not that I think it matters a lot but I have to disagree. Zeiss has decided to be creative with their MTF tables. The Z tables are stretched compared to the Contax tables, which makes them look better.
A closer look tells you that at 1.4 the new is slightly better and at 5.6 the contax n is slightly better. The Z lens also has more LoCA then the Contax N I own now, I can not say though that I ever run into problems because of the this with the ZF 50mm I owned before.
The Photozone review is, by far, more in line with my conclusions than the Diwa Labs tests.
"MTF (resolution)
Traditionally 50mm lenses were and are still a benchmark for film as well as image sensors and the Zeiss lens is no exception here. The center resolution is already very good at max. aperture whereas the borders are a bit soft and also low in contrast. By f/2 the corners already recover significantly and the center heads towards excellent quality levels. Stopping down further unleashes the full resolution potential which can only be described as bitingly sharp. In fact the Zeiss beats all comparable Nikkors and sets a new (center) resolution record on the D200. "
From the looks of it, the ZE/ZF 50 1.4 is totally outclassed by the Nikkor as well as Canon 50's. Is this really true?
Nope. One reason why the data might be flawed is they measured the Zeiss with a Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikkor with a D3X: the latter has a higher pixel count. Double-Gauss designs are so good at optimum apertures that even D3X pixels are resolved with high contrast, so more pixels makes a significant difference here.
Other strange things I see:
- The site reports practically zero vignetting for the Nikkor at f/2.8 and f/4. Slightly optimistic. Perhaps they're measuring corrected images produced by the camera's JPEG engine or special Nikon raw conversion software?
- Geometric distortion is shown for the full aperture range. Why? If distortion varied with f-stop we'd have a major problem on our hands!
It's better to trust Zeiss' MTF charts (notwithstanding sample variation) than these tests.
Shuko wrote:
I guess that just proved my point when you had to post shots at f8.
Shuko, you posted "I don't think I've ever seen anyone call the f1.4 Zeiss sharp". Your post was a report on a general statement. It said nothing about aperture, so my post applies. BTW, if you read the reviews, you will find that most users find it very sharp, except wide open, particularly at MFD. That, however is not what you posted.
Perhaps they're measuring corrected images produced by the camera's JPEG engine or special Nikon raw conversion software?