RoamingScott wrote:
A bit redundant if you've been following the thread, but my full thoughts in long form on the matter:
Good stuff, Scott. Nice to see the Nokton finally worked its way into your good graces
I agree with you on the Nikon comments. The SE version is very slick and has a certain wiffle ball feeling going on. When I had the Zf, I felt the SE was just encouraging me to drop the thing. I ended up moving it and then getting a non-SE for less, and that one feels just a little less slippery.
Also, just a random data point that came up when I was deciding what to do with the Zf... a naked Zf and 40 f/1.2 is the same weight as a Z8 and a 40 f/2.
OffTrail wrote:
Good stuff, Scott. Nice to see the Nokton finally worked its way into your good graces
I agree with you on the Nikon comments. The SE version is very slick and has a certain wiffle ball feeling going on. When I had the Zf, I felt the SE was just encouraging me to drop the thing. I ended up moving it and then getting a non-SE for a lot less, and that one feels just a little less slippery.
Also, just a random data point that came up when I was deciding what to do with the Zf... a naked Zf and 40 f/1.2 is the same weight as a Z8 and a 40 f/2. ...Show more →
And the Zf can actually zoom in for peaking/focus mag without lagging terribly like the Z8/Z9 does.
RoamingScott wrote:
Here's a pretty harsh lighting scenario at f4.
Thanks Scott for the controlled comparisons! This set (with the statue in the fountain) shows their color and contrast differences very clearly!
Something I'm developing an eye for is tonality within the greens. In my Voigtlanders I'm less satisfied with their green tones, compared to Zeiss. Thinking of picking up a Zeiss 50/2 Planar for landscapes with vegetation.
asdfghreturns wrote:
Thanks Scott for the controlled comparisons! This set (with the statue in the fountain) shows their color and contrast differences very clearly!
Something I'm developing an eye for is tonality within the greens. In my Voigtlanders I'm less satisfied with their green tones, compared to Zeiss. Thinking of picking up a Zeiss 50/2 Planar for landscapes with vegetation.
I'd be curious how much of that is lens coatings and how they white balance vs the Zeiss. It would be interesting to see photos set to the same WB to get a sense of the actual color cast differences.
asdfghreturns wrote:
Thanks Scott for the controlled comparisons! This set (with the statue in the fountain) shows their color and contrast differences very clearly!
Something I'm developing an eye for is tonality within the greens. In my Voigtlanders I'm less satisfied with their green tones, compared to Zeiss. Thinking of picking up a Zeiss 50/2 Planar for landscapes with vegetation.
I have a few Zeiss ZF2 and Voigtlander lenses at overlapping focal lengths and while the Voigtlander lenses have better IQ there is something about the Zeiss colors I prefer. Which is interesting since my understanding is Cosina made the Zeiss lenses too. Maybe it has something to do with lens coatings, as Scott also mentioned above.
Zeiss has had a 'company look' for color and contrast which has changed subtly over decades. The optical glass chosen for the design is probably the major part of it, but coatings can definitely affect the color as well. If you have ever had 2 copies of an old Nikon manual focus lens, one from before and one from after they applied multiple layer coating, the difference is immediately noticeable.
Yes, I think tonality is a function of coatings, as well as glass types, number of elements/groups, geometry, and even total glass volume the light path needs to traverse. Combined, they effect contrast (MTF) at different linear frequencies and color wavelengths, as well as total light transmission (T-stop) at different color wavelengths.
You can see in Scott's comparisons the Septom achieves higher contrast, but lower light transmission than the others, especially in the greens. There are tradeoffs among all the factors.
My CY 28/2.8 is a 7/7 (elements/groups) design and has surprisingly good color. Its contrast and bokeh are not as good as my VM Ultron 35/1.7, which is a 9/7 design. But in natural environments, I'm finding myself preferring the Zeiss for its colors. Within the Voigtlander line, I think the Color-Skopars do better for color and tonality (thus the name!) but unfortunately there don't seem to be any wide-angles available for Z-mount yet (there are corner issues due to filter thickness when adapting the M-mount versions).
Interestingly, from what I've read the 50mm Summicron takes a different balance to achieve the Leica Look - less contrast but higher light transmission thus better colors, along with better bokeh, when compared to the Zeiss Planar f2.
Even within Zeiss Planar - the f1.4 and f1.7 seems to have less contrast than the f2 - I attribute to being bulkier 7/6 designs compared to a 6/4 design.
The Zeiss Otus ML, Voigtlander APO, and Nikon S-line models appear to sacrifice some contrast and tonality in favor of higher resolution and fewer aberrations, as a side effect of their more complex, high element designs, within smaller packages.
Thanks, to Scott, and also to those who have replied/contributed. As the owner of the F-mount Ultron, and still using several Nikon SLRs and DSLRs, I am finding the images, and this discussion, very interesting, and, nicely affirming. I reckon that it is inevitable that I will, eventually, start adding Z cameras, but I bought my Leica M10 and M Type 246 cameras in the second quarter of 2018, before the Z series was introduced, so adding mirror-deprived Nikons has not yet become important.
My wife does already occasionally use a Z6, which we bought at a local Z-series launch event, and, lenses make wonderful gifts, so, Z lens discussions are interesting for that reason, as well. (She is not the junior photographer, but the mentor who guided my start, when I was ready to finally move beyond 35mm film point-and-shoot cameras.)
