This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010A fairly useless exercise
p.5 #1A fairly useless exercise
jmcfadden wrote:
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
It is without a doubt my most used lens over the last few years. And since getting it back from APS after my recent tragedy, I realize that it may have been bumped out of adjustment at some point during that time, because it is sharper than ever. Like, viciously sharp at f/2.8. It is a truly amazing contraption, optically and mechanically. It's ugly, though, and doesn't "feel" as nice to use as either the Zeiss or my old Nikkors. I don't like the way it looks, feels, or packs. Still, I use it most of the time because it just so freakin' good.
But there's something in a way therapeutic, even "Zen," about shooting with MF glass. I'm glad I started doing it, and plan to continue when possible. I compare it to shaving. If I have to shave my head and face FAST, or get a very close shave with no risk of bleeding (like, I don't want to be dabbing my head with a bloody Kleenex at a dinner party), I grab the Mach 3. Otherwise, I quite enjoy taking the extra time with a freshly made lather, a badger brush, and my Merkur Hefty Classic double-edged safety razor.
OK, I've strayed off-topic.
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
It is without a doubt my most used lens over the last few years. And since getting it back from APS after my recent tragedy, I realize that it may have been bumped out of adjustment at some point during that time, because it is sharper than ever. Like, viciously sharp at f/2.8. It is a truly amazing contraption, optically and mechanically. It's ugly, though, and doesn't "feel" as nice to use as either the Zeiss or my old Nikkors. I don't like the way it looks, feels, or packs. Still, I use it most of the time because it just so freakin' good.
But there's something in a way therapeutic, even "Zen," about shooting with MF glass. I'm glad I started doing it, and plan to continue when possible. I compare it to shaving. If I have to shave my head and face FAST, or get a very close shave with no risk of bleeding (like, I don't want to be dabbing my head with a bloody Kleenex at a dinner party), I grab the Mach 3. Otherwise, I quite enjoy taking the extra time with a freshly made lather, a badger brush, and my Merkur Hefty Classic double-edged safety razor.
OK, I've strayed off-topic.
Sep 27, 2010 at 02:35 PM
p.5 #2A fairly useless exercise
Todd Adamson wrote:
It is without a doubt my most used lens over the last few years. And since getting it back from APS after my recent tragedy, I realize that it may have been bumped out of adjustment at some point during that time, because it is sharper than ever. Like, viciously sharp at f/2.8. It is a truly amazing contraption, optically and mechanically. It's ugly, though, and doesn't "feel" as nice to use as either the Zeiss or my old Nikkors. I don't like the way it looks, feels, or packs. Still, I use it most of the time because...Show more →
Scarry analogy, but if that is what you enjoy, the Zeiss starts making a lot of sense.
jmcfadden wrote
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 Scarry analogy, but if that is what you enjoy, the Zeiss starts making a lot of sense.Sep 27, 2010 at 02:48 PM
p.5 #3A fairly useless exercise
yukselserdar wrote:
Im guessing 2 & 3 is zeiss.
I'm with these guys. Another vote for 2 and 3 as the Zeiss. Honestly though, if you hadn't told me they were shot with different lenses, I would have never noticed any difference in them.
Im guessing 2 & 3 is zeiss.
I'm with these guys. Another vote for 2 and 3 as the Zeiss. Honestly though, if you hadn't told me they were shot with different lenses, I would have never noticed any difference in them.
Sep 27, 2010 at 02:52 PM
p.5 #4A fairly useless exercise
Andre Labonte wrote:
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,
AndreOh 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.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,...Show more →
Now that is too funny! You haven't even tried Zeiss and you are passing judgement on web sized pics instead of personal experience. You should try a few Zeiss lenses to see for yourself. Also remember that as you approach the upper end of good glass you will pay much more for smaller improvements in image quality. It all comes down to whether or not these improvements are worth it based on personal needs. Once again - I own all sorts of different brand lenses. I buy whichever brand performs the best for my personal shooting conditions. I also forgot you shot DX so the benefit may not be as apparent. Zeiss lenses are priced a little high but I honesly feel it is money well spent. If you restrict yourself to only Nikon glass, you may (or may not) be missing out. Worth a try I say...
