I did a visual inspection of where I was focusing in the center and it seem like the Nikon looks sharper. This definitely not rigorous or scientific but visually the Nikon looks sharper. Maybe I'm jumping into conclusions and need to redo do this in a better way. Any suggestions?
The Zeiss lenses must not necessarily be sharper in all possible situations, Smridevan. Such comparisons as yours are a difficult base for judgeing the quality of a lens. What you should do is processing both shots properly and compare them side by side. That should teach you the difference between both.
I went through these stages as well. Compared my Zeiss lenses to the two mighty AF-S Micros and my beloved AF-S 16-35. And yes, somtimes the Nikkors look even sharper in detail. But comparing the properly processed pictures in original size is the real eye opener.
Saying that a new lens also means some work to learn about it's strengths and weaknesses. You got to learn, when and how to use it properly. In my case it was even quite a long learning curve, because I had to learn to handle DSLR and PP at the same time after having sold my 4x5 studio cam some months ago.
Look at this one sample I've taken with my 2/35. I'm very well used to shoot espresso installations with my two Micro lenses. But believe me, there isn't much that get's close to the quality of the rendering, the plasticity and the '3-D-ness' in that image here!
Smridevan wrote:
I did a visual inspection of where I was focusing in the center and it seem like the Nikon looks sharper. This definitely not rigorous or scientific but visually the Nikon looks sharper. Maybe I'm jumping into conclusions and need to redo do this in a better way. Any suggestions?
I owned and shot the Zeiss ZE 35 f:2.0, and then the 35 f:1.4, smridevan. On first glance the f:2.0 is more impressive. Obvious, "in your face" 3D and razor sharpness are is two of the attributes for which it is well known -and loved by many-.
When I got my f:1.4, this spectacular aspect was not so visible. Does this mean that the lens is less sharp, or has less resolution? On the contrary, I started to notice the huge amount of small detail that the f:1.4 has, minute detail which was not quite that visible on the f:2.0, especially in the background and in the OOF areas (I shoot mostly landscape and cityscape). And the more fine detail a lens has (and this is supported by MTF curves, indicating that, stopped down, the f:1.4 outperforms the f:2.0 in this respect), the less it will "seem" to delineate the major objects in a picture. Transition lines will be more subtle, i.e. more gradual, thus seeming less sharply etched.
Now that I have grown used to the phenomenal level of detail the f:1.4 has, the difference with my f:2.0 pics are obvious.
That is for the "sharpness-resolution" issue you raise. But I am sure there are also differences in the colours and contrast. Not noticing them may be due to your processing the RAW from the Zeiss like the RAW from the Nikon. Maybe you should try to tailor pics from each lens to look their best to your eye, and not to look "alike", and you may be surprised to see how large the PP differences are.
Smridevan - I agree with others. It is quite understandable when you spend a big chunk of money, you would want to make sure you did not lose your investment on something bad. AFS24-70 is a great lens, and 35mm on that lens is very good. I own one too. Your comparison may not be as obvious as you might have hoped. I'd say, as long as your 35 1.4 is not defective, I'd go out and shoot as many photos I can with the lens, shoot in many different conditions and see the results. I suspect, you may find some shots to come out as quite a 'surprise'. In other words, you may notice something you would not usually expect to see from Nikon lenses. If you like that 'difference', you made a right choice. If you don't then you might as well sell it. Difference between 24-70 and Distagon 35 /f1.4 may be more in their flavor than the technical comparison. There are many superb examples on this thread, you track Philber, Ajay and others posts, you will find many superb examples of how fantastic this lens is. Plus, 24-70 only goes to F2.8 I am not as technically knowledgeable as many others on this forum, so I stay in the 'impressionistic' answer.
Oh, one other thing, I am not certain APS-C size has any impact on your experience, and I can't quite speak on that part.
Good luck
melbmanu - Great texture. I like the B/W very much
Vincent, Ripolini - fantastic coffe cups shots.
Hexonxonx - 1/15 second !! that is impressive
Thank you so much, akul & Uzay. Especially to you, Uzay. You boys from Turkey know a bit or two about coffee, too!
The water landscape of Hexonxonx is a real wow-er again. Lovely. I was just considering if I should share my Tiergarten picture with bridge, taken with 2/35. But akul does ferns much better and if I see Hexonxonx', I better don't!
Yes, forget about "sharpness". It's a vague concept that doesn't mean anything if you don't put it into context. Is sharpness the same as resolution? Or acutance? Or both? The Nikkor 24-70 is a really great lens (I've had one too) and I wouldn't doubt that it's "sharper" than the Zeiss. But – without having even tried the 35/1.4 – I doubt it gives the same character.
The three ZF lenses I own today; 35/2, 50/1.4 and 100/2, are all different from any Nikkor I know of. They might not be "sharper", but they have certain qualities that can be clearly seen even if I can't always describe them. Mostly it's about local contrast and the transition from sharpness to background blur. But also the colors are very "clean". No casts or so. Just beautiful pureness.
Chances are that you might see the difference better if you don't look at crops, but at the whole image instead.
Haha, well, starting the Wednesday after next, I have some time free, so anytime around then is good for me. At the moment I am run off my feet, due to work and home events out of my control
Thank you: Vincent, pilber, akul, Makten for you insights and responses.
I do notice that the transitions of the edges are smoother and more gradual, as philber said. Maybe that's why the picture looks less sharp. But definitely there is no color casts in the Zeiss compared to the Nikon and the colors are cleaner and more contrasty, as Makten noted.
I guess I was not used to looking at the character of Zeiss lenses so maybe I was expecting something different or something I was used to seeing. But, like akul suggested, I think I'm going to have go out there and take a bunch of pictures to learn and appreciate its character.
Awesome coffee cup pics Vincent and Ripolini! I hope I will be able to make those kinds of shots in the future.
I've had the 35/2 ZE for about 1.5 year untill I recently bought the new 35/1.4 ZE.
Sold the f2 a few days later.
It was a great companion, but the 1.4 impresses me more than the f2. The colors, bokeh and just the overall rendering is more appealing to me. Sharpness of both is great. Like Philippe also said: to my eye the 1.4 captures more fine details than the f2.
