CGrindahl
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
bruni wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
Philippe, you could always add a 105 f/2.5 to your kit to cover that focal length at a considerably reduced price. It is always a pleasure to see your work on this thread and every new MF Nikkor added to your kit increases the likelihood you'll join us. 
I don't believe you were here when a former member of FM, Todd Adamson, was sharing a comparison he did between the Zeiss 100 and the Nikon 105 f/2.5. The Nikkor didn't do too badly. It was a bit like the 1973 Stag's Leap cabernet sauvignon that turned a few heads in Paris so many years ago...
He did a first comparison and then after receiving comments did a bit more elaborate comparison adding the Nikon 70-200 to the second part. Just for fun...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/940602/0?keyword=useless,exercise#8885589
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/940944
oh Curtis, Curtis - you love linking this but you've gotta stop it.....I love the nikon 105 - I've even got 4 different versions of it (one of which you forced me to buy) - but it's not the zeiss 100MP.
I'm not going get into whether one is better than the other - but they are VERY different. That's what I find so puzzling about his tests. Try as I might - I would find it very difficult to get the 100MP to look like the 105 - again not better or worse - but they render very differently, colour is the most obvious difference. Yet somehow he makes them all look the same. How does he do that? Hell, I reckon the different versions of the 105 render differently much less the zeiss.
But the main reason why I'm surprised you keep citing these tests is - they sort of defeat the purpose of this thread. He's making the 105 look just like the 70 - 200mm V1 - and I would have thought that, if there was any raison d'etre for this thread, it's that the manual focus nikons have a quality all their own, in particular the 105 - yet according to him it's indistinguishable from a modern (superseded) zoom.
I don't know what he's doing - but there ain't no way my 100MP looks just like my 105 - and if it really looked just like the 70 - 200 mm - well then, I could get rid of most of my lenses across that range and just shoot the zoom. We could all join a 70- 200mm thread and be done with it.
ben
Perhaps I haven't made clear why I post this, though I can quote from my comment on the second thread Todd started that essentially makes the point.
I love it! I'm late to the game after six days of relatives visiting from out of town, but this is precisely the comparison I was encouraging you to make. As I read folks "educated" guesses, which were all over the place, I was musing about a $200 lens being favorably compared with two lenses that cost over a thousand dollars more. Nikon shooters really are blessed to have these outstanding old lenses available to mount on our cameras. I took five MF lenses and NO AF lenses during my recent trip to the Netherlands and had a glorious time shooting. The D700 makes shooting manual focus a joy! Putting a 28-70 f/2.8 on my camera on Sunday was almost painful, but it was what the occasion called for.
Thanks Todd for giving us all the opportunity to consider this old gem. And thanks to all the FMers who spoke so highly of this lens in the past. It was my first MF purchase and will likely remain in my kit so long as I shoot Nikon...
Whether you're speaking about an $1,800 Zeiss or a $2100 dollar Nikkor zoom you're talking about big money. What Todd's exercise did was demonstrate that the 105 f/2.5 holds its own against these very pricey alternatives. I own three 105 f/2.5 lenses, the most expensive of which cost $197, the cheapest $90. I call that great value for money.
I've spent time on the alternative gear forum, a great deal in fact before I came to Nikon. A great many Canon shooters are playing with alternative gear and I was tempted to explore. I always shook my head when Zeiss fans were talking about micro-contrast and other esoteric terms while touting these lenses. I don't understand any of that, though I've done my share of wine tasting and know that ones capacity to discern and describe subtle differences is more an exercise in subjectivity than anything else. And so I smiled when a few fans of Zeiss were so mistaken in evaluating the lenses Todd used.
But I've nothing against Zeiss. I've been tempted more than once to pick up one or more of the lenses and put them through their paces. The thing that holds me back at this time is my enjoyment of this thread. Spending time on other forums within FM I haven't found another thread that comes close to this one in terms of collegiality. I'm not a big fan of technical analyses, though I enjoy what John and Jose do from time to time. I'm not interested in either the technical or aesthetic evaluation. That said, I am having a great time evaluating a few single malt Scotches... DIfferent strokes I guess. Nikkor MF lenses are still working for me.
|
