p.3 #1 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
rsolti13 wrote:
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.
I think the 14-24 has pretty much shown what nikon can do and it is a ZOOM and it has auto focus and that one lens covers a very tough focal length. Now I am with you that nikon needs to give me more primes ! I am thinking about getting the 18 just to have a single lens cover my ultrawide needs and lighten up my bag a bit and looking at the cosina and the zeiss is fun for me at the moment
p.3 #2 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
rsolti13 wrote:
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....
I won't do that... yes, you did offer an opinion on the matter. And I agree these were not the optimal images to make a fair assessment. As I said, I'll enjoy seeing a "blind tasting" in which the field of view, subject and lighting conditions are the same to see if those who "know" can, in fact, tell the difference.
I certainly am not an atheist on this subject, more agnostic. If there is a true supreme manufacturer of lenses, I will happily genuflect.
I forgot about the 28....wasn't a fan BUT, the 28 he reviewed is in fact sharper than what Nikon has at that length...the 24-70....which is obviously comparing a zoom to a prime.
And John, I agree, the 14-24 is an outstanding lens especially being that it is a zoom and still comes quite close to the ZF 21 prime. And there are pluses/minuses of both such as zoom/weather sealing/distortion of the Nikon and microcontrast/sharpness in the Zeiss. We are lucky that we have such options.
p.3 #5 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
CGrindahl wrote:
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.
The simple answer from my point of view, is that the PP is not good enough to tell a clear difference.
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....Show more →
Of course you're right. We are talking about subtle differences that will only show under certain circumstances, and when the photographer knows how to enhance the effect. No offense to Todd, but that's not the case with his examples. Still he sees something, which is probably more visible on his screen before he resampled the images for web display. And since I can see the same thing in my own pictures with the Makro-Planar, I find it adequate to post examples of what you can do with it, that does show at websize.
I like all four shots... and am waiting for the passionate believers in 3D to tell us the truth of which is which..
I bet you could have told the difference if the comparsion was a more true A/B one, with the 105/2 Nikkor against the Makro-Planar framing the same subject at the same distance, and if they where PP:d exactly the same and sharpened a lot more (which in my opinion is needed).
Todd Adamson wrote:
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.
I meant that the Makro-Planar has very little spherical aberration, which means that the DOF is "cut off" much more steeply than for instance with the Nikkor 105/2.5, which is the second best lens I can come to think of at ~100 mm.
p.3 #6 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
In spite of having blown the first shot guess (but the lighting was different in the two shots, and neither showed 3D, so I was having a hard time for other reasons), I still want to point out something:
It isn't always possible to show which shot has been done with which lens, and the 135/2 Nikkor is a very decent lens to compete with the Zeiss 100/2, but whenever I see a shot with exceptional 3D characteristics, it is almost invariably a Zeiss (occasionally a Leica, which also has great micro-contrast, but lower contrast, usually), and in fact it is usually one of a few exceptional Zeiss lenses, including the 35/1.4, 100/2 (C-Y, Makro Z* or 110/2 Hasselblad), and the 21/2.8. Not all Zeiss lenses produce 3D regularly.
p.3 #7 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
If I may add, not all situations promote the 3D effect showing up regularly
Curiously, I've only seen shots on the 'puter screen, would it be more obvious in print?
p.3 #8 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
My observation is that "3D effect" in still photos(as opposed to the pathetic stereoscopy in the cinema being sold as 3D) is a usually controlled by (in order of importance, most to least):
1. Lighting 2. Shallow DOF 3.Not micro, but overall(macro?) contrast--and, contrast not just of tonality(exposure), but of color as well. 4. Context of subject--harder to define and different for each photo, but undeniable in influence.
The supplied sample images are nearly worthless as a guessing game, since the competing frames are shot at different sizes and, most importantly, under different lighting conditions. Also, the Nikon Ais 135/2 has quite a change in overall contrast between wide-open and, say, two stops down, while the ZF100 is pretty good at wide open(I have both).
OT: Oh, and on the subject of the $400 RCA cables for your stereo, remember that the connection between the $5000 microphone, the $2000 preamp, and the the $50,000 mixing desk in the million dollar recording studio is accomplished with a $19.95 XLR cable...although I will admit some studios have gone to the nicer $40 ones.
p.3 #9 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Keith B. wrote:
OT: Oh, and on the subject of the $400 RCA cables for your stereo, remember that the connection between the $5000 microphone, the $2000 preamp, and the the $50,000 mixing desk in the million dollar recording studio is accomplished with a $19.95 XLR cable...although I will admit some studios have gone to the nicer $40 ones.
