Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 4 end

Archive 2010 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

zesto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

None of the 105 f/2.5's I've owned would be as sharp as a Micro 60G, 24-70, 70-200 VRII, which I own, let alone the Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro Planar. The 105 f/2.5 would be on par with the 85 f/1.4D. This observation is based purely on the lenses I own or have owned.

Edited on Jun 27, 2010 at 11:47 PM · View previous versions

Jun 26, 2010 at 09:02 PM

luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

All I can say is that the 105/2.5 is as sharp as glass gets, based on my experience.

Jun 26, 2010 at 09:05 PM

Tosh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

My sharpness comparisons:

Nikon 105 ai-s at 2.5
http://gtikeda.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v1/p100449490.jpg

Zeiss 100 at 2.8
http://gtikeda.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v4/p108734153.jpg

Zeiss 100 at 2
http://gtikeda.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v1/p29539370.jpg

80-200 afs, 100 at 2.8
http://gtikeda.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v7/p448479937.jpg

The above are 100% crops, no sharpening in camera, with no pp other than wb correction. D700, tripod, remote release, about 8 ft. distance. Entire test image is below:
http://gtikeda.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v8/p505588150.jpg

Jun 26, 2010 at 09:26 PM

zesto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

To my eyes:

1st. Zeiss 100 at 2.8

2nd. 80-200 afs, 100 at 2.8

3rd. Zeiss 100 at 2

4th. Nikon 105 ai-s at 2.5

A great performance from the 80-200 afs. Of course, sample variation plays a role as does focusing accuracy.

Jun 26, 2010 at 10:00 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

ulrikft2 wrote:
Thanks guys!

I think I'll go for a ZF 100 2.0.

The Zeiss is a spectacular lens; think of it as a superb 100 f/2 that has excellent close focus ability, rather than a macro lens. I don't think the Nikon lens could touch it especially wide open, where the Zeiss is very sharp.

Jun 27, 2010 at 08:57 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

luminosity wrote:
All I can say is that the 105/2.5 is as sharp as glass gets, based on my experience.

I'd not buy the Zeiss for sharpness. The Nikkor is, as you said, as sharp as a lens gets. But it doesn't have nearly as good colors, or local contrast, or global contrast, or "3D". The only time I'd choose the Nikkor over the Zeiss would be for portraits, because of the slight veil and lower contrast.

Go Ulrik!

Jun 28, 2010 at 03:58 AM

zesto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

Makten, my copy of the Zeiss F.2 100 Makro Planar is even sharper than my 70-200 VR II and Micro 60G and blows the socks off any of the five 105 f/2.5's I've owned. I have a soft spot for the 105 f/2.5 especially the AI version and it's sharp stopped down to f/5.6 but it's sharpness is nothing super special IMHO.

Jun 28, 2010 at 04:23 AM

camerapapi
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

I have never used Zeiss lenses except when I used a Rollei with a sharp 75mm f3.5 Tessar lens. Karl Zeiss manufactures some of the finest lenses in the world, I guess we all know that.
I use an old 105mm f2.5, the AI-S version is much better but still I get very sharp results from my lens, which is single coated.
The 105 Nikkor is the lens Steve McCurry used to photograph "The Afghan Girl", that beautiful portrait of a refugee girl in a camp in Pakistan. It became one of the most sought after portraits after it made it to the cover of Life.
Looking with my old eyes to the test pictures I would say the Zeiss lens is contrastier but contrast, that helps to the perception of sharpness, can always be added during editing.
Do not misunderstand me, the Zeiss lens is a great optic but I do not believe anyone using the Nikkor will be terribly disappointed because a Zeiss was not used instead.
Just my opinion.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

Jun 28, 2010 at 04:25 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

zesto wrote:
Makten, my copy of the Zeiss F.2 100 Makro Planar is even sharper than my 70-200 VR II and Micro 60G and blows the socks off any of the five 105 f/2.5's I've owned. I have a soft spot for the 105 f/2.5 especially the AI version and it's sharp stopped down to f/5.6 but it's sharpness is nothing super special IMHO.

I should have written "resolution" instead of "sharpness". What I meant was that the Nikkor probably outresolves even the D3X sensor. "Sharpness" is something that you can't really measure.

camerapapi wrote:
Looking with my old eyes to the test pictures I would say the Zeiss lens is contrastier but contrast, that helps to the perception of sharpness, can always be added during editing.

Yes, with increased noise and less accurate colors as a price to pay. There's nothing to be had for free when postprocessing.
The Nikkor is one of the finest ~100 mm lenses in my opinion, but the Zeiss is better in most aspects. Hopefully this won't come as a surprise.