Gary Clennan wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
Todd,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
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,...Show more →
Now that is too funny! You haven't even tried Zeiss and you are passing judgement on web sized pics instead of personal experience. You should try a few Zeiss lenses to see for yourself. Also remember that as you approach the upper end of good glass you will pay much more for smaller improvements in image quality. It all comes down to whether or not these improvements are worth it based on personal needs. Once again - I own all sorts of different brand lenses. I buy whichever brand performs the best for my personal shooting conditions. I also forgot you shot DX so the benefit may not be as apparent. Zeiss lenses are priced a little high but I honesly feel it is money well spent. If you restrict yourself to only Nikon glass, you may (or may not) be missing out. Worth a try I say...
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:16 PM
p.5 #5A fairly useless exercise
ulrikft2 wrote:
Sorry, missed that 
Zeiss: http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/Photography/AllPrimes/test-3/929962441_XdS2S-O.jpg]http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/Photography/AllPrimes/test-4/929962291_QrQ78-O.jpg
Nikon: _http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/Photography/AllPrimes/test-3/929962441_XdS2S-O.jpg[/url]
Well, considering that I am about to throw 1500 Euro at the 100MP, I am happy to see that of these two pics, I do much prefer its rendering. Look at the highlights in the lady's dress, for example (which the Sigma 50 also doesn't do that nicely, FWIW). It is also just a tad sharper everywhere.
I own a good copy of the 105mm AI-S f/2.5, and it is a really nice lens. However, I bump into its near limit far too often, everything considered, and it does flare a bit. I am also not completely sold on the colours. I tried the 100MP briefly recently, and was immediately smitten, on the other hand. Seeing the results up close later on my computer confirmed it: I want this lens in my collection, and will sell the 105. Nothing wrong with it, I just prefer the 100MP.
Now I just have to decide if I want the Zeiss 35/2, 35/1.4 or 50/2 in between my ZF21 and 100MP
carstenw wrote
Which was which in your shots, Ulrik? (see my comment earlier)Zeiss: http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/Photography/AllPrimes/test-3/929962441_XdS2S-O.jpg]http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/Photography/AllPrimes/test-4/929962291_QrQ78-O.jpg
Nikon: _http://ulrikft.smugmug.com/Photography/AllPrimes/test-3/929962441_XdS2S-O.jpg[/url]
Well, considering that I am about to throw 1500 Euro at the 100MP, I am happy to see that of these two pics, I do much prefer its rendering. Look at the highlights in the lady's dress, for example (which the Sigma 50 also doesn't do that nicely, FWIW). It is also just a tad sharper everywhere.
I own a good copy of the 105mm AI-S f/2.5, and it is a really nice lens. However, I bump into its near limit far too often, everything considered, and it does flare a bit. I am also not completely sold on the colours. I tried the 100MP briefly recently, and was immediately smitten, on the other hand. Seeing the results up close later on my computer confirmed it: I want this lens in my collection, and will sell the 105. Nothing wrong with it, I just prefer the 100MP.
Now I just have to decide if I want the Zeiss 35/2, 35/1.4 or 50/2 in between my ZF21 and 100MP
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:26 PM
p.5 #6A fairly useless exercise
I congratulate the OP for a truly fair comparison that allows all of us to judge how much difference there is between Zeiss and Nikon.
I guess I am just not sensitive enough to appreciate the difference. I am put into mind of the story of the princess and the pea. No royalty in my lineage, apparently.
I guess I am just not sensitive enough to appreciate the difference. I am put into mind of the story of the princess and the pea. No royalty in my lineage, apparently.
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:33 PM
p.5 #7A fairly useless exercise
Gary Clennan wrote:
You should try a few Zeiss lenses to see for yourself. Also remember that as you approach the upper end of good glass you will pay much more for smaller improvements in image quality.
.
.
.
Worth a try I say...
I know you are not directing this at me but, I have used Zeiss lenses in the past. I couldn't justify them even if all of my lenses and cameras where manual focus. Maybe I could for a dedicated landscape lens. But certainly not for a portrait lens! I want autofocus even if I don't use autofocus all the time.
