Ripolini wrote:
Deeper DOF @ same aperture and magnification could come from more sharpness. Actually, no lens produces nil-radius points (i.e., ideal geometrical points) on the focal plane. The smaller the radius of a point (in a geometrical sense) on the focal plane, the smaller its radius (cirle of confusion) in the out of focus planes. Sharper lenses do actually produce more DOF.
Curious to see MTF values obtained with real lenses (Plena & Apo Sonnar).
I think the discussion here is less about DoF down at the acceptable CoC, but rather how much blur there is in the background. In the bushes the blur is already tens to hundreds of pixels in size so the sharpness at the focal plan is irrelevant by that point.
Ripolini wrote:
I guess you haven't understood my point. Or I haven't explained it in an understandable way.
Quite possible. My only point was once you are far enough from the plane of focus that blur is exceeding a few pixels the sharpness at the plane of focus is entirely irrelevant to the amount of blur. And that while snapsy used the term “DoF” I believe he was referring more to the amount of blur far from the plane of focus. So I agree with your point, but I don’t think it’s relevant to the comparison. In fact the sample photos have been resized so small that any effects of the sharpness of the lens are certainly irrelevant to the apparent DoF.
snapsy wrote:
Great samples suteetat, thanks! At first it was clear the Plena has much smoother OOF rendering but upon careful examination it appears like the APO has noticeably deeper DOF (or is front focused) vs the Plnea shots, even though both were shot at f/2. How are you dialing in the f/2 on the APO - via the aperture ring or the camera? If it's the latter then I wonder if the aperture lever on the FTZ or lens is miscalibrated and not actually shooting at f/2.
Here are two animations I created from two pairs of shots. Look at the foreground and background areas for differences in DOF.
One explanation for front focusing could be me. I use focus magnifier to assist with focusing the Zeiss. I use wide area-L with Plena. In hindsight , i should just use single point focus in the center and focus magnifier in the center to keep point of focus identical. Aperture was set fron wheel on the damera in A mode.
Since Riccardo asked the question regarding Plena and Apo Sonnar difference, I also got bit curious. Due to the weight + thin DOF + front heaviness with FTZ, I stopped using Apo Sonnar for long time. I did not give Apo Sonnar a fair chance in the past. So, I did some comparison. I thought more comparison could be interesting as additional data points for whoever may be interested in.
Shots are close to minimum distance. Notice that Plena and Apo Sonnar has different focal length. Image from Apo Sonnar from close distance appear lager. Tripod was never moved between the shots.
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/1600s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/2.01/1250s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/2.01/1000s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/4.01/400s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/4.01/500s100 ISO0.0 EV
This time, to see the long distance performance and foreground rendition. At this distance, Apo Sonnar appears slightly wider than Plena. I wonder that may be a result of different focus breathing characteristics between the two lenses.
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/3200s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/2.01/2500s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/2.01/2000s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/4.01/640s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/4.01/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/8.01/160s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/8.01/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
p.5 #10 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Medium distance with busier background.
Overall, I am impressed with both. I do prefer Plena's bokeh, AF, and handling on Z6. In terms of sharpness, with Z6 24mp sensor, I don't see meaningful difference between the two.
Luka
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/3200s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/2.01/2500s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/2.01/2000s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/4.01/500s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/4.01/800s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/8.01/125s100 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 6Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135mm ZF.2 lens135mmf/8.01/200s100 ISO0.0 EV
p.5 #11 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Hi Luka,
thank you for these tests.
My feeling is:
- the Plena has slightly more blur;
- the Zeiss has sligthly more vivid colors and contrast;
- at close distances and f/2, the Zeiss seems sharper in the corners (see the rusty ring in the bottom left of the images taken close to minimum distance).
p.5 #12 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
I think Cameralab did mention that Nikon aimed for symmetrical bokeh front and back just like 50/1.2s and your test certainly confirmed that bokeh in the foreground is just as nice as in the background I think.
p.5 #13 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
akul wrote:
Medium distance with busier background.
Overall, I am impressed with both. I do prefer Plena's bokeh, AF, and handling on Z6. In terms of sharpness, with Z6 24mp sensor, I don't see meaningful difference between the two.
Luka
Quite an interesting test, Luka. Thank you for offering it. The Zeiss stands its ground admirably against the new Nikon darling. The Nikon is performing as Nikon claims it to be.
p.5 #14 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
akul wrote:
Since Riccardo asked the question regarding Plena and Apo Sonnar difference, I also got bit curious. Due to the weight + thin DOF + front heaviness with FTZ, I stopped using Apo Sonnar for long time. I did not give Apo Sonnar a fair chance in the past. So, I did some comparison. I thought more comparison could be interesting as additional data points for whoever may be interested in.
Shots are close to minimum distance. Notice that Plena and Apo Sonnar has different focal length. Image from Apo Sonnar from close distance appear lager. Tripod was never moved between the shots.
...Show more →
Had I not seen the Plena photos, I would have claimed that the Zeiss had some of the nicest out of focus areas/isolation/bokeh I had ever seen. The Plena takes this to a whole new level. While post processing techniques can now emulate this to a degree, it is nice to know that an AF lens can produce such a creamy image out of the box without post.
I am certain that the Plena will be in many wedding photographers' bags and may be the one lens that persuades some non-Nikon photographers to consider switching or adding a Nikon to their kit.
p.5 #15 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
@akul — compliments on an excellent series to compare all relevant aspects!
What I see is a generally better balanced and smoother behavior, as well as superb rendering of both front and rear bokeh from the Plena. The character of each lens is distinctly different, the Zeiss leaning to its historical roots of contrast and clarity while Nikon has leaned back to a smoother legacy look similar to its F mount 58 and 105 f1.4’s and even the 200/2.
For my money from what I’ve seen, I would buy the 200/2 simply due to the fact I prefer the focal to 135 of the Plena. But I do appreciate the family of similar character these lenses share and for that I think the Plena will be quite successful with people, portrait and wedding photographers.
p.5 #16 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Great samples @akul. It appears the Plena has greater background blur, ie the quantity of blur independent of DOF and a function of physical aperture size. Here are some references:
p.5 #17 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
The 135/2 Apo Sonnar is a really nice lens, in terms of vivid colours and crisp rendering, but I have found situations where the bokeh is less nice than expected, and the manual focus is quite heavily damped so it would be difficult to use it to focus on a moving subject which I would expect the Plena to handle quite well. It's well-suited to slower shooting, though.
p.5 #19 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The 135/2 Apo Sonnar is a really nice lens ... and the manual focus is quite heavily damped so it would be difficult to use it to focus on a moving subject which I would expect the Plena to handle quite well. It's well-suited to slower shooting, though.
About heavily damped MF, are you referring to the Classic or the Milvus?
I own the Classic; I was told that the focus ring of the Milvus is stiffer due to O-rings for weather sealing.
p.5 #20 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
akul wrote:
Medium distance with busier background.
Overall, I am impressed with both. I do prefer Plena's bokeh, AF, and handling on Z6. In terms of sharpness, with Z6 24mp sensor, I don't see meaningful difference between the two.
Luka
Thank you for these tests Luka. I think they are really helpful. I did keep wondering why the Zeiss images seemed to be more saturated overall , and the Plena images brighter. Then I noticed the shutter speeds were consistently not the same going from Nikon to Zeiss lenses. The Zeiss was "underexposed" by a third of a stop each time. That would account for the more saturated "look" of the Sonnar images. If you do more of these, maybe go full manual to see if the differences are less. Thank you for all your efforts.
