I've been pretty happy with the Nikon on the a7R.....but curiosity made me keep my eye open for the Zeiss. Anyway, I was able to snag one at a relatively decent price.
Anyway, here's a comparison of the 2. Sorry for the contrasty lighting, it was really bright here yesterday.
Both shot at 1/80th @ f/11 (ISO 100), on a tripod. Processed through Photo Ninja, using identical sharpening/detail settings. Color was tweaked a little bit to try to match the two.
Interesting, I'd expected a mild advantage for the Zeiss, but on these shots I actually prefer the rendering of the Nikkor. The difference is subtle, but the colour on the Nikkor seems a bit richer.
tsdevine wrote:
Color was tweaked a little bit to try to match the two.
-Tim
Highly unfortunately if we are to compare lenses (as is using ƒ/11 for a general conclusion as we're reaching diffraction limit).
I've used both extensively and the Zeiss yields _without a doubt_ much more saturated colours. Due to much higher general contrast in the Zeiss, the vignetting appears heavier on the Zeiss @ 2.0, but I would say it evens out, at least @ 2.8. Other than that, the Zeiss delivers much richer colours and focus transitions etc. Which is to be expected, the lens, although relying heavily on an older design, is new and has much better coating (T*).
However, the 2.8/28 Ais is a GREAT lens for its cost and age.
Rodluvan wrote:
Highly unfortunately if we are to compare lenses (as is using ƒ/11 for a general conclusion as we're reaching diffraction limit).
I've used both extensively and the Zeiss yields _without a doubt_ much more saturated colours. Due to much higher general contrast in the Zeiss, the vignetting appears heavier on the Zeiss @ 2.0, but I would say it evens out, at least @ 2.8. Other than that, the Zeiss delivers much richer colours and focus transitions etc. Which is to be expected, the lens, although relying heavily on an older design, is new and has much better coating (T*).
However, the 2.8/28 Ais is a GREAT lens for its cost and age.
I was definitely not unhappy with the Nikon, it was so good I sold my Canon 28mm f/2.8 IS. The latter was stronger in the corners at larger apertures, but stopped down I liked the Nikon better.
-Tim
mawz wrote:
Interesting, I'd expected a mild advantage for the Zeiss, but on these shots I actually prefer the rendering of the Nikkor. The difference is subtle, but the colour on the Nikkor seems a bit richer.
Dang, I knew I should have checked with you before posting. If post a landscape shot like this f/5.6, then people will complain about the corners and how I should have stopped down to f/11. In any case I posted the aperture I'm most likely to use. If you want me to, I can do something similar at whatever aperture you feel is less unfortunate.
This is the Contax (C/Y) Zeiss BTW...
-Tim
Rodluvan wrote:
Highly unfortunately if we are to compare lenses (as is using ƒ/11 for a general conclusion as we're reaching diffraction limit).
I've used both extensively and the Zeiss yields _without a doubt_ much more saturated colours. Due to much higher general contrast in the Zeiss, the vignetting appears heavier on the Zeiss @ 2.0, but I would say it evens out, at least @ 2.8. Other than that, the Zeiss delivers much richer colours and focus transitions etc. Which is to be expected, the lens, although relying heavily on an older design, is new and has much better coating (T*).
However, the 2.8/28 Ais is a GREAT lens for its cost and age.
I'll post the SOOC JPEGs....although they are Adobe colorspace and contrast -2, sharpening +1 I believe. Won't get any more unprocessed than that....give me a couple of minutes.
-Tim
timballic wrote:
I think you might be referring to another lens, the 28mm Zeiss here is the F2.8 Contax version.
Agree F5.6 and no colour change would be best.
Shots were about 2 minutes apart...and it was AWB, so it's not controlled enough to say 100% I guess. The Zeiss is wider, and has a little more barrel distortion. So I definitely got them labeled right.
Tim, they are both great lenses; I had them both although not at the same time and that was easily 7-8 years ago. Frankly, my favorite 28mm lens is the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens. It can be had for approximately $450 used and it is widely available. It is a faster lens and its Nano Crystal Coat works great on digital sensor to prevent flare. And yes, it is larger than both since it is a faster lens and the extra speed brings its own advantage. Just my 2 cents, of course.
Thanks, that's good to know. I'm mainly a landscape shooter....so speed vs. size is always something in the back of my mind. I have the ZE 15 and ZE 21 and shoot mainly primes. So when it comes to other FL, I'm always trying to err on the side of smaller, if the stopped down performance is good.
Thanks for the comparison, Tim! Love you Nikkor 28 shots! For a long time a few years back, I was using a lot of Nikon glass on my Canon with great results! I love my Contax 28 though. Mine is the MMJ version, too. I should use it more, but I find I'm liking my Contax 35-70 at 35mm more....
Btw...there was a big comparison done years ago, with same combo, and an added 28; OM zuiko 28/2...
Here's the link: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_3.html]http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_3.html[/url]
Gregg
Yeah Gregg, I was actually going to comment that I don't think my test goes against the 16-9 findings (I think I have one of the "better" Nikon samples.) The 35-70 is very tempting....but I generally shoot wider than 35. But don't be surprised if I pick one up at some point. Just bide my time looking for a decent deal.
-Tim
Greggf wrote:
Thanks for the comparison, Tim! Love you Nikkor 28 shots! For a long time a few years back, I was using a lot of Nikon glass on my Canon with great results! I love my Contax 28 though. Mine is the MMJ version, too. I should use it more, but I find I'm liking my Contax 35-70 at 35mm more....
Btw...there was a big comparison done years ago, with same combo, and an added 28; OM zuiko 28/2...
Here's the link: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_3.html]http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/28mm_3.html[/url]
Gregg
How would I control aperture on that lens, being a G?
AGeoJO wrote:
Tim, they are both great lenses; I had them both although not at the same time and that was easily 7-8 years ago. Frankly, my favorite 28mm lens is the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens. It can be had for approximately $450 used and it is widely available. It is a faster lens and its Nano Crystal Coat works great on digital sensor to prevent flare. And yes, it is larger than both since it is a faster lens and the extra speed brings its own advantage. Just my 2 cents, of course.
I hear you loud and clear but we are not talking about a big difference in the form factor here, especially the weight. The AFS-G lens being of a modern design incorporates more lightweight materials than the other two do. The performance of the AFS-G lens is really great from wide open to the onset of diffraction limit. I don't want to sound like I am advertising for that lens but that lens is truly a great performer and I would take the AFS-G lens over the other two in a heartbeat. Again, that's strictly MHO.
Metabones has an adapter that lets you change the aperture. You can set it even in half-stop increments. Since it doesn't have any electronics in it, the price of the adapter is fairly reasonable.
Thanks for the heads up, I have the non-G Rayqual (did some Googling to understand how, I see now along with the Metabones there is a way.) I can always keep it in mind for the future.
AGeoJO wrote:
Tim, they are both great lenses; I had them both although not at the same time and that was easily 7-8 years ago. Frankly, my favorite 28mm lens is the Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 AF-S G lens. It can be had for approximately $450 used and it is widely available. It is a faster lens and its Nano Crystal Coat works great on digital sensor to prevent flare. And yes, it is larger than both since it is a faster lens and the extra speed brings its own advantage. Just my 2 cents, of course.
I am not saying it doesn't exist but I never noticed the field curvature to be that bad, if any. At least, mine doesn't exhibit that from my own experience. I am not sure how isolated or how wide-spread the "issue" is but this is the first time I have seen it reported.