hah, It is nice to meet another audio guy. I owned a studio in Minneapolis, and was a engineer for over 30 years in live sound and studio as well as a performer and writer. I also had lots of tube gear for Hi Fi and in the studio. But seeing the kooks out there with 1000dollar "interconnects and 1000dollar speaker cables always made me smile
I feel the same way now about this issue, but I have more dollars in my pocket than they do in theirs and hey it's a free country
p.3 #10 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
jmcfadden wrote:
hah, It is nice to meet another audio guy. I owned a studio in Minneapolis, and was a engineer for over 30 years in live sound and studio as well as a performer and writer. I also had lots of tube gear for Hi Fi and in the studio. But seeing the kooks out there with 1000dollar "interconnects and 1000dollar speaker cables always made me smile
I feel the same way now about this issue, but I have more dollars in my pocket than they do in theirs and hey it's a free country
J
I would go as far as saying that upgrading to Kimber Select speaker cables is one of the most significant upgrades I have done. The impact on the system is unbelievable. You can hear the difference immediately. I am less convinced on interconnects, they make a subtle difference only.
Make up your mind with your own ears, but if you don't have an open mind you will never know what you are missing.
p.3 #11 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
andrewd01 wrote:
I would go as far as saying that upgrading to Kimber Select speaker cables is one of the most significant upgrades I have done. The impact on the system is unbelievable. You can hear the difference immediately. I am less convinced on interconnects, they make a subtle difference only.
Make up your mind with your own ears, but if you don't have an open mind you will never know what you are missing.
you missed my point or better yet i didn't make it well
before I try again , did you read the part of the post about the 20dollar mic cable? Have you ever made a record or produced one in a studio? Or built the actual room where the desk lived and soundproofed it? I can pretty much say my ears are good and i made a Lot of money off them for many decades
Now with that aside I do hear differences and when i do they are evaluated and the ones worthy of investment I have to pay the money for. There are LOTS of claims out there that don't add up to a hill of beans. 50,000dollar 10watt class A amps come to mind, 1000dollar speaker cables come to mind too. There is a term called diminishing returns, when I was in high end pro audio sales, clients would always ask me what was "best" ,and i never answered it directly. I Always asked them that they should satisfy about 85% of their requirements because to even get to 90% would mean about 60% more investment. talk of the next 10%borders on the sublime and downright silly
Your Kimber Cables qualify for the 85% BTW You are wrong about interconnects, well sorta "wrong" , it is complicated, you Must look at everything as a true "system" I am sure you use the term often but you never really understand the depth of it. I am not insulting you it is a very common thing and I am guilty of it in many ways too. But your rig is a true and real "system" not just a quickie "word" but a real almost living "thing". In a living thing everything has some impact on the whole , some things have more influence and others less , it is most likely your interconnects were adequate (think 85% again) and so whatever you bought to replace them that cost you more and did not produce a dramatic result may have disappointed you, but you felt redeemed by spending hard earned money on the Kimber Selects. Your previous cables were <85% type cables and therefore gave you a pronounced and worthwhile difference. The weakest link is where the first dollars go but if you buy ultra high end cable for a boom box what do you think you will have ? See at some point the sublime and silly can make a point.
As photographers we have it pretty easy, there are so few players in the game but i just give you one example of what i am really saying. Leica makes a point and shoot, oh but really it is a Panasonic with a little Leica badge on it and for that sublime pleasure how much extra does it cost for the same camera ? Get back to me on that one
p.3 #12 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd, I do not believe you will find many photographers that will deny the excellent quality of Zeiss and Leitz lenses.
Indeed, Zeiss lenses have always being the optics many photographers have preferred and a good example of what I am saying has been the use of Zeiss optics with the Hasselblad and in some of the old German Rolleiflexes. I had a Rollei with a 75mm f3.5 Tessar and the optics were superb.
I have seen many photographs in my lifetime shot with Zeiss and Leitz lenses. I am not talking all digital, obviously. I have seen many good examples but many bad ones also.
Light, contrast and the subject, as you very well know, can make a big difference. A lens made to render the right contrast does not necessarily has to be razor sharp but still our eyes perceive the sharpness.
I remember years ago that Leicas rangefinders were the cameras by which all others were judged. As the Japanese began to introduce multicoated quality lenses all of a sudden those old Leitz lenses did not seem to be as good. They were good, no questions about it but the new lenses by the Japanese had an edge in contrast making them to look better. I am talking here only about what the human eye could perceive then as sharpness.
The introduction of the Nikon SP, along with interchangeable lenses in 1957, changed radically the concept photographers had about rangefinder cameras and Leicas in particular. Now we had a product that was selling cheaper than Leicas with excellent optical and mechanical qualities. All of the sudden the name Nikon became synonymous with quality and many photographers began to use Nikon successfully, especially at Life. After this, Leicas rangefinders did not sell again as well as they did in the past.
Contax rangefinders, used by Robert Capa, always were excellent tools with excellent optics although they were not selling as well as Leicas.
Back to your post. I see a difference in your portraits but I cannot swear from what I see that Zeiss is superior. Shooting the portraits under a better controlled situation could give me a better idea and using similar focal lengths, like the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor against the 100mm Zeiss would be even better.
