I would think that you'd take close-up shots at least 5.6 for at least some DoF...
here's a sample taken with the 135/2.8 Nikkor...with the 27.5 M extension tube
I kept seeing the M tube (or is it "ring") on ebay for less than $10 so I thought I'd experiment with it as it would offer a greater variety of uses than any one macro lens...
With all my MF Nikkors, from 50 to 300, I thought I could be able to shoot close-ups from up close with the 50mm, to a more comfortable distance of 10 feet with a telephoto...which would allow me to shoot some things that wouldn't let me get closer....
Here's the 135mm Nikkor with the M1....shots taken with a Canon 40D...@ ISO 400 with on-board flash.
...shots at a distance of 2.5 feet...the Buddhists @ F11, Thai dancer @ F5.6...
the height of the figurines in the full frame image is 3 inches
and 100% crops....
Both shots were sharpened at 5 in DPP and USM added (200/.3/0)
Well, here's the 105 @ F2.5 and F8 shot at infinity, on the Canon 40D RAW file all neutral settings, USM (300/.3/0) added...ISO 800, full frame and 100% crop of the F8 shot....
The 100 ZF/ZE is the bomb! It does not get any better. Both ZF and ZE are identical in optics. Only the mount differ. Hundreds of samples HERE. Don't hesitate and just buy it.
afm901 wrote:
As much as I like the 105mm f/2.5 (this is the lens that caused me to switch from Canon to Nikon in the late '70's.), I find the current 105mm f/2.8 VR lens to be just as good as a portrait lens and more versatile.
However, the best Nikkor 105mm portrait lens, and one that I think is every bit the equal of the Zeiss 100mm f/2 in color, resolution, contrast, and 3D effect, is the Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC lens.
S-
That I believe! After all, it's pretty clear that the entire purpose of the DC lenses was to equal the ability of the Zeiss and some Leica lenses. The "DC" was specifically included to help those lenses have the greatest ever (adjustable!) bokeh. Pretty tweaky. It is (somewhat) of an admission by the men of Nikon that someone was ahead of them. NIkon is still capable of equaling or surpassing most any other company in the industry if they put their mind to it.
Having been rather serious about tasting wine a few decades ago, I always find these conversations quite laughable. People strongly express preferences as though their subjective experience actually means something. There is nothing quite like a blind tasting to demonstrate who knows what when it comes to wine and nothing like a blind test of images taken with different lenses to answer questions such as those posed on this thread.
Fortunately, such a test was recently performed by Todd and members were given the opportunity to assess both the Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI-s and Zeiss 100 f/2 ZF.2 with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Version 1 thrown in. It was a blind test and judging from the considered opinion of those daring enough to risk an opinion, members were ALL OVER THE PLACE. Their assessments covered most, though not all of the "tasting" terms used by aficionados much in love with one or another of these lenses. But practically NO ONE identified the vaunted Zeiss lens correctly.
I guess if one spends thousands of dollars on camera gear they better love it. Whether that love is justified by objective criteria is really irrelevant, as it is in romantic love as well. Far better to love the one your with than to be eternally longing for someone else...
I won't say I'll NEVER buy a Zeiss lens but I'm pretty happy with the MF lenses manufactured by Nikon at the moment, so it won't likely be any time soon...
You are absolutely correct CGrindahl. Even if it means buying/selling gear, my preference is to try at least two different brand lenses in the same FL and see which I prefer the most. My testing is done under the shooting conditions which I would most likely use the lens for. I never will disregard a certain lens even if there are negative reviews associated. It may very well suit my needs. As you say, it all comes down to personal taste. Personal experience is far more valuable to me than web chat which reflects so many different opinions...
CGrindahl wrote:
It was a blind test and judging from the considered opinion of those daring enough to risk an opinion, members were ALL OVER THE PLACE.
Well, focus was also "all over the place", so that comparsion doesn't say too much. Also, Todd tweaked the white balance to get them more similar, which of course could hide some of the nice colors of the Zeiss.
