jhinkey
Registered: Jan 08, 2010
Total Posts: 4109
Country: United States
|
bruni wrote:
CGrindahl wrote:
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. INikkor MF lenses are still working for me.
Curtis - I don't know what he's trying to prove - maybe it's that a $200 MF nikkor can hold it's own against the more expensive lenses. But what he's actually showing is that the lenses cannot be distinguished - the shots all look pretty much the same - in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast, bokeh etc. In fact - that's his point - they're indistinguishable - he's asking people to tell them apart and no-one can.
What's that about? There's something weird going on there. Now maybe I've been at the sauce too much myself but I think my 105mm 2.5 AIS and 105 2.5P are different - never mind the difference with the zeiss. Putting aside sharpness and all the other qualities, just on colour - there's no way the colour of my zeiss looks like the nikon. The zeiss is generally warmer - but there are other differences too - and they're not subtle. Some people don't like that about the zeiss, they complain about the colours. Yet in all his tests there's no difference in colour? how could that be? (And so on with all the other qualities).
nah......no way ..... I'm not buying it.
We all know the 105 is a great lens - and it's light and easy to use - and a screaming bargain. But the zeiss MP is a whole other creature - that's not taking away from the nikon - they just have different qualities. There's something very dodgy about tests that show they DON'T have different qualities - that they're actually indistinguishable.
Maybe everyone needs to lay off the single malt for a while.
ben Curtis - I don't know what he's trying to prove - maybe it's that a $200 MF nikkor can hold it's own against the more expensive lenses. But what he's actually showing is that the lenses cannot be distinguished - the shots all look pretty much the same - in terms of sharpness, colour, contrast, bokeh etc. In fact - that's his point - they're indistinguishable - he's asking people to tell them apart and no-one can.
What's that about? There's something weird going on there. Now maybe I've been at the sauce too much myself but I think my 105mm 2.5 AIS and 105 2.5P are different - never mind the difference with the zeiss. Putting aside sharpness and all the other qualities, just on colour - there's no way the colour of my zeiss looks like the nikon. The zeiss is generally warmer - but there are other differences too - and they're not subtle. Some people don't like that about the zeiss, they complain about the colours. Yet in all his tests there's no difference in colour? how could that be? (And so on with all the other qualities).
nah......no way ..... I'm not buying it.
We all know the 105 is a great lens - and it's light and easy to use - and a screaming bargain. But the zeiss MP is a whole other creature - that's not taking away from the nikon - they just have different qualities. There's something very dodgy about tests that show they DON'T have different qualities - that they're actually indistinguishable.
Maybe everyone needs to lay off the single malt for a while.
ben
I rented the 100/2MP ZF2 from lens rentals and I gotta say that it beats the pants off the 105/2.5 for sharpness at 36MP - especially away from the center and it has a bit less PF at highlights, but does have some LaCA. The 100MP is great for shooting wide open - it doesn't get all that much sharper stopping down (the contrast increases a bit). On a D800 I found my beloved 105/2.5 AIS goes a bit soft in the edges and corners stopped down while the Zeiss, at any aperture, is just about equally sharp across the frame even into the last pixels of the corners. Very very impressive. It also focuses very close (like, 'cause it's a "macro" lens) and has surprisingly pretty decent flare/ghosting resistance. However the 100MP is NOT the end-all-be-all of absolute sharpness as at infinity my 70-200/2.8 AFS at 105mm at f/5.6 is an equal match for the Zeiss, though the zoom just can compare at f/2, f/2.8, or even f/4.
What the Zeiss is NOT includes: compact, lightweight, inexpensive, built-in hood (the metal hood I found to be a bit cumbersome to use and annoyingly loose), half-click/stop aperture reporting to the camera.
The 105/2.5 has it's place, but the two are very different beasts for sure. The 105/2.5 does well as a casual lens (throw it in the bag and go) while with the Zeiss you have to really want to take it someplace due to it's size and weight.
Not sure how this 100MP vs. 105/2.5 thing got started - they both allow for fine images when used to their fullest extent, but are very different beasts for sure.
PS -
I think Todd did not notice much difference because he was shooting portraits (so border/edges/corners did not come into play), was using a 12MP camera, I don't recall any high contrast scenes, and perhaps was more attune to color differences than most (especially if artificially lit). He also, like many (myself included) had a sample size of exactly 1 for each lens.
I did not find the color of the Zeiss to be noticeably different than any of my other lenses when shot side-by-side (perhaps I'm not as sensitive to those things). I also did not find the fabled/mythical Zeiss "pop" in colors either.
I shot both in landscape-type situations with a D800 and perhaps that's why I've seen differences.
I got my 105/2.5 for $125 (or something obscene like that) while the 100MP is $1K+. One could argue effectively that for most situations the price difference is not worth it.
|