Jun 28, 2010 at 04:42 AM

luminosity
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

William, it was the cover of National Geographic, and I doubt that it became highly sought after for a couple reasons. One is that not many people were aware of what lens was used, and still are not, and the other is that even if it had been highly sought after, it's the opposite of the 28/1.4 in that there are hundreds of thousands of copies floating around (perhaps a good deal more than that).

Jun 28, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Specularist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

luminosity wrote:
William, it was the cover of National Geographic, and I doubt that it became highly sought after for a couple reasons. One is that not many people were aware of what lens was used, and still are not, and the other is that even if it had been highly sought after, it's the opposite of the 28/1.4 in that there are hundreds of thousands of copies floating around (perhaps a good deal more than that).

I think William was referring to the portrait, not the lens.

I have a 105 mm f/2.5 AIS and I'm usually very happy with its performance. Below about f/4 the Zeiss 100 mm Makro-Planar is probably much sharper, but by f/5.6 I doubt there's much in it (the Nikkor is extremely sharp across the frame by f/5.6).

The Nikkor has colour fringing caused by both longitudinal and lateral chromatic aberration, whereas the Zeiss seems to have basically no lateral chromatic aberration. For reasons not clear to me, the Zeiss suffers from particularly strong colour anomalies in high-contrast out-of-focus areas.

Of course the Zeiss retains a very high performance in the close-focus range, something the Nikkor can only dream of.

I know the Zeiss is an accomplished lens but it is clearly not perfect. There are many good lenses around this focal length (e.g. the 105 mm Nikkor above, various third-party macros, Leica APO-Summicron 90 mm ASPH, APO-Macro-Elmarit 100 mm, the Sonnar and Planar 100 mm lenses for Contax, etc.). In this context Zeiss haven't convinced me with the expensive 100 mm Makro-Planar.

Jun 29, 2010 at 03:30 AM

Len Shepherd
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

The last optical update (as distinct from mechanical) of the Nikon seems to be 1973 - before some of us were born

What the Zeiss cannot do is match the "classic" look of the Nikon for portraiture.
The Zeiss uses floating elements (probably not around in 1973) to get to half life size.
Any current pro grade Nikon lens comfortably delivers a good 20 inch wide print from 12 MP.
End use is perhaps important as prints bigger than 24 inches wide even from modest 16 MP medium format digital backs are clearly better than from 24 MP 35mm.
There comes a point where increasing format size is the logical route (subject to budget) to get the highest optical detail.

Jun 29, 2010 at 03:58 AM

phatnev
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

This kinda stuff usually makes me laugh, I always ask "are you gonna shoot it or look at charts and brick walls all day?" You, my friend, have a fast 100mm-ish lens, take the $900+ difference and go away for a weekend and use it.

Especially since you seem to have a fantastic style judging from your website, a lot of your stuff is right up my alley and completely badass, it also seems that a decent bit of PP is usually used, which would pretty much negate any difference between the two anyways, why would you wanna spend the extra $$$?

Jun 29, 2010 at 04:05 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

Some of us live for photography (not the other way around). I use my ZF lenses every single day. I want the best and I don't care about the cost.
So, those "minor" differences are not minor to me. And I don't even do prints. Ever.

Many of you that think the Makro-Planar is overpriced could probably use a cheaper car. Or a smaller house. Or... You get what I mean. Priorities.

Jun 29, 2010 at 04:14 AM

phatnev
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

Makten wrote:
Some of us live for photography (not the other way around). I use my ZF lenses every single day. I want the best and I don't care about the cost.
So, those "minor" differences are not minor to me. And I don't even do prints. Ever.

Many of you that think the Makro-Planar is overpriced could probably use a cheaper car. Or a smaller house. Or... You get what I mean. Priorities.

You can have the best, but my bet is you couldn't push the $100 105mm 2.5 to it's limits, so it is truly pointless for you(or me) to own a 100mm ZF other than to be able to stroke your e-peen and say you have the best.

For the record don't think it's overpriced, however I think it's bloody stupid to upgrade from one of the greatest 105mm lenses ever made for something that costs 10x more, especially with the style he displays on his website. If he were shooting macro, that'd make a ton of sense, and yeah close focus is cool, but it's not worth the money imo.

