During a session today I took two basic headshots, each with both the Nikkor 105/2.5 and the Zeiss 100/2. Thought it might be fun to see if anyone can tell the difference. I tried my best to equalize everything....framing, processing, etc. I know, I know, one's a macro lens, one isn't, one's definitely sharper at the corners, so they will have real performance differences with some kinds of shots. But my question here is, are they really any different for portraiture?
Todd Adamson wrote:
Inferior? What if they were equal?
Give me a break, Todd - people set up these challenges to show one is better than another. So, since I am sure you're trying to showcase the 105, I'll try to buy the Zeiss 100 MP from the winner. I can't wait for my new lens!
corposant wrote:
Give me a break, Todd - people set up these challenges to show one is better than another. So, since I am sure you're trying to showcase the 105, I'll try to buy the Zeiss 100 MP from the winner. I can't wait for my new lens!
Not trying to showcase either lens, honestly. Believe me, after spending money on the Zeiss, I want to belive it's the superior lens. I suspect it is, for specific uses. But for 90% of what I do (basic portraiture), I'm thinking there is no difference.
Which is not to say I won't hold onto the Zeiss. I love the build, I will sometimes use the macro capability, and occasionally require that better sharpness stopped down. Plus, I want to be able to act snooty sometimes around "associates" who don't use Zeiss glass.
Two23 wrote:
Is sharpness really the best way to judge a portrait lens?
Kent in SD
Corner sharpness? No. I want to be clear: I am not asking which is sharper. I'm asking if anyone can really tell the difference, by ANY parameter. Say, microcontrast....the so-called "Zeiss 3D effect," etc. As far as I'm concerned, there's not any important difference in center sharpness at f/2.5-ish.
Both work great for portrait lenses, but I think either you've got a better copy of the Nikkor than I do or you are doing a good job of equalizing the differences between the two lenses. My Zeiss is a bit sharper and - for lack of a better term - less "mushy" and saturated as the Nikkor (as I guess you'd expect from a lens costing much more). Having said that, I still love the 105/f2.5 for being surprisingly good at such an affordable price, and a little aged.
dj dunzie wrote:
either you've got a better copy of the Nikkor than I do or you are doing a good job of equalizing the differences between the two lenses.
The only thing I really tried to "equalize" as far as differences was the focal length, by framing from a slightly different distance, but I didn't do a perfect job of that. These files went through precisely the same manipulations. Errrmm, that's not *quite* accurate....there was a small difference in the color temp between the two lenses, so I tries to control for that with WB in Lightroom. But other than that, each image was lightly retouched for blemishes, then had the same Shadow Highlights adjustment, the same Levels and Curves applied, and the same amount of sharpening by the same method.
EDIT: BTW, I was using the Zeiss ZF.2, which made it possible to shoot at f/2.5, which I don't think I can do with the ZF version.
While I'm sure it's fun to compare the two lenses because you have them, I just don't understand how you wouldn't expect a old $150 lens to be inferior to a modern $2,000 lens? To make the challenge more equitable try the Nikkor 105 VR both at f/3.5 if you can.
Gregg Heckler wrote:
While I'm sure it's fun to compare the two lenses because you have them, I just don't understand how you wouldn't expect a old $150 lens to be inferior to a modern $2,000 lens? To make the challenge more equitable try the Nikkor 105 VR both at f/3.5 if you can.
Does one of these shots in each set really look inferior to you?
not useless at all, i think i would be happy with either and frankly could make either one "look" like the other pretty easily which is also a clue to how close they are in this scenario at least. If I were doing flat field work then of course I would choose the tool for that job no doubt
If your only use for a 100mm lens was bright-strobe, small f-stop studio portraits, there would be little to gain from a Zeiss or Leica lens over a Nikon or Canon lens.
If your only use for a 100mm lens was bright-strobe, small f-stop studio portraits, there would be little to gain from a Zeiss or Leica lens over a Nikon or Canon lens.
Keith B. wrote:
If your only use for a 100mm lens was bright-strobe, small f-stop studio portraits, there would be little to gain from a Zeiss or Leica lens over a Nikon or Canon lens.
How about wide-aperture window light portraits, like I posted?
The second image in the second set looks to have more micro contrast and resolution. I'll bet that one's the ZF.
In the first set, the focus plane is different, so it's hard to make conclusions. I almost feel the first image has more micro contrast in the in focus regions of the hair and eyebrows. The chin throws me a bit though. I can't tell there for certain
I can't wait for my new lens! 