I think think this Zeiss love affair is rooted in the deep pocketed hobbyist market. What percentage of pros that use Nikon equipment use Zeiss lenses? I bet it is a VERY small percentage....
S-
You should try a few Zeiss lenses to see for yourself. Also remember that as you approach the upper end of good glass you will pay much more for smaller improvements in image quality.
.
.
.
Worth a try I say...
I know you are not directing this at me but, I have used Zeiss lenses in the past. I couldn't justify them even if all of my lenses and cameras where manual focus. Maybe I could for a dedicated landscape lens. But certainly not for a portrait lens! I want autofocus even if I don't use autofocus all the time.
I think think this Zeiss love affair is rooted in the deep pocketed hobbyist market. What percentage of pros that use Nikon equipment use Zeiss lenses? I bet it is a VERY small percentage....
S-
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:34 PM
p.5 #8A fairly useless exercise
wingcommander wrote:
I congratulate the OP for a truly fair comparison that allows all of us to judge how much difference there is between Zeiss and Nikon.
I guess I am just not sensitive enough to appreciate the difference. I am put into mind of the story of the princess and the pea. No royalty in my lineage, apparently.
I do believe you just called Jammy and Ryan princesses.
Heh....on a serious note, I would caution against interpreting my test as a generalized comparison between Zeiss and Nikon. These were specific lenses under very specific circumstances. Hopefully I'll have an f/4 comparison in a couple of hours.
I congratulate the OP for a truly fair comparison that allows all of us to judge how much difference there is between Zeiss and Nikon.
I guess I am just not sensitive enough to appreciate the difference. I am put into mind of the story of the princess and the pea. No royalty in my lineage, apparently.
I do believe you just called Jammy and Ryan princesses.
Heh....on a serious note, I would caution against interpreting my test as a generalized comparison between Zeiss and Nikon. These were specific lenses under very specific circumstances. Hopefully I'll have an f/4 comparison in a couple of hours.
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:37 PM
p.5 #9A fairly useless exercise
On a side note, I do enjoy such comparisons to see the different characteristics and how different lenses perform. Thanks Todd for posting... Look forward to more.
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:47 PM
p.5 #10A fairly useless exercise
Gary Clennan wrote:
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,
AndreOh 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.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.Now that is too funny! You haven't even tried Zeiss and you are passing judgement on web sized pics instead of personal experience. You should try a few Zeiss lenses to see for yourself. Also remember that as you approach the upper end of good glass you will pay much more for smaller improvements in image quality. It all comes down to whether or not these improvements are worth it based on personal needs. Once again - I own all sorts of different brand lenses. I buy whichever brand performs the best for my personal shooting conditions. I also...Show more →
No, I looked at the full sized images and I have watched the rates at which people can tell the difference, not just in this thread, but in others and other web sites over time. Also, I did aknowledge that if I shot FX and MF all day long, it might be a different story. Might, but not likely unless the ergonomics were just so extrodinarily better. I certainly would not do so based on IQ as most people cant tell the difference. As it is, I shoot DX, I shoot AF most of the time unless doing macro or landscapes, and even then, AF can come in handy. The minute improvements are not worth it to me, especially in a MF lens.
BTW, I have considered the Ziess 100mm for macro work as all my macro work is done with MF and it's not off my list in that regard.
Andre Labonte wrote
Gary Clennan wrote
Andre Labonte wrote
Todd,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
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.
No, I looked at the full sized images and I have watched the rates at which people can tell the difference, not just in this thread, but in others and other web sites over time. Also, I did aknowledge that if I shot FX and MF all day long, it might be a different story. Might, but not likely unless the ergonomics were just so extrodinarily better. I certainly would not do so based on IQ as most people cant tell the difference. As it is, I shoot DX, I shoot AF most of the time unless doing macro or landscapes, and even then, AF can come in handy. The minute improvements are not worth it to me, especially in a MF lens.
BTW, I have considered the Ziess 100mm for macro work as all my macro work is done with MF and it's not off my list in that regard.