And as I said earlier, the 105/2.5 is terrific. But not the same. It might not suit Todd and his use of it, but it suits me and I really don't care about how others use their lenses.
Makten wrote:
Well, focus was also "all over the place", so that comparsion doesn't say too much. Also, Todd tweaked the white balance to get them more similar, which of course could hide some of the nice colors of the Zeiss...
And yet, it is a rare person who will simply take a photo and either post an image online or print it without doing any processing. Personally, half the pleasure of photography for me happens after uploading images and playing with them first in Lightroom and then Photoshop. I appreciate, of course, that some folks who produce images for publication face greater constraints. A friend whose work regularly appears in the Sierra Club Wilderness calendar noted that he must submit RAW files. After years of shooting large format film he is now shooting with a D700. His latest image to be accepted for the calendar was shot with a borrowed Nikon's 17-35 f/2.8. He doesn't own a Zeiss lens...
As you say, it is clearly different strokes for different folks. If money were NO object, I might make different choices regarding gear. Of course, despite my love of fine wine, I'm always delighted when I find a bargain. Nikon's MF lenses strike me as a remarkable bargain in the current market...
theSuede wrote:
When it comes to hobby-based photography one should not underestimate the impact "dream-lenses" have on the quality/enjoyability of the hobby either - optical qualities nonwithstanding. If a lens-purchase makes you go out and shoot and experiment more, it's probably worth it.
Growing up in photography and as a wedding photographer, I always fantasized about owning the best lenses. Those lenses were the expensive ones that I could not afford to buy. Eventually, I was able to acquire some expensive Nikon "fast glass". I had a nice Nikon Ais lens kit which fit my personal style and were useful at weddings too. I liked to actually see thru the viewfinder at the dark receptions while manually focusing the Nikon 35mm F1.4 and the 50mm F1.2 on a pair of F3 bodies. Otherwise, veiling flare, bothered me and I did not like to shoot wide open. I wanted portrait pics sharp all over, especially with both the bride and groom present in the same photograph. Of course, I learned about the classic long favorites; 180mm, 105mm but the 85mm F2 Ais was always the very practical and best choice for me because it could be used in the studio, in the house, at the reception ,in the church and outdoors. I never needed or wanted the bigger and expensive 85mm F1.4 version. Instead of the big and expensive 180mm, I had the 200mm F4 Ais and the 135mm F2.8 Ais. The 135mm F2.8 really was nice outdoors for a bridal couple and for headshots and the 200mm sometimes was useful in the church. Not much of a wide fan for people pics, I eventually acquired a 24mm F2 Ais. I could not afford to keep it, being the least used lens in my arsnel and it was sold.
I still love lenses. The Ais lenses and their manual focus bodies are all sold now in favor of AF lenses and a pair of D300 bodies. With the internet forums and threads like this one, the discussions about lenses are great and with personal fan club bias but "show me the pics" is useful, such as Jammy's flower pic which is fantastic. You have got to own them to know them.
Have you considered the Leica 2,8/100 Makro APO, converted to F mount (Leitax)?
Although a stop slower, none of the OOF CA issues of the ZF 100, 1:2 like the Zeiss, already razor-sharp wide-open and can be had used for US$1200-1400. Great lens; have one and never regretted my decision.
theSuede wrote:
When it comes to hobby-based photography one should not underestimate the impact "dream-lenses" have on the quality/enjoyability of the hobby either - optical qualities nonwithstanding. If a lens-purchase makes you go out and shoot and experiment more, it's probably worth it.
This is a huge point, which I whole-heartedly endorse.