I noticed much better lighting on both Zeiss shots and to my eyes, better contrast on the first shot by Nikon while the honors go to Zeiss in the second shot and I am no expert reviewing lenses.
I have seen excellent portraits with the 100mm Zeiss lens but I have also seen excellent portraits with the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor and even better with the 105mm Micro with VR, to the point that for someone like me it would be difficult to select the Zeiss as the better lens.
I said it before and I will repeat it again, Zeiss optics are of excellent quality and their images are outstanding. Nikon also has many lenses that are simply awesome and you know that as well as I do.
I have nothing against your 135mm lens. Most probably it is not better than your Zeiss but it has good sharpness and for me that is enough.
p.3 #16 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
"OK, so my comparison was stupid.
At least it started a good discussion. I'll go back and do a planned test one day. Or maybe forget about it and just take pictures."
Now I am going to disagree. No, I do not believe your comparison was stupid. I am sure you compared the lenses with the best intention on the basis of curiosity and that is perfectly fine. It was also a test that generated a friendly discussion among photographers and by the same token you got some views from the members of the forum that showed you not only the differences of opinions but also the individual preferences when it comes to lenses.
The late Ernst Hass was a known Leica user. There was nothing that would irritate him more than saying to him that his beautiful photographs were the result of his excellent optics. He could not tolerate a discussion between another brand and Ernst Leitz either. Some brands, like Ernst Leitz have a cult and some photographers can do outstanding work regardless of the camera and lenses they use. John Shaw only uses Nikon and I am sure you have seen his photographs. Robert Capa was given a choice and he went with Contax and Zeiss lenses. Art Wolfe was using Nikon but now he uses only Canon. John Isaac started with Minoltas and now uses Olympus and his photography was as outstanding when he was using Minolta as they are now. The list could go on and on.
I tell you that irrespective of the excellent quality of Zeiss lenses, the professional lenses made by Nikon are excellent and you know that. Keep on taking pictures, it does not matter if it is Canon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, Zeiss or Leitz after all we the photographers make the photographs, camera and lenses are only tools.
p.3 #17 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
Todd Adamson wrote:
OK, so my comparison was stupid.
At least it started a good discussion. I'll go back and do a planned test one day. Or maybe forget about it and just take pictures.
You might also consider picking up a 105 f/2.5 AI-s now that you have a bit of the MF bug. It was the first lens of this type I bought and it really knocked me out. If that focal length works better for you than the 135 the Nikon version might very well serve you. Unlike the 135 the 105 is quite a small lens, though its weight balances beautifully on the D700. It might be a bit light on the D3 but...
p.3 #18 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I have the 105/f2.5 AI-s and just recently got the Zeiss 100/f2 M-P. While I haven't done any side-by-each testing to say definitively or show samples, I think the best way to describe it is that they are very different while both very good.
I'd say that the 105/f2.5 AI-s is absolutely stunning for the dollar figure I paid for it (well under $200). Bokkeh is smooth and color rendition is very nice, and you can create some great shots with the combination of very sharp results on the subject with that smooth BG rendering.
But Zeiss - at some 7x the price I paid for it - just does it differently. The AI-s is metal and everything functions well. The Zeiss is engineered clockwork smooth in the operation. Everything just seems to have had the very best machining and the focus ring rotates for a day and a half, making for easy MF operation if you start out fairly close to the subject being focussed. Color rendition is so smooth it's really hard to describe. Of course the results are sharp, and the bokkeh very creamy - but then you can honestly say that about the 105/f2.5 AI-s. They're both really terrific lenses. One cost well under $200, the other $1400. But I think I'll keep both because I want both.
Maybe I'll try to do some side-by-side shooting to give a better comparison when I find a little time...
Oh, and Todd, I think what you are seeing more than anything is a real difference in FOV perspective and really a result of two different focal lengths and compositions. I have the f2.8 version of the 135 and like it a lot too, but really again it's a different animal than the Zeiss. I think comparing the 105 and the Zeiss is more natural.
p.3 #20 · Focal Length Compression vs. Microcontrast
I'm joining this discussion rather late, but having now some experience with my newly acquired 135/2 AIS I find the wide open images somewhat flat - I think this is because of the slight flare/loss of contrast that old fast Nikons have wide open (like my 28/2 and 50/1.2 and 135/2). My 105/2.5 does not seem to suffer this ailment probably because it's not that fast at f/2.5 ;>.
Are the Zeiss images more "3D" just simply due to having higher contrast wide open?
I've found that my 135/2 shots at f/2 need to have the contrast increased to make them pop whereas at f/2.8 or f/4 they seem to not need this.
Todd - have you tried increasing the contrast in post with the 135/2 images to see if you can get it to look like the Zeiss?
sometimes, but I will post with a reason.... 
BUT, the 28 he reviewed is in fact sharper than what Nikon has at that length...the 24-70....which is obviously comparing a zoom to a prime.
