Okay, round two ... Nikon, Oly & C/Y

Tripod, MLU, Timer, 5D, ISO 100, f8, 1/400 ("sunny 16"), RAW, ACR Defaults, save as jpg. Originals on Flickr.

Focus point @ Memorial Text with 2.5x Angle Finder

Nikon 28/2.8 AIS


Oly 28/3.5


C/Y 28/2.8

Wow. At least via iphone, they look really similar. #2 looks sharper to me and also has sharper detail at close end... Suggestive of somewhat greater dof.

Colors look pretty similar too. I would not have expected them to be this close.

Jim

When you launch open the files in Flickr and go 'pixel peeping' a few things that I noticed worth looking at:

1. Check out the textured gray base stone / memorial ... it shows the color differences between the three fairly well.

2. Check out the colors of the American flag.

3. Check out the black in the POW/MIA flag.

4. Notice the telephone pole on the right for difference in FL

5. Of course, the usual suspects of center / edge / corner sharpness.

I like this scene as it has a DR that is pretty wide ranging from highly reflective flagpoles to the shadows behind the trees ... along with a bevy of colors and textures.

I hope this one is better suited for everyone than the first was.

I like the high global contrast / saturation in the Nikon and Oly, but when looking at the detailed texture in the leaves, the C/Y is clearly better.

Grenache wrote:
Wow. At least via iphone, they look really similar. #2 looks sharper to me and also has sharper detail at close end... Suggestive of somewhat greater dof.

Colors look pretty similar too. I would not have expected them to be this close.

Jim

Might be some very small adapter thickness variances extending toward / away close end / infinity ... WA's can be a bit more touchy that way than normal / tele glass.

I got the CZ lens right before you labelled them, on the neutrals and colour balance. All three are certainly sharp enough.

The Oly colour palette is an acquired taste I am thinking, because they are quite popular. I see weak yellows, poor overall separation in the tree colours, poor red-brown separation (path and lumpy object next to the 2005 sign), magenta sky (dust bunny there).

Shadows tend to blue more readily. Eyes have to work harder to read the main text: 'In memory of'...The tree at the back right looks entirely unconvincing after the CY image. The flag looks unconvincing - the colours are candy-like. Neutrals are very 'clean' - again, unrealistically so. I think macro contrast is at work here, undermining the image...see also the flagpoles.

The CY does them just right, more subdued in tone. The CY shows much better depth in the background, more objects appear in focus, due to better midtone contrast maybe.

Highlights on the front of the main tree in the CY lens just sparkle outwards - very nice. The path looks a consistent colour on the CY, the Oly path shows dappled sun sections as blueish and murky.

OK, the top image - the acclaimed 28mm AIS: the sky is more even toned than the Oly, but still looks flatter and darker than the CY - less tonal separation. Reds look a little too strong, saturated and a little murky. Worse, greens are contaminated by the red response. Neutrals are also affected by this response characteristic, and even some shadows are red hued, as is the grass in the park. Some of this is from it being the last image shot in the sequence - and it is also a little darker. Very sharp though, and I would much prefer to work with it than the Oly.

I don't want to mention 3D, but lets say I would rather take a walk in the Zeiss image than the others ;-) But this is on a mid range uncalibrated monitor - the 24" Wuxi will no doubt show much more...
Thanks again, Kent.

Which version of the C/Y are you using? There were several different 28mm lenses.

Looking at the Oly 28mm, I conclude that it is not performing as it should. Or, at least, it is not performing like mine does. The edges should be as sharp as the centre, and they are not in your sample.

As far as overall "look" goes, comparing the re-sized samples posted above, I would choose the Nikon or Oly over the Zeiss by a long shot. The Zeiss is looking very drab and boring, to me.

I was a bit surprised by the Oly edges as well ... might be an adapter variance issue I was referrring to above.

I really need to get around to ordering a better adapter for my Oly's & C/Y's (i.e. Fotodiox Pro like on my Nikon & Mamiya glass).

Jos Tesseract wrote:
Which version of the C/Y are you using? There were several different 28mm lenses.

Made In Japan, white f/16, T*

I forgot to mention ... all were shot @ 6000K WB

Hmm, to me the Zeiss looks flat and not very inspiring, the oly and the nikon are better, with a slight edge to the nikon.

I think I must have different eyes than philip, since I have a totally different interpretation of color accuracy and general quality.

better comparison than last time (where I thought the c/y was easily the best).

to me the nikon has the typical nikon look. sharp and contrasty. I like the OM and the C/Y better but given the performance of your particular set I guess the c/y is once again the winner (although by a much smaller margin).

I happen to own a copy of the OM 28/3.5 myself. my copy has pretty high contrast though.

ulrikft2 wrote:
I must have different eyes.

Don't we all (universal) ... ain't that the truth !!!

Not to mention different monitors (even if calibrated) ... both mine are calibrated, but still different looking.

You mean you don't have a Leica 28 Elmarit v.2 to compare to ?!?!?

RustyBug, thank you for the comparison! I've seen the first series, too, and corner performance of your Distagon made me think it was an AE version (white f/16) rather than MM. The MM version of this lens would perform better yet, with about one-stop gain in corner performance.

I have an Olympus Zuiko 28/2.8 (latest version), and by f/4 I find it a stronger overall performer compared to the 28/3.5 version, despite numerous reviews suggesting otherwise. In particular, this inexpensive Zuiko has better colors and slightly stronger contrast (but not by much), and very nice corner performance at f/8.

My observations regarding the Nikkor AIS 28/2.8 match your findings and others comments. I find the cheaper Nikkor AIS 28/3.5 to give better infinity shots, corner sharpness, and contrast than the f/2.8 version. I also found the f/2 version to give better performance at infinity, but this would be irrelevant to this comparison (after all, there is Hollywood Distagon to compare it to!) Just my two cents

RustyBug wrote:
ulrikft2 wrote:
I must have different eyes.

Don't we all (universal) ... ain't that the truth !!!

Not to mention different monitors (even if calibrated) ... both mine are calibrated, but still different looking.

Indeed

As mentioned in the first round, I do like shooting at mfd with my wides. In that regard, the Nikon 28/2.8 AIS trounces the Oly for mfd distance ... we'll see how it compares with the C/Y, but I have a guess what the outcome will be.


Hmmm, I never gave much thought to the possibility of having Nikon 28/3.5 AIS or Oly 28/2.8 for infinity work to complement my Nikon 28/2.8 AIS.

To me, the Nikon looks spectacular. Maybe not neutral, but I like warm tone.

I agree the Oly needs a better chance, though. If you like the focal length, there isn't a bad 28 in the OM bunch.

It looks like you have an excellent copy of the Nikon 28/2.8 AIS. If it has the look you want then go for it!