Tommy_D wrote:
I prefer #2 because it doesn't show up the kids nostrils as much at the other 3. I don't care what lens was used, but those nostrils are not pretty.
rsolti13 wrote:
Understood, and now I need to buy one . I was just saying that people say the VR is similar to the Zeiss, which it is not if you really scrutinize the images. If you are only looking at web sized jpgs a Zeiss 100 / Nikon 105 AI-S / Nikon 105 VR / Nikon 105 DC / etc portrait under these conditions are all going to look the same.
The greatness of the Zeiss as I mentioned is its versatility. It is an excellent macro lens, sharper than the Nikon 105 VR yet does not reach 1:1...only 1:2. It is possibly the best landscape lens. Also, as Todd has shown, an excellent portrait lens.
Some of us poke fun of spending an extra $1,400 for this lens over a Nikon AI-S or an extra $700 over a VR and question 'Is it really 14x better than an AI-S' . Well, it is, to those that demand the best in image quality. To the ones laughing is it 14x better, for you the answer is no. ...Show more →
if you haven't used the VR how could you "know" the zeiss is better? I appreciate the fact that there are websites for everything, but i do not believe one can truly know until they have the lenses themselves and use them and decide which is better for what they do
jmcfadden wrote:
if you haven't used the VR how could you "know" the zeiss is better? I appreciate the fact that there are websites for everything, but i do not believe one can truly know until they have the lenses themselves and use them and decide which is better for what they do
long live zeiss
J
Understood, and that is exactly what I am saying. We all have different needs. Some need the Zeiss for what it does and for some the Nikon VR is the better option. And right, I have never used the VR (have used the AI-S) and only rely on the detailed direct comparisons I have read on the internet. The one test particularly that clearly showed Nikon as inferior to the Zeiss in regards to sharpness/contrast was diglloyd.
what do I know anyways, probably have this one guessed wrong too
Sep 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
rsolti13 wrote:
Todd, first off great portraits using mf with these two excellent lenses.
Unfortunately/fortunately (however you look at it) both lenses will perform quite similarily in this situation. While the ZF 100 is excellent for portraits, the beauty of this lens is the versatility in being an ultimate landscape/macro/portrait lens all in one. Is it worth $1,400 more than a Nikon is based on what the user needs. For just in studio portrait use, obviously not. For those of you saying you can't see a difference in this and the 105 VR, true, you can't.....at web sized jpg level. If printing large, looking 100% you will see a HUGE difference in image quality....Show more →
Thanks, Ryan.
I agree with what you're saying about the versatility of the Zeiss, and what this test did for me was convince me that if I only wanted the Zeiss for portraits (well, for the fairly wide-open available light style that I shoot anyway), I would be wasting my money when I could just use the old Nikkor.
I have already concluded that I can’t expect the Zeiss to be worth it for me, if my only measure is whether it will make me more money in professional use. It doesn’t make sense for me to keep the Zeiss, honestly. Which is not to say I will get rid of it. The corner sharpness stopped down, the detail, the color, the bokeh....all of these things mean this lens can generate phenomenal images for me when I’m out just shooting quirky fun stuff for myself, or the fine art-type stuff that will eventually bring me epic fame and fortune as a photographer. I derive a lot of pleasure from generating such images, even though I never expect them to make me a dime. So while I have no economic justification for owning such a piece of glass, I might consider it a worthy self-indulgence.
Just saw your other post. That image is indeed slightly front-focused. Ugh. I also was just PMing with John, and this is not actually the aperture at which I shoot most of my portraits. I shoot a few very wide, but mostly I shoot at 2.8 or even a little smaller. I think in light of these two things, I need to redo this test at f/4. THANKS GUYS. If y'all haven't noticed by now, I suck at doing tests.
I've got another victim coming in later today, I will try to do a similar test at f/4, hopefully with no front-focusing. Stay tuned.
Todd Adamson wrote:
I've got another victim coming in later today, I will try to do a similar test at f/4, hopefully with no front-focusing. Stay tuned.
Tell them this time to trim their nostril hairs and blow their nose before taking the picture
"if you haven't used the VR how could you "know" the zeiss is better? I appreciate the fact that there are websites for everything, but i do not believe one can truly know until they have the lenses themselves and use them and decide which is better for what they do"
You have to own them to know them. It can take a lot of time using a lens in different situations to really see what it can do for you.
OK, the answer appears below!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Jammy and Ryan both nailed it. First and fourth images were done with the Zeiss. Both of them noticed what I failed to catch, that one shot was slightly front-focused. Both of them called the right one on the second set, and were strongly hinting at the right one on the first set (Jammy with the microcontrast, Ryan with the sharpness). Since Jammy was first, he wins the prize. Which is....uhh....an ice cream cone. Or something.
So now we see what paying 10x more for a lens can get you: guys like Jammy and Ryan will like the images a little bit better!
A few people got it right on the second set, and they have a bit of an out on the first, since focus was off. Interestingly, five different people got it exactly reversed, calling the Nikon image in each set for Zeiss.
I agree with those who think images two and four are from the Zeiss, though second-guessing the focusing differences makes things tricky. I mostly used the eyebrows to estimate sharpness, since the in-focus area seems to land somewhere on the eyebrows in most images.
The Nikkor 105 mm f/2.5 AIS is an amazing lens that I very much enjoy owning. Its legendary reputation is well-deserved. The old photodo website showed basically identical performance to the Canon EF 135 mm f/2 L both at full aperture (albeit at two-thirds of a stop slower) and f/8. Of course the Nikkor is far better made, smaller, and far cheaper.
Still, the Zeiss Planar should show its pedigree in terms of sheer sharpness at very large apertures and very close focusing distances.
Images with entirely blurred, featureless backgrounds with no specular highlights—like Todd's photos here—make bokeh differences practically invisible (and both these lenses have good bokeh, though with a few rendering differences). Likewise, shooting under an overcast sky will reveal differences in flare performance that typical studio lighting will minimise. The Zeiss might be much more contrasty under a bright sky.
Thank you for confirming for me that under most practical situations, Zeiss just is not worth the money. Certainly few people can honestly tell the difference, and the rate of 100% correct answers indicates a level consistent with random guessing.
Todd Adamson wrote:
First and fourth images were done with the Zeiss.
Todd,
I took a different approach to looking at the images. I looked for which image in each set I liked the best from a color, contrast, and exposure perspective. The fact that I preferred the Nikkor in one set and the Zeiss in the other shows me what I already knew. The Zeiss is not obviously superior to the Nikkor and, especially without autofocus, is not worth the premium one must pay for the Zeiss.
I have been using SLR cameras since 1970 so I am quite comfortable with manual focus lenses. Having said that, I find the autofocus systems on Nikon's so good, I would not want a ~105mm lens I would use for portraits that did not have autofocus.
Also, the Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC lens is noticeably better to my eyes than the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 and easily a match for the Zeiss lenses I have seen and used.
' . Well, it is, to those that demand the best in image quality. To the ones laughing is it 14x better, for you the answer is no. 
I derive a lot of pleasure from generating such images, even though I never expect them to make me a dime. So while I have no economic justification for owning such a piece of glass, I might consider it a worthy self-indulgence.