• 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 / Sigma 85/1.4 on D850: PDAF accuracy off-axis

Sigma 85/1.4 on D850: PDAF accuracy off-axis

January 11, 2018 JimK 7 Comments

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. Earlier today I told you what happens when the Nikon 105 mm f/1.4E lens is put to the same test; it did quite well, considering the limitations of DSLR phase detection autofocus (PDAF). I wondered if this was a Sigma thing, or just a Sigma 135/1.8 thing. I dusted off a Sigma 85 mm f/1.4 Art lens and mounted it to a D850.

To refresh your memory, here’s the setup:

Subject distance, 2.99 meters. ISO 64. AF-S with the movable spot. AF adjustment set to zero.

With the target in the center, here’s the green channel graph:

Lots of focus shift. The lens front-focuses at f/1.4 and f/2, is about right at f/2.8 and f/4, and slightly back-focuses above there. 

Looking at all the color channels:

Quite a lot of longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) at the wider stops, and not much at f/4 and narrower.

With the target in the lower left of the image:

This isn’t all that different from the target-center case.

So the systematic PDAF errors with focus point that we saw with the Sigma 135/1.8 are absent with the Sigma 85/1.4. We still have a lot of uncorrected focus shift to worry about, though.

D850

← Nikon 105/1.4 on D850: PDAF accuracy off-axis Sigma 85/1.4 on D850: measures of PDAF accuracy →

Comments

  1. Arthur says

    January 11, 2018 at 3:55 pm

    Jim,

    What is the practical advice for these results ?

    It seems to me you would want to correct the front focus at lower apertures as the higher ones would not be affected due to DoF.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      January 11, 2018 at 4:08 pm

      Would that it were so simple. I’m working on how to look at this issue.

      Reply
  2. Arthur says

    January 11, 2018 at 3:56 pm

    ‘correct the front focus FOR lower apertures’ is a better way of writing this.

    Reply
  3. Arthur says

    January 12, 2018 at 7:09 am

    In this case it seems it may be that simple.

    Why not make the adjustments as predicted by the first 3 stops and see if that corrects them while leaving the next 3 stops largely unaffected ?

    Worth a try and you already have the test set up and the appx. value needed to test.

    Reply
    • JimK says

      January 12, 2018 at 7:13 am

      Any change of AF adjust value affects the focused distance at all the f-stops.

      I have something more sophisticated in mind, and something that will inform the decision as to what f-stop to use in any such test. I may get a first crack at it done today.

      Reply
      • Arthur says

        January 12, 2018 at 8:47 am

        Looking forward to it.

        Reply
        • JimK says

          January 12, 2018 at 11:58 am

          Here you go: http://blog.kasson.com/d850/sigma-85-1-4-on-d850-measures-of-pdaf-accuracy/

          Reply

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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.