I'm pretty sure he's grinning in #2 because it's a Zeiss!
And that there's a small upturn in the corners of his mouth in #3; the beginning of a smile! Must be the Zeiss
I dunno, I'm biased maybe because of the subject's differences in expression ... and that you mentioned it's the 100 macro so naturally I look for all the minor details. That said, I'd take any on their own merit, they all look pleasing to the eye.
I'll provide the answer later today....hoping to get a few more people to either commit to a guess, or confess they can't possibly tell the difference.
"inferior" may be a bad word. Maybe "it's all relative" would be better but to me 2nd image of each group is clearly sharper. I may have guessed wrong but that would be the $2,000 lens.
Edit: Out of 3 & 4 I think Zeiss is 4.
Out of 1 & 2 focus was missed so it is hard to tell. #1 is ridiculously sharp, though
Todd, first off great portraits using mf with these two excellent lenses.
Unfortunately/fortunately (however you look at it) both lenses will perform quite similarily in this situation. While the ZF 100 is excellent for portraits, the beauty of this lens is the versatility in being an ultimate landscape/macro/portrait lens all in one. Is it worth $1,400 more than a Nikon is based on what the user needs. For just in studio portrait use, obviously not. For those of you saying you can't see a difference in this and the 105 VR, true, you can't.....at web sized jpg level. If printing large, looking 100% you will see a HUGE difference in image quality.
If the processing was identical, I'll vote for 2 & 3 being the Zeiss -- they seem a little more contrasty, and maybe sharper. The differences (if I'm seeing them at all) are slight, though -- and I think it's also partly that the focal point is different in each.
rsolti13 wrote:
Edit: 2 & 4 are Zeiss my opinion based on looking at my small work monitor
Todd, first off great portraits using mf with these two excellent lenses.
Unfortunately/fortunately (however you look at it) both lenses will perform quite similarily in this situation. While the ZF 100 is excellent for portraits, the beauty of this lens is the versatility in being an ultimate landscape/macro/portrait lens all in one. Is it worth $1,400 more than a Nikon is based on what the user needs. For just in studio portrait use, obviously not. For those of you saying you can't see a difference in this and the 105 VR, true, you can't.....at web sized jpg level. If printing large, looking 100% you will see a HUGE difference in image quality....Show more →
Hey Ryan
the nikkor is not the 105VR , but the near ancient 105 f2.5
Todd Adamson wrote:
I'll provide the answer later today....hoping to get a few more people to either commit to a guess, or confess they can't possibly tell the difference.
Too bad you did not have the Nikkor AF 105mm f/2 D DC to use against the Zeiss 100/2. The 105 f/2 DC, in my opinion, is a better portrait lens than the 105 f/2.5 (than the 105 f/2.8VR too). In that I mean I think it produces better colors, contrast, and the images just pop. I say that even though the 105 f/2.5 is THE reason I switched from Canon to Nikon back in the late 70's.
All I know is that I like the look of images 1 and 3 better than 2 and 4. That may be solely down to the exposure showing better color and contrast.
the nikkor is not the 105VR , but the near ancient 105 f2.5
the 105 VR is in a 'nuther league altogether
J
Understood, and now I need to buy one . I was just saying that people say the VR is similar to the Zeiss, which it is not if you really scrutinize the images. If you are only looking at web sized jpgs a Zeiss 100 / Nikon 105 AI-S / Nikon 105 VR / Nikon 105 DC / etc portrait under these conditions are all going to look the same.
The greatness of the Zeiss as I mentioned is its versatility. It is an excellent macro lens, sharper than the Nikon 105 VR yet does not reach 1:1...only 1:2. It is possibly the best landscape lens. Also, as Todd has shown, an excellent portrait lens.
Some of us poke fun of spending an extra $1,400 for this lens over a Nikon AI-S or an extra $700 over a VR and question 'Is it really 14x better than an AI-S' . Well, it is, to those that demand the best in image quality. To the ones laughing is it 14x better, for you the answer is no.
Tommy_D wrote:
I prefer #2 because it doesn't show up the kids nostrils as much at the other 3. I don't care what lens was used, but those nostrils are not pretty.
I DO wish I had shot some of his shots from a bit higher. But like I said, my retouching wasn't complete, and they will look better. Also sorta beside the point here.
' . Well, it is, to those that demand the best in image quality. To the ones laughing is it 14x better, for you the answer is no. 
But like I said, my retouching wasn't complete, and they will look better. Also sorta beside the point here.