at Violet).

Click to expand...

That spot really confuses me, because the shots were all close together in time. Looking at the files here, it's probably a drop of moisture (bug waste?) that evaporated quickly while shooting.

I had noticed another spot common with B & D, but cannot find it now. Odd the spot is on the 2 105's. Were the shots taken in A, B, C, D order?

Eyelight said:

Were the shots taken in A, B, C, D order?

Click to expand...

Nope, they were taken in manual, AF-S prime, Nikon zoom, Sigma zoom order. And that's exactly the order the drop is evaporating.

Blade Canyon said:

Didn't you have a different name before, singlerosa?

Click to expand...

I've been called many things, but my screen name has always been singlerosa.

I made sure I make my mind up before reading passed the original post to ensure I don't get influenced by brand/numbers etc.
I picked B based on the 4 images. But this took me several minutes of flipping between the photo's and comparing so many things. In real life use I think all of them would be good.

D's bokeh, and the colour just isn't as good as the other 3.
B won over the other two for me based on the readability of the authors name and the line below it: "one of the most influential writers of his generation" being easier on the eye.

Blade Canyon said:

You make a good point; when I get home I will do a crop at 100% and paste them all next to each other the way Rockwell does it.

The manual 105mm 2.5 is a good lens, but when used on a modern DSLR there is no split screen focusing aid like we used in the film days.

Pretzel, I don't even remember which is which, so will check my list at home.

Click to expand...

Ahhhheeeeemmmmm - Bresson Split Focusing Screen ? Nikon D5100 | SKVORA LIMITED

On-topic without enlarging, C looks good to me, although just about all look very similar to one another. I'd pick something more detailed and isolated for some real testing.

I love my 105mm 2.8 D...Shot at F/10 due to harsh 2pm sun conditions... Enjoy