• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / D850 / Nikon 105/1.4 on D850: PDAF accuracy off-axis

Nikon 105/1.4 on D850: PDAF accuracy off-axis

January 11, 2018 JimK Leave a Comment

This is a continuation of a series of posts on the Nikon D850.  The series starts here. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “D850”

Yesterday, I showed you that, with the Sigma 135/1.8 Art, the AF Adjust setting on the D850 that gives the right average correction for an object on the lens axis (in the center of the finder), gives wildly wrong values when the subject is off axis. Today I’m going to tell you what happens when the Nikon 105 mm f/1.4E lens is put to the same test.

The setup, same as yesterday:

The LensAlign target is on the tripod in the distance, lit by two Westcott LED panels. The camera is mounted to a stand that allows easy up/down and left/right movement without major changes to the direction of the lens axis. The Nikon remote on the camera stand’s tray is used to minimize vibration. I use a 1-second shutter delay, too.

With the target in the center of the image, here are the results for the Adobe RGB green channel:

I forget to change something in the program, and the average line for f/1.4 didn’t get calculated. Sorry. The AF adjust value was set to +6 for all shots, which gives a pretty good result at f/1.4, but because of focus shift, the focal plane moves backward as the lens is stopped down, and the PDAF operation doesn’t fix this.

All three color channels:

You can see that this lens has substantially more longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) than the Sigma 135. 

With the target in the lower left of the image, at the same place where yesterday’s images were made:

There is about a 1 cm shift at f/1.4. That’s a whole lot less than with the Sigma 135, and I’d put it in the “don’t worry about it” category. There also appears to be less focus shift with aperture, which is a surprise to me. 

All color channels:

There even is less LoCA. 

There is something wrong with the way the camera and the Sigma 135 are interacting for off-axis PDAF. I don’t know what it is, but it’s just not working the way it should.

D850

← Sigma 135/1.8 on D850: PDAF accuracy off-axis Sigma 85/1.4 on D850: PDAF accuracy off-axis →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.