• 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 58/1.4 on D850, LoCA and CDAF

Nikon 58/1.4 on D850, LoCA and CDAF

November 11, 2017 JimK Leave a Comment

This is the 14th post in a series of Nikon D850 tests. The series starts here.

I dedicated to try another lens than the 105/1.4 on the D850 and see if the autofocus (AF) behavior changed. I chose the 58 mm f/1.4. I first ran a set of runs using the Focus Shift Shooting feature of the D850 to see how much longitudinal chromatic aberration (LoCA) the lens had. It helps to know this when evaluating the AF performance.

Here’s the test protocol:

  • Nikon 58 mm f/1.4 on D850.
  • ISO 64
  • Focus shift, silent shutter option
  • 100 steps
  • Minimum step size (1)
  • Aperture exposure mode
  • f/1.4 through f/f/5.6 in whole stops
  • Wescott LED panels set to 5500 K.
  • Target distance, 3 meters.

I used Fast Raw Viewer to discard the really out of focus images and put the rest through my processing pipeline: dcraw in document mode, MTF Mapper, Matlab, and Excel.

The vertical axis is MTF50, measured in cycles per picture height (cy/ph). The shot taken with the lens focused to the closest position is on the left, numbered step 0. There are 20 more exposures plotted. There is no way to know the focused distance for these exposures. You can see that the steps are much larger than the ones I use when I’m measuring LoCA and focus shift with the razor blade and the Cognisys rail. I ended up throwing away 80 images from each set.

The rest of the f-stops:

 

 

 

 

There is a moderate amount of LoCA. Peak green channel sharpness is obtained at f/4.  The curves don’t get wider as you stop down because the camera is making the steps bigger as you stop down.

The next step was to test the contrast-detection autofocus (CDAF) system. I used a similar protocol:

  • Nikon 58 mm f/1.4 on D850.
  • ISO 64
  • AF-S, single servo mode
  • Release priority: focus
  • Aperture exposure mode
  • f/1.4 through f/4 in whole stops
  • 32 exposures at each f-stop
  • Live view on
  • Electronic shutter on
  • Nikon remote release in intervalometer mode
  • Wescott LED panels set to 5500 K.
  • Target distance, 3 meters.

The results wide open:

 

The lighter blue line is the average (mean) MTF50 of all 32 images in each plane of the target. The orange and gray lines have the standard deviation of the results (sigma) subtracted from and added to the mean. About 70% of the data points would lie between those two lines if the data were Gaussian. The yellow line is the best result in each series, and the dark blue line is the worst. The green line is the best result from the runs with Focus Shift Shooting.

You can see that the camera doesn’t come close to as sharp as the red channel can get. That’s not a problem in a lens, like this one, that has a lot of LoCA. You wouldn’t want the CDAF system to maximize the sharpness of the red channel at the expense of the more important green one.

Speaking of the green channel, here it is:

Now the camera is coming pretty close to the best that it can do. It’s not as good as it looks because the Focus Shift Shooting feature’s minimum step size is not small enough to find the sharpest distance, but it’s close.

The blue channel actually does better than the Focus Shift Shootin results. Too bad the blue channel is the least important one.

Up to now, I’ve only used the center of a three-dimensional target that looks like this:

When mounted on a door and seen by the camera, it shows up as:

For the lens wide open, with the camera focusing on the middle plane, the stats for the all three planes are as follows:

 

 

The camera is on average focusing properly with the green plane sharpest in the middle plane.

It doesn’t get much better than this. Too bad PDAF isn’t as accurate. How accurate is that? See the next post.

 

 

 

D850

← Nikon D850 MF and AF-tune D850, 58/1.4 PDAF bias at various apertures →

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.