Jun 29, 2010 at 05:04 AM

Conner999
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

+1 on Specularist and Lens' comments. Having owned the 100ZF and the usual mess of Leica APO, ZF, Contax, CV, etc., (e.g. the usual suspects) glass, the 100/2 is very nice, but far from perfect and, IMHO, in dire need of better CA control at it's price point given competitive offerings out there in that $$ range (or less) - assuming you're willing to do stop-down.

That said, if you're in love with the T* look (admittedly not my preference) well, the 100/2 is it (barring the 100/2 Contax) in that FL and at that speed and the only one with those specs that offers macro ability and has aperture control.

I don't have the link, but someone did a test of the Nikon 105VR and the 100 ZF on www.getdpi.com at least a year ago and the results saved many folks on the forum some $$$. Might be worth a search.

Jun 29, 2010 at 05:11 AM

zesto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

What I really like about the Zeiss 100 f/2 is it's wide open performance, something the 105 Micro VR can't match. It also doubles as a portrait and macro lens and does both jobs extremely well. I sold my 85 f/1.4D and my 60G Micro AF-S because the Zeiss 100 Makro basically does the job of both those very fine lenses.

I don't think that many people would buy a Zeiss lens to say they have the best. That's just plain stupid. Also, as pointed out by Conner999 the Leica 9O APO is a very, very good lens which makes the Zeiss 100 seem cheap in comparison.

Jun 29, 2010 at 05:54 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

Bragging is the worst shit I know.

For the record don't think it's overpriced, however I think it's bloody stupid to upgrade from one of the greatest 105mm lenses ever made for something that costs 10x more, especially with the style he displays on his website. If he were shooting macro, that'd make a ton of sense, and yeah close focus is cool, but it's not worth the money imo.

Just because the 105/2.5 is one of the greatest, it doesn't mean it suits everybody. I don't know about you, but my style gets influenced by the lenses I use. So when switching from the Nikkor to the Makro-Planar, I also changed style, to something that I like better.

Jun 29, 2010 at 05:55 AM

panos.v
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

phatnev wrote:
You can have the best, but my bet is you couldn't push the $100 105mm 2.5 to it's limits, so it is truly pointless for you(or me) to own a 100mm ZF other than to be able to stroke your e-peen and say you have the best.

So you cannot push a lens with a 1m minimum focusing distance and f/2.5 max aperture to the limit? Interesting

For the record don't think it's overpriced, however I think it's bloody stupid to upgrade from one of the greatest 105mm lenses ever made for something that costs 10x more, especially with the style he displays on his website. If he were shooting macro, that'd make a ton of sense, and yeah close focus is cool, but it's not worth the money imo.

By this arguement nobody should ever upgrade from the 50/1.8 to the 50/1.4, from the 85/1.8 to the 85/1.4 and from the 180/2.8 to the 200/2. And so on.

If you have the money why not get it?

Jun 29, 2010 at 06:08 AM

Specularist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0

Makten wrote:
I use my ZF lenses every single day. I want the best and I don't care about the cost.
So, those "minor" differences are not minor to me. And I don't even do prints. Ever.

Many of you that think the Makro-Planar is overpriced could probably use a cheaper car. Or a smaller house. Or... You get what I mean. Priorities.

Agreed. By the way, I ride a Vespa and own neither a car nor a house.

I do have some nice photo stuff, though nothing compared to many people here.

Conner999 wrote:
I don't have the link, but someone did a test of the Nikon 105VR and the 100 ZF on www.getdpi.com at least a year ago and the results saved many folks on the forum some $$$. Might be worth a search.

Lloyd Chambers (not the gospel by any means) did some tests of these two lenses, and the Zeiss was convincingly better at large apertures and distant subjects. At shorter distances the differences seem less significant, though I haven't analysed his results closely.

zesto wrote:
What I really like about the Zeiss 100 f/2 is it's wide open performance, something the 105 Micro VR can't match.

Indeed. Large-aperture performance is the Makro-Planar's forte. John Black (the Pebble Place gent) makes some very attractive photos by shooting carefully composed, mid-range urban scenes with a large-aperture short tele lens like the old 100 mm Planar. It works very well and wouldn't be nearly as successful with a lens that's relatively soft wide open (like any of the 105 mm Nikkors).

panos.v wrote:
If you have the money why not get it?

Because there's beauty in the economy of "just enough", whether it's a lens or anything else. The 105 mm f/2.5 Nikkor is much smaller and lighter, just as well made (unlike any autofocus lens), and can provide very attractive pictures. Unless you have a good reason to prefer the Zeiss (large aperture performance or close subjects), I don't see the point in spending the money on it.

Jun 29, 2010 at 07:03 AM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.