Edit: Next to zero sharpening adjustments were done on all pictures. The lenses are sharp enough on their own and increasing sharpness will only detiorate other qualities of the lens. Levels were the only thing changed on 9/10 shots
p.2 #3 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd no need for overly scientific answers here, certain lens are more contrasty and also yield more saturated images which is the case with the 135mm. I know you don't want us to pay any attention to the EXIF but there is some relevant information in there. To be fair however you shot the first set with a D700 at ISO 800 and the 2nd set with a D2X at ISO 100. Hardly a reasonable comparison of anything when you go FF versus 1.5 crop and wildly different ISO's. Frankly not to be a hard head but I disagree that this a reasonable starting point for your discussion. I still believe you Zeiss will be more saturated and contrasty but not to the extent your showing in these images IMO.
p.2 #4 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
andrewd01 wrote:
interesting sub-thread here. I have $2400 speaker cables and the difference in the sound quality is night and day! Like two totally different systems! Couldn't give a monkeys what they measure on these things, the only measurement that counts is plugging them in and listening. Power cables also make a massive difference in a high end audio system.
Of course cables make a difference. But I'd rather compare lenses to speakers and cables perhaps to what screen calibration you use. In my opinion, cables are the last thing you put (big) money on, since the acoustic properties of the room, amplifier, speakers and all that makes much more difference.
But there are some audiophile stuff that does NOT make sense, like turning cables in the "right" direction. That's bogus.
I suppose the lens analogy is that some people over-analyse what can be measured (eg MTF) and miss the whole point, which is: do you like the way the lens renders the image captured? I personally prefer the second image in each pair of examples posted above.
Exactly. Look at images and grow your own opinion. MTF says something about a lens, but far from everything. Especially since it's often only measured at two frequencies.
p.2 #5 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
davenfl wrote:
Todd no need for overly scientific answers here, certain lens are more contrasty and also yield more saturated images which is the case with the 135mm. I know you don't want us to pay any attention to the EXIF but there is some relevant information in there. To be fair however you shot the first set with a D700 at ISO 800 and the 2nd set with a D2X at ISO 100. Hardly a reasonable comparison of anything when you go FF versus 1.5 crop and wildly different ISO's. Frankly not to be a hard head but I disagree that this a reasonable starting point for your discussion. I still believe you Zeiss will be more saturated and contrasty but not to the extent your showing in these images IMO.
Dave, I think you misunderstand. I'm not comparing shots on different cameras, or different ISOs. In fact, it's possibly entertaining (if one can see the difference), that we see the Zeiss effect on different sensors, and ISOs.
The first set of shots, both shot with the D700 are up for comparison. With each other. The second set, from the D2x, again are to be compared with each other. The D2x shots are not meant to be compared with the D700 shots.
Hahah, I think I have done a poor job of communicating my intentions with this thread.
For anyone who cares, the second (bottom) shot of each set was shot with the Zeiss 100 Makro-Planar. The top shot in each set was shot with my AI'd 135/2. What I'm seeing in both sets is that the subject in the top shot looks flat compared to the same subject in the bottom shot. I'm not sure anyone agrees with me, but that's my feeling. I know there is a Zeiss 3D effect, and I can see it in others' photos. But I am unsure what is work here for me. Possibly the Zeiss effect, possibly FL compression, and possibly my own active mind.
p.2 #6 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I love that despite all the eloquent conversation about lens characteristics and what constitutes a three dimensional experience of a two dimensional medium, no one seems willing to take a leap and suggest which of these images was taken with the Nikon 135 f/2 and which with the Zeiss 100 f/2. I'm not certain whether the 3D look is missing from the Zeiss offerings here, or whether those who believe is it evident, aren't willing to lay a bet on the matter. Inquiring minds want to know.
I would simply note that investing heavily in camera gear CAN affect one's subjective evaluation of what that gear produces. Most of us have a strong bias that what we've invested in is superior to what others have invested in. How else to explain the often passionate discussions of Windows versus Mac, or Canon versus Nikon? Yes, these conversations can be fun but I ultimately trust each of us is capable of deciding for ourselves whether what our gear is giving us is satisfactory, and of experimenting with alternatives when we're not pleased. Experimentation is really one of the joys of photography, whether one is talking about gear, or where one puts one's attention when shooting.