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:48 PM
p.5 #11A fairly useless exercise
Buy the ZF100MP Andre! Come to the dark side!!
Sep 27, 2010 at 03:59 PM
p.5 #12A fairly useless exercise
Andre, as much as I love the ZF100/f2 MP - if you're looking more for a dedicated macro lens, I'd personally have a closer look at the Sigma 150/f2.8 over it FOR MACRO PURPOSES. Nothing replaces a true 1:1, especially with the working distance 150mm provides. The 105VR also might be a better true macro.
In all the lenses I've ever used, the most enjoyable for ME have been the 300/f2.8VR, the Zeiss 100/f2MP and the Sigma 150/f2.8. There's a lot of others that are stellar too (several of which I own and love), but those three stand out the most in terms of the sheer amount of times they've made me go "WOAH!" seeing the results.
And a story I've told before... I too used to be in the camp saying "no way would I ever pay that much for a manual focus lens" re Zeiss glass. No way. I got a chance to try the Zeiss 100 out on an outing where it was "forced" on me, and by the time I got home again I was already shopping. I don't believe there's any one person's opinion that should ever sway others when it comes to gear they are smart to purchase, and I completely understand that what I like and believe in may not be right for the next guy. But I'm not anyone trying to justify Zeiss lenses either - their cost, or their merits. I'm just sold on them, and that came AFTER trying them for NO commitment. The commitment came after...
In all the lenses I've ever used, the most enjoyable for ME have been the 300/f2.8VR, the Zeiss 100/f2MP and the Sigma 150/f2.8. There's a lot of others that are stellar too (several of which I own and love), but those three stand out the most in terms of the sheer amount of times they've made me go "WOAH!" seeing the results.
And a story I've told before... I too used to be in the camp saying "no way would I ever pay that much for a manual focus lens" re Zeiss glass. No way. I got a chance to try the Zeiss 100 out on an outing where it was "forced" on me, and by the time I got home again I was already shopping. I don't believe there's any one person's opinion that should ever sway others when it comes to gear they are smart to purchase, and I completely understand that what I like and believe in may not be right for the next guy. But I'm not anyone trying to justify Zeiss lenses either - their cost, or their merits. I'm just sold on them, and that came AFTER trying them for NO commitment. The commitment came after...
Sep 27, 2010 at 04:51 PM
p.5 #13A fairly useless exercise
Andre Labonte wrote:
Scarry analogy, but if that is what you enjoy [...]
It's only scarry if he gets careless or if he's not real high on the dexterity index.
Scarry analogy, but if that is what you enjoy [...]It's only scarry if he gets careless or if he's not real high on the dexterity index.
Sep 27, 2010 at 04:55 PM
p.5 #14A fairly useless exercise
Second DJ's comment re: Siggy 150mm. Incredible macro lens....
Sep 27, 2010 at 06:00 PM
p.5 #15A fairly useless exercise
Todd this test of yours - despite any inherent controversy as always seems to accompany tests like it - got me thinking. I've always liked my 105/f2.5 AI-S lens as you know, but I never thought it was near the same level of contrast and sharpness as the Zeiss lens.
There's a lot to like about the 105/f2.5. It's sharp, has decent contrast, and the OOF is extremely pleasing too. Here's a shot I've always liked from this lens:
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m70/dj_dunzie/NikonCafe%20in%20Toronto/U_D7C_9220.jpg
... and I have more and could go on ad nauseum. I realize pixel-peeping is not what photography should be about. But I really think the differences between MY copies of these two lenses are more easily distinguishable, not to mention the huge gap in precise focussing, build, and overall color rendition. Your test seems to have minimized this a little more for whatever reason. Again, really not trying to flame on the 105/f2.5... I've recommended it to a lot of people and still do.
