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.
Cheers,
Andre
Weeellll, I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate this test to "most practical situations."
For wide-aperture portraits, I agree that the difference is probably not worth the money. But it's easy to imagine situations where corner-to-corner sharpness and field flatness could be well worth it.
And anyway, what if I post an f/4 test (which is arguably a more "practical" test for me) and a significant number of respondents give the right answer?
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.
Sounds like, for you, the interesting test would be to compare these two lenses to the 105 DC. Do you think if that was done carefully, the 105 DC images would consistently appear "noticeably better" to your eyes? No worries, I'm not gonna do that test, as I don't have that lens.
The other thing I'm not gonna do, at least not anytime soon, is compare to my 70-200/2.8 at ~100 mm.
Todd Adamson wrote:
Sounds like, for you, the interesting test would be to compare these two lenses to the 105 DC. Do you think if that was done carefully, the 105 DC images would consistently appear "noticeably better" to your eyes? No worries, I'm not gonna do that test, as I don't have that lens.
Todd,
To be fair, I can't always pick out the 105 DC over the 105 VR or 105 2.5. But, I can say I generally like the color and contrast of the 105 DC over the other two. And, the bokeh of the 105 DC is the best in my opinion. The 105 DC images have more "pop" to my eyes. I know, real technical term there.
I don't own a 105 DC right. I keep hoping that Nikon will update it.
Todd Adamson wrote:
Sounds like, for you, the interesting test would be to compare these two lenses to the 105 DC. Do you think if that was done carefully, the 105 DC images would consistently appear "noticeably better" to your eyes? No worries, I'm not gonna do that test, as I don't have that lens.
The other thing I'm not gonna do, at least not anytime soon, is compare to my 70-200/2.8 at ~100 mm.
I think you would be quite impressed if you did the test at just how good the 70-200 is esp at f4 and in the center where most of the business is done with portraiture. I know it is very good and i have no problem shooting it for this stuff
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.
Cheers,
Andre
Oh Christ - here we go.... I'm sure you would acknowlege the fact that one can set test conditions/criteria to favor the performance characteristics of a given lens. Under different test conditions (favoring Zeiss performance), most people would likely choose the Zeiss. Does this make one lens better than the other? Certainly not. One should look at their own personal needs and make a decision based on that. For example, if I only shot landscapes I would likely lean toward using the Zeiss MP. For portraits, the difference may not be as apparent. To say a lens is "not worth the money" is a goofy statement. As a note, I do own the 105mm f/2.5 and do enjoy using it... To each their own I say.
Which is the Zeiss? I think in these two shots I prefer the first one, fairly strongly.
Of the portraits, I preferred the first in each set. The focus was slightly different in all four shots, making it quite hard to tell what was what, which I guess was the point. The distance, and hence scale, also differed. Anyway, of the portraits, I would say that if this were representative of the differences of the two lenses, I would stick with my little AI-S and skip the MP, but the MP is sharper overall (in other situations), focuses much closer, has f/2, and so on, and I will end up buying one at some point soon.
#2 in the first group, and #1 in the second group the Zeiss. I can tell because of the dramatic sharpness difference, easily seen even on these tiny web-size photos. As Zichar says, the Zeiss also gives better posing, in my experience. Something about it is just magical.
Edit: I just saw your post giving the answer. You must have switched the two.
greeneggs wrote:
#2 in the first group, and #1 in the second group the Zeiss. I can tell because of the dramatic sharpness difference, easily seen even on these tiny web-size photos. As Zichar says, the Zeiss also gives better posing, in my experience. Something about it is just magical.
Edit: I just saw your post giving the answer. You must have switched the two.
I'm assuming you're being ironic, but just in case, and to humor you, I went and checked again. I did not switch them.
greeneggs wrote:
#2 in the first group, and #1 in the second group the Zeiss. I can tell because of the dramatic sharpness difference, easily seen even on these tiny web-size photos. As Zichar says, the Zeiss also gives better posing, in my experience. Something about it is just magical.
Edit: I just saw your post giving the answer. You must have switched the two.
wow the hubris sheesh I have no words for what you just said , holy cow
greeneggs wrote:
#2 in the first group, and #1 in the second group the Zeiss. I can tell because of the dramatic sharpness difference, easily seen even on these tiny web-size photos. As Zichar says, the Zeiss also gives better posing, in my experience. Something about it is just magical.
Edit: I just saw your post giving the answer. You must have switched the two.
greeneggs, try looking somewhere else in the photos. Both shots are about equally sharp *somewhere*, but the focus moves around a little in all the shots.
Interesting. I would like to see my 105 F2DC compared to a 70-200mm F2.8 VR1 and VR2. Tests can "show the love" that a photog has for a lens. All is fair with an overcast sky but with bright backgrounds and specular highlights, bokeh differences can be observed and commented upon. You have to own them to know them. I am not so sure that the Nikon 105, as tested here, without the latest lens coatings, can really better a more modern coated lens in difficult lighting conditions.
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:10 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Todd Adamson wrote:
Weeellll, I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate this test to "most practical situations."
For wide-aperture portraits, I agree that the difference is probably not worth the money. But it's easy to imagine situations where corner-to-corner sharpness and field flatness could be well worth it.
And anyway, what if I post an f/4 test (which is arguably a more "practical" test for me) and a significant number of respondents give the right answer?
Gary Clennan wrote:
Oh Christ - here we go.... I'm sure you would acknowlege the fact that one can set test conditions/criteria to favor the performance characteristics of a given lens. Under different test conditions (favoring Zeiss performance), most people would likely choose the Zeiss. Does this make one lens better than the other? Certainly not. One should look at their own personal needs and make a decision based on that. For example, if I only shot landscapes I would likely lean toward using the Zeiss MP. For portraits, the difference may not be as apparent. To say a lens is "not worth the money" is a goofy statement. As a note, I do own the 105mm f/2.5 and do enjoy using it... To each their own I say....Show more →
Do the tests and prove it to me. I stand by the statement that under most (not all) circumstances, few people if any can honestly tell the difference between many of the top-notch lenses.
I'm a practical kind of guy. I like excellent quality in my lenses as my lens line-up is witness to, but there comes a point when the differences no longer make any practical difference. From everything I have seen, Zeiss just comes across to me as over-priced. Maybe I would think differently if I shot FX in manual focus all day long, but even then, I suspect the differences would not be so much in the area of image quality as they would be in the areas of ergonomics and the enjoyment of use ... things that are somewhat more difficult to quantify.
Lenses are tools and there is more to a lens than an MTF chart or an IQ comparison. To charge what Zeiss charges for a MF lens is absud to me ... but to each their own.
, holy cow