rsolti13 wrote:
Wow....YES IT IS!!! This is why I don't bet By the way, I am looking for one, selling
At this point, I don't think I'd trade it for your 35 f/2 Distagon.
This Nikkor 105 seems to be available on B&S and eBay at killer prices almost all the time EXCEPT when you want to buy one. I looked for a few weeks, then gave up and went to KEH. Picked up an AI version rated EX for $159.99. The EX+ was $80 more, and I can't imagine the condition could have been $80 better. I was thrilled when I unboxed it, even though it was unceremoniously rolled in bubble wrap with no lens caps. Bought an EX HS-8 hood from there as well for $7, and I'm stylin'.
i think more than anything it shows just how hard it is to get critical focus. When i am shooting portraits I always use burst mode, invariably one in a burst is "the" one
rsolti13 wrote:
You have something wrong with your Zeiss (I think this was just poor focus to be honest)
The focus was not ideal, I agree. I think I can get better focus by eye, TBH, but I didn't want to introduce unnecessary subjectivity into this. From what I gather from posts in the Alt forum, the Zeiss is not necessarily expected to have perfect green dot focus. I picked up a used ZF version of the 100MP, and was depending on the green dot exclusively at the time, and could not get anything that wasn't extremely back-focused that way. I contacted Zeiss, and sent them the lens. The rep did some quickie tests, and told me green dot focus was fine. I was having trouble accepting this, and when he returned my lens, he was kind enough to send me a demo of the ZF.2 to test it against. I did extensive testing of both lenses. Very carefully (stationary test target, tripod, mirror lock-up, Gitzo pod, many iterations at different distances and apertures). The ZF version that I have is not even close to having accurate green dot focus. The ZF.2 version is pretty good, though from my tests (both here and with the test target) it's clear that it chooses a point slightly behind my AI Nikkor. But with the ZF.2, I can use AF fine-tune. Still waiting to hear back from them on a possible remedy. I'm hoping I can trade for a ZF version that has accurate green dot focus, but if they'd let me trade up for a ZF.2 and kick in cash, I might be interested.
Thanks for posting this Todd. I suppose it also shows that so many different factors come into play when evaluating the performance of a lens. This is why I "try" not to overanalyze an image and instead focus on the look and feel of the picture.
Todd Adamson wrote:
The focus was not ideal, I agree. I think I can get better focus by eye, TBH, but I didn't want to introduce unnecessary subjectivity into this. From what I gather from posts in the Alt forum, the Zeiss is not necessarily expected to have perfect green dot focus. I picked up a used ZF version of the 100MP, and was depending on the green dot exclusively at the time, and could not get anything that wasn't extremely back-focused that way. I contacted Zeiss, and sent them the lens. The rep did some quickie tests, and told me green dot focus was fine. I was having trouble accepting this, and when he returned my lens, he was kind enough to send me a demo of the ZF.2 to test it against. I did extensive testing of both lenses. Very carefully (stationary test target, tripod, mirror lock-up, Gitzo pod, many iterations at different distances and apertures). The ZF version that I have is not even close to having accurate green dot focus. The ZF.2 version is pretty good, though from my tests (both here and with the test target) it's clear that it chooses a point slightly behind my AI Nikkor. But with the ZF.2, I can use AF fine-tune. Still waiting to hear back from them on a possible remedy. I'm hoping I can trade for a ZF version that has accurate green dot focus, but if they'd let me trade up for a ZF.2 and kick in cash, I might be interested. ...Show more →
That's good to know Todd. I never did take a liking to using the green dot to confirm focus. I almost always focus by eye...
jmcfadden wrote:
i think more than anything it shows just how hard it is to get critical focus. When i am shooting portraits I always use burst mode, invariably one in a burst is "the" one
J
Fully agree about critical focus> really don't want to do burst portraits. I shoot too many frames as it is!
I am 95% sure this 105 is my new fixed portrait lens, and from the work I've done with it so far, I'm confident in the accuracy using AF-assist. And my eyes are getting "better" with regard to seeing focus in the VF as I get more practice. Still trying to fill the gap I made by selling my 85/1.4D.
As for the Zeiss, what I do with it remains to be seen. It can produce stunning landscape and macro stuff that I can't get with any of my Nikkors (well.....maybe the 85PC will compare, but that's a clumsy lens that I tend not to use when I don't want tilt), but that's not the stuff that makes me money.
Thanks for the test and for confirming my own personal belief that the 70-200VR at f/4 is a wonderful thing. The only negative I can think of is the tendonitis in my right elbow from lugging it around so much.
Gary Clennan wrote:
That's good to know Todd. I never did take a liking to using the green dot to confirm focus. I almost always focus by eye...
I only recently started using MF, so that green dot was my natural tendency. I am getting more confident with turning the focus points off and going with what I see, but for paying sessions, I still need a fairly dependable methodology. For now. I am hoping my confidence and keeper rate shooting by eye only will continue to improve.
Gregg Heckler wrote:
Thanks for the test and for confirming my own personal belief that the 70-200VR at f/4 is a wonderful thing. The only negative I can think of is the tendonitis in my right elbow from lugging it around so much.
Exactly. On the silver-lining side, the tendonitis (about 2+ years ago) is what finally drove me to start using a tripod, and the quality of my work increased immediately and dramatically.
FWIW I did test the lens at f/4 against my AI-S 200/4 and could find no important difference. If anything, the old lens might be a tick sharper at the center, and definitely sharper at the corners. And, it's SMALL. I have it up for sale right now.....but I can just see myself reconsidering....
One more thing: I haven't done any sort of testing on this, but I feel like with my 70-200 I am getting sharper eyes at f/2.8 than at f/4. I don't know anything really technical about focus shift, but now I am idly wondering if it could be happening at all with this lens between f/2.8 and f/4.