I like all four shots... and am waiting for the passionate believers in 3D to tell us the truth of which is which..
p.2 #8 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I picked the wrong one to be the Zeiss in the 2nd pair, but picked the right one in the first. In the first pair, the second shot is definitely more engaging, but I would attribute it more to the expression and lighting rather than the lens.
p.2 #9 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
CGrindahl wrote:
I would simply note that investing heavily in camera gear CAN affect one's subjective evaluation of what that gear produces. Most of us have a strong bias that what we've invested in is superior to what others have invested in.
This is a point which hasn't escaped me. Still, I can easily see the 3D effect with MY pics and MY Zeiss.
Sorry to spoil the fun, sir, we must have been composing our posts simultaneously. But I just felt like I hadn't communicated my purpose successfully, so wanted to lay all the cards on the table. As I mentioned, these shots weren't made for such comparison, so conditions weren't controlled. I will do this test again one day with the same lighting and the same image magnification.
p.2 #10 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Berschwinger wrote:
I picked the wrong one to be the Zeiss in the 2nd pair, but picked the right one in the first.
And Ryan did the same as you, and Carsten did the opposite. That tells me that at least SOMEONE agrees with me on the 3D effect in each of the cases, even if it isn't the same person.
I definitely think the effect is more dramatic in the first set.
p.2 #11 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd Adamson wrote:
This is a point which hasn't escaped me. Still, I can easily see the 3D effect with MY pics and MY Zeiss.
...I just felt like I hadn't communicated my purpose successfully, so wanted to lay all the cards on the table. As I mentioned, these shots weren't made for such comparison, so conditions weren't controlled. I will do this test again one day with the same lighting and the same image magnification.
I'm not as generous as you are Todd. What you were asking about was perfectly clear for me but I came late to the conversation and was more struck by the reticence of Zeiss fans to take the leap. Instead, they posted THEIR photos which to THEIR mind demonstrated the 3D effect.
I've spent time in my life cultivating a taste for wine with others who prided themselves on their ability to distinguish wines from different producers, regions and vintages. There is nothing quite like a blind tasting to put the expert to the test. Of course, wine aficionados have a much greater lexicon of subjective terms to describe what they are experiencing than do most photographers. Microcontrast is small potatoes comparing with "lean and elegant..."
p.2 #12 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Curtis! We'll just have to invent more terminology, then.
Speaking of which, another question for Makten: recently in some thread you mentioned the "steep" DOF of the 100 MP, and I didn't quite know what you meant.
p.2 #13 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Oh God , the pandoras box of the jingo-lingo..........
Todd,
the first is easy, you have flat look because you are in a lower contrast environment than the 2nd image Pure and simple no contest on that one. I like a lot of MF nikkors but you are comparing something you can pick up used from 30 years ago to a modern day Zeiss and asking why do i see things look better ? It is always horses for courses , live and let live but man please don't go zombie zeiss or nothing hopeless measurebator with things on your mind other than making great images. Take a look sometime at the "evangelsits" websites for this stuff and you will know why ...........
p.2 #14 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
CGrindahl wrote:
I'm not as generous as you are Todd. What you were asking about was perfectly clear for me but I came late to the conversation and was more struck by the reticence of Zeiss fans to take the leap. Instead, they posted THEIR photos which to THEIR mind demonstrated the 3D effect.
Don't throw me in this category....I am a huge Zeiss fan and I will put my money where my mouth is. I may be wrong sometimes, but I will post with a reason. As I mentioned originally in this post, the first set is obvious and the second set was a little trickier due to the different environment/lighting that was present. Not ALL shots taken with a Zeiss give you that effect either, and this in my opinion definitely proves that.
My pictures...and Martin's for that matter were posted to show you don't need severely out of focus areas and/or a high contrast environment to get that affect. It is not all about bokeh to get that affect. I don't think Todd's 'comparison' was a correct way of proving the difference because we are looking at different focal lengths/angles/lighting/environment/etc.
p.2 #15 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd Adamson wrote:
Hey, Jammy, you often make very specific comments about how lenses draw stuff....I'm wondering if the Zeissness is obvious to you in either or both of the pairs I posted?