Since this is a different thread, I feel compelled to reiterate that my test was in no way meant to denigrate the Zeiss, and I have no doubt of its capabilities based on images I have seen. I also have no doubt that in some cases (MFD, smaller apertures, specular highlights, for example), it will kick the Nikkor's butt. I am still unsure whether or not I will keep the Zeiss, but the main reason is I just can't seem to get the "feel" for it....precise focus, etc. The lens just has be a bit perplexed thus far. Unlike, I should say, the CV58 I recently acquired. That lens went right ot work for me, and I can get plenty of keepers even at f/1.4, and have already produced many nice images with wildly different and interesting optical character compared to my Nikon lenses (this was the goal in purchasing the Zeiss, which I have yet to achieve. I would NOT argue to keep only the Nikkor and lose the Zeiss based on my tests alone, unless I was ONLY planning on using the lens for wide aperture portraits with neutral backgrounds.
Martin, you are correct, my focal planes were not as aligned as I would have liked them, and that may have had some effect on the results (although in reality, under the test conditions, I doubt it). Regarding the WB, I only tweaked the Nikkor 105 file, because it was a bit cooler. The Zeiss colors were untouched.
williamkazak wrote:
Growing up in photography and as a wedding photographer, I always fantasized about owning the best lenses. Those lenses were the expensive ones that I could not afford to buy. Eventually, I was able to acquire some expensive Nikon "fast glass". I had a nice Nikon Ais lens kit which fit my personal style and were useful at weddings too. I liked to actually see thru the viewfinder at the dark receptions while manually focusing the Nikon 35mm F1.4 and the 50mm F1.2 on a pair of F3 bodies. Otherwise, veiling flare, bothered me and I did not like to shoot wide open. I wanted portrait pics sharp all over, especially with both the bride and groom present in the same photograph. Of course, I learned about the classic long favorites; 180mm, 105mm but the 85mm F2 Ais was always the very practical and best choice for me because it could be used in the studio, in the house, at the reception ,in the church and outdoors. I never needed or wanted the bigger and expensive 85mm F1.4 version. Instead of the big and expensive 180mm, I had the 200mm F4 Ais and the 135mm F2.8 Ais. The 135mm F2.8 really was nice outdoors for a bridal couple and for headshots and the 200mm sometimes was useful in the church. Not much of a wide fan for people pics, I eventually acquired a 24mm F2 Ais. I could not afford to keep it, being the least used lens in my arsnel and it was sold.
I still love lenses. The Ais lenses and their manual focus bodies are all sold now in favor of AF lenses and a pair of D300 bodies. With the internet forums and threads like this one, the discussions about lenses are great and with personal fan club bias but "show me the pics" is useful, such as Jammy's flower pic which is fantastic. You have got to own them to know them....Show more →
Well said....results is the bottom line.
When I got longer lenses I first got the 105/2.5 pre-AI but I needed a wider aperture (faster shutter speed actually), so got the 85/1.8 to get the shots that the 105 couldn't...
Then I traded the 1.8 for the 85/F2 AIS because the smaller/lighter version on the Nikon F gave me yet another shutter speed of working room....and yet...
...though the 85/2 worked great for me...on the newer DSLRs I found the lighter lens almost too light, so when I found a (cheap) heavier 85/1.8 I got it (and sold the 85/F2) and now feel more comfortable holding the 1.8 on my Canon 40D...
I almost feel the same with the 105/AIS I've since gotten, compared to the older pre-ai 105 I used to have...if I should find another pre-AIS 105 I just might trade down to it.
As I think back I had the same feelings about the 200/4-Q compared to the 180...the lighter 200 gave me a steadier hand so I never felt the lust for the 180...but with the new DSLRs, the 180 feels very balanced
It is all about results and making it work into your style. When I went to AF, the 85mm F1.8 AFD was just fine. I acquired my second 105 F2DC and now the 85 F1.8AFD is gone. I was lucky enough to acquire two 180mm F2.8 AFD lenses but they are gone in favor of the 105 F2DC. I like my 35mm F2 AFD over the 35mm F1.8 AFSG so I am keeping it. Reading about it is one thing but seeing the pics, making it fit into your style and carring it around are important considerations.
