• 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 / Nikon Z6/7 / Nikon 58mm f/0.95 Noct on Z7: Illumination uniformity

Nikon 58mm f/0.95 Noct on Z7: Illumination uniformity

July 15, 2024 JimK 5 Comments

LensRentals has loaned me a Nikon 58 mm f/0.95 Noct for testing. I tested for illumination uniformity at f/0.95, f/1.4, and f/2. I focused the lens on infinity, and made four exposures of a white wall about three feet away with the camera turned 90 degrees around the lens axis between each shot. I brought the files into Lightroom, and developed then with the default settings except for white balance and defeating all lens corrections. Then I brought them into Photoshop and computed the average of all four orientations.

Here are reduced size images of the results:

f/0.95 mean of four images

 

f/1.4 mean of four images

 

f/2 mean of four images

There is quite a bit of falloff at f/0.95, as you’d expect. F/1.4 is quite a bit better. F/2 is better still.

I examined the raw files, and found that the illumination falloff from center to corner at f/0.95 is one stop. For f/1.4, it’s 0.78 stops. For f/2, the falloff is 0.44 stops.

When the illumination is corrected for exposure, on axis at f/0.95 the illumination is a third of a stop less than you’d expect it to be from looking at the f/2 image.

Nikon Z6/7

← Nikon 58mm f/0.95 Noct on Z7: Bokeh Examples Nikon 58mm f/0.95 Noct: summary →

Comments

  1. Bernard Delley says

    July 17, 2024 at 8:16 am

    Actually, one stop falloff for a fully open fast lens is pretty good. I do not recall what the falloff was for the Zeiss 55mm Otus.

    That illumination is a third stop less at f/0.95 as expected from the f/2 result seems to indicate that fully open is not f/0.95. But, a third stop is a bit much less, when they claim its faster than 1.0 . It could also imply that the aperture is not working with high precision. But, again the deviation is a bit much. I would expect that aperture is calibrated to clearly better than 1/3 stop. Could it be that lens transmission as a function of aperture is responsible for the main part? The average glass thickness to be passed for the on axis image point might vary significantly as a function of aperture. Do you have another hint?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 17, 2024 at 8:24 am

      Interaction with the microlenses might be having an effect. By the way, I recalculated, and the loss of the light is about 0.14 stops, not a third of a stop.

      Reply
      • Bernard Delley says

        July 28, 2024 at 12:50 am

        Then it is only 2% more loss of light than what is to be expected for the numerical aperture implied by f/0.95 , according to my calculation shown at
        https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67821523

        Reply
        • Brandon Dube says

          July 31, 2024 at 2:13 pm

          The behavior of the microlenses at extreme F-numbers will dominate the lens. It is extremely unlikely that F/0.95 is particularly significantly embellished. Apodization over the aperture would not be that significant, I expect.

          Reply
          • JimK says

            July 31, 2024 at 2:35 pm

            Thanks for the insight, Brandon.

            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

  • 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.