I am so not putting any money down on this one
To my eyes the 135 f/2 has a lot of the OOF qualities that are shared with the Zeiss lenses. The differences in lighting, contrast, and framing make it very difficult to tell.
In the first set, I can't really tell. The local contrast in the second image is higher, but that's largely the lighting. The extra compression of the first image makes me guess it's a longer focal length. However, the power lines in number 1 and the way they 'dance' into a defined yet soft shape that's larger then they are is very Zeiss like, but still it looks like a longer FL. So #1 =135 Nik
In the second set. Mmm, this one's hard... mmm. I don't think the blue railings look quite right for a ZF rendering. I'm guessing. So #1 = 135 Nik.
-------
Now I read your answer as to which is which. Interesting. The power line in the first 135 f/2 image is very Zeiss like, I really like that lens. Really loved the shot of the grill in the earlier thread. I really think if you increased the local contrast in the first image (maybe a bit of 'clarity' adjustment in LR) and added a bit of pop to the highlights the images would be almost indiscernible at these sizes.
It would be really interesting to shoot SOOC jpgs with these two lenses in a studio setting with a blank background and see how they rendered things like skin tone and what not.
p.2 #16 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
jmcfadden wrote:
I like a lot of MF nikkors but you are comparing something you can pick up used from 30 years ago to a modern day Zeiss and asking why do i see things look better ?
And John, it's not just comparing current Zeiss to 30+ yr old Nikon designs....show me a current design that meets/exceeds Zeiss optics.....
Some designs may be close, but Nikon can not match any of the ZF lenses - 18 / 21 / 35 / 50 / 85 / 100.
p.2 #17 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Jammy Straub wrote:
It would be really interesting to shoot SOOC jpgs with these two lenses in a studio setting with a blank background and see how they rendered things like skin tone and what not.
Oh my....do this wide open and even slightly stopped down and you will be astonished at the difference in quality between the two in a similar/controlled environment. Show 100% crops please
p.2 #18 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I'm contemplating asking a Japanese speaking relative of mine to come up with a new term for 'defined boke' or '3D boke', only problem is accurately describing the phenomenon to them.
p.2 #19 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Jammy Straub wrote:
[junk removed]
It would be really interesting to shoot SOOC jpgs with these two lenses in a studio setting with a blank background and see how they rendered things like skin tone and what not.
p.2 #20 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Jammy Straub wrote:
I am so not putting any money down on this one
To my eyes the 135 f/2 has a lot of the OOF qualities that are shared with the Zeiss lenses. The differences in lighting, contrast, and framing make it very difficult to tell.
In the first set, I can't really tell. The local contrast in the second image is higher, but that's largely the lighting. The extra compression of the first image makes me guess it's a longer focal length. However, the power lines in number 1 and the way they 'dance' into a defined yet soft shape that's larger then they are is very Zeiss like, but still it looks like a longer FL. So #1 =135 Nik
In the second set. Mmm, this one's hard... mmm. I don't think the blue railings look quite right for a ZF rendering. I'm guessing. So #1 = 135 Nik.
-------
Now I read your answer as to which is which. Interesting. The power line in the first 135 f/2 image is very Zeiss like, I really like that lens. Really loved the shot of the grill in the earlier thread. I really think if you increased the local contrast in the first image (maybe a bit of 'clarity' adjustment in LR) and added a bit of pop to the highlights the images would be almost indiscernible at these sizes.
It would be really interesting to shoot SOOC jpgs with these two lenses in a studio setting with a blank background and see how they rendered things like skin tone and what not.
MTF says something about a lens, but far from everything. Especially since it's often only measured at two frequencies. 
sometimes, but I will post with a reason. As I mentioned originally in this post, the first set is obvious and the second set was a little trickier due to the different environment/lighting that was present. Not ALL shots taken with a Zeiss give you that effect either, and this in my opinion definitely proves that.