Edited on Sep 27, 2010 at 07:15 PM · View previous versions
There's a lot to like about the 105/f2.5. It's sharp, has decent contrast, and the OOF is extremely pleasing too. Here's a shot I've always liked from this lens:
http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m70/dj_dunzie/NikonCafe%20in%20Toronto/U_D7C_9220.jpg
... and I have more and could go on ad nauseum. I realize pixel-peeping is not what photography should be about. But I really think the differences between MY copies of these two lenses are more easily distinguishable, not to mention the huge gap in precise focussing, build, and overall color rendition. Your test seems to have minimized this a little more for whatever reason. Again, really not trying to flame on the 105/f2.5... I've recommended it to a lot of people and still do.
Edited on Sep 27, 2010 at 07:15 PM · View previous versions
Sep 27, 2010 at 06:20 PM
p.5 #16A fairly useless exercise
dj dunzie,
You flower picture using the Nikkor is out of focus....
S-
You flower picture using the Nikkor is out of focus....
S-
Sep 27, 2010 at 06:25 PM
p.5 #17A fairly useless exercise
Hmm, I have never gotten _that_ bad results with my 105 2.5 dunzie. So either you misfocused badly or you have a very bad copy.
Sep 27, 2010 at 06:31 PM
p.5 #18A fairly useless exercise
I don't think I've misfocussed, but maybe it wasn't nailed enough. I'll try another test another time. Here's a link to the original f4 105/f2.5 file if you want to see if you think the focus is somehow off.
Was a quick test so maybe I'll give another go later... with nicer subject material.
Edited on Sep 27, 2010 at 06:50 PM · View previous versions
Was a quick test so maybe I'll give another go later... with nicer subject material.
Edited on Sep 27, 2010 at 06:50 PM · View previous versions
Sep 27, 2010 at 06:39 PM
p.5 #19A fairly useless exercise
Gary Clennan wrote:
Second DJ's comment re: Siggy 150mm. Incredible macro lens....
Gary & DJ
I've not decided what to do for a micro lens just yet. I am building my kit slowly starting with my greatest need and working down the list. Left to get are a true WA and a micro lens. The WA I want already exists and it's the 10-24DX ... it will be perfect for my needs in a WA.
For micro lenses, what I really want is a 100-200 f/4 micro that is 1:2 @ 100 and 1:1 @ 200 with the working distance of the 200 f/4 AF-D. Such a lens does not yet exist if it ever will. If I could get a 70-180 at a reasonable price, I would. Other options include the 105VR, the 150 siggy and the Ziess 100. I'm torn between working distance @ 1:1, the desire for 1:1, and of course size & weight. Micro is what I do least at the moment, but I know that will change in time and would change if I had a micro lens ... like when I lived near my brother who had the 60 and the 200. Size wise I want an 85VR but reach wise I want a 200 micro. Choices choices.
Now that I've gone completely OT ... sorry Todd.
Cheers,
Andre
Second DJ's comment re: Siggy 150mm. Incredible macro lens....
Gary & DJ
I've not decided what to do for a micro lens just yet. I am building my kit slowly starting with my greatest need and working down the list. Left to get are a true WA and a micro lens. The WA I want already exists and it's the 10-24DX ... it will be perfect for my needs in a WA.
For micro lenses, what I really want is a 100-200 f/4 micro that is 1:2 @ 100 and 1:1 @ 200 with the working distance of the 200 f/4 AF-D. Such a lens does not yet exist if it ever will. If I could get a 70-180 at a reasonable price, I would. Other options include the 105VR, the 150 siggy and the Ziess 100. I'm torn between working distance @ 1:1, the desire for 1:1, and of course size & weight. Micro is what I do least at the moment, but I know that will change in time and would change if I had a micro lens ... like when I lived near my brother who had the 60 and the 200. Size wise I want an 85VR but reach wise I want a 200 micro. Choices choices.
Now that I've gone completely OT ... sorry Todd.
Cheers,
Andre
Sep 27, 2010 at 06:44 PM
p.5 #20A fairly useless exercise
DJ, that Nikkor shot looks horrible. Something must have gone wrong. My tests were done wide open for the Nikkor. I hope to have an f/4 test in a bit, but only if I focused properly today...hehe....
Something must have gone wrong. My tests were done wide open for the Nikkor. I hope to have an f/4 test in a bit, but only if I focused properly today...hehe....Sep 27, 2010 at 06:44 PM