JR Magat wrote:
very interesting results! Has the 105 Ai replaced your 135 Ai'd!!?
also, you bring up a good point about the zf.2 vs zf with AF fine tune! I just bought a 100 MP zf.1 and hope my green dot is spot on!
Not replaced, no. That 135 is sharp and I just love the feel of the boke wide open. But it doesn't see much use in the studio. I also haven't done any critical testing of that lens. I should do that, to. Yeah....lots of tests beckon.....not like I have a job or anything. That I am 2 hours late for as I type this.
Oh, and definitely let me know about your ZF and green dotness. Really curious.
Todd Adamson wrote:
Going back over the thread, I should also give Smiert "honorable mention" for being the only one to believe the old AI could yield the quality of image A.
He scores! (sort of...)
As you can see from my edited post, I was really torn about the first two -- the only thing I was fairly confident of was that the zoom was the last one, which was of course false.
;- )
Fun test.
Sep 28, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
Todd Adamson wrote:
OK, I will reveal the answers below; but ahead of that, my apologies. First, for posting these threads in the first place, because I know they are at best laden with caveats, and at worst, flame-bait. But I enjoy the guessing game, and I think at least some others do as well. And second because the difference in focal planes complicated this one. I hope to do one more test, more extensive and with better focal accuracy. All I can do is green dot, though, and the tiniest movement in the subject can undo me. I will probably resort to AF fine tune, because I’ve done enough careful shooting and staring at files with these lenses to know that the green dot on my 105 puts the focal plane slightly in front of where the Zeiss and the 70-200 want it.
I don’t think anyone nailed it this time, and Roger (drerka) was the only one to make the right call on the Zeiss. TBH, I suspect the fact that he only looked at web versions helped him to see whatever subtle differences may be there, while pixel-peeping may present a distraction. A missing the forest for the trees kind of thing.
Lens A was the Nikkor 105.
Lens B was the 70-200.
Lens C was the Zeiss.
Before anyone protests, I concede that the focus point for image A, being slightly forward of the other two, was better for yielding overall sharpness in the eyes and face. This was not at all intentional. I have NO agenda here, and I did not cherry-pick images or vary the sharpening at all. I like all of these lenses a lot. The thing that makes me most happy about this test is the following: even if I can nail the focal plane identically and that reveals the Zeiss to be a sharper lens (and my guess is that would be the case), my $160 Nikkor (AI version, not AI-S, btw) is freakin’ awesome. ...Show more →
I guessed these correctly this time, but because the answer was posted so soon you'll only have my word for that. You should wait a couple of days to let everyone have a chance at guessing, Todd. I didn't see this thread until half an hour ago.
The bokeh was an immediate give-away for the 105 mm Nikkor here: you can actually see the shape of the aperture in the bright spots at the top-right and bottom-left of the image. The newer lenses have much rounder apertures than the old AIS lens (except at full aperture, of course).
However, this scene is still unlike the kind of photos I normally shoot, which tend to have specular highlights everywhere, light sources in or near the frame, hard straight lines all over the place, etc. A typical urban scene, for example. That kind of scene does a lot more to reveal the subtle differences in high-quality lenses like the ones tested here.
The cropping and resampling (?) make ID more difficult, and the focus variations make it a bit of a guessing game: we're left comparing eyebrows with sideburns to try to find in-focus texture in two different pics. The solution is a static subject and Live View, or a subject with repeating patterns at various distances so that something comparable is always in perfect focus.
Still, I like your generous and good-humoured approach here Todd!
P.S. Another guess: afm901 is using a TN panel to view the images.
Specularist wrote:
I guessed these correctly this time, but because the answer was posted so soon you'll only have my word for that. You should wait a couple of days to let everyone have a chance at guessing, Todd. I didn't see this thread until half an hour ago.
The bokeh was an immediate give-away for the 105 mm Nikkor here: you can actually see the shape of the aperture in the bright spots at the top-right and bottom-left of the image. The newer lenses have much rounder apertures than the old AIS lens (except at full aperture, of course).
However, this scene is still unlike the kind of photos I normally shoot, which tend to have specular highlights everywhere, light sources in or near the frame, hard straight lines all over the place, etc. A typical urban scene, for example. That kind of scene does a lot more to reveal the subtle differences in high-quality lenses like the ones tested here.
The cropping and resampling (?) make ID more difficult, and the focus variations make it a bit of a guessing game: we're left comparing eyebrows with sideburns to try to find in-focus texture in two different pics. The solution is a static subject and Live View, or a subject with repeating patterns at various distances so that something comparable is always in perfect focus.
Still, I like your generous and good-humoured approach here Todd!
P.S. Another guess: afm901 is using a TN panel to view the images. ...Show more →
Great point about the highlights' shape in the 105. Urban scenes with lots of specularity are not common for my portraits, but they do happen, and I am sure the Zeiss would far outshine the Nikkor here. I really would like to be able to offer a comparison with no significant focal plane variation.
Regarding the TN panel: that's funny, I was thinking that same thought, and nearly posted it.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Todd, since I've already got a 105/2.5, you can send me that 200/4 for my prize, if it's still available.
;- )
In fact, I should probably talk to you about that -- I've been thinking of picking one up for a lightweight hiking tele.
Buy it. I'll include a $5 gift certificate for Dairy Queen.
Interesting answers. I guess the apparent sharpness of the first image has more to do with the front-ness of the focus. I am surprised just how sharp those two old lenses are, even if it was impossible to compare directly. I should have gone with my feeling about the boke, but there you are
For portraits that 105 really seems as good as the Zeiss. If I get the Zeiss soon, I will make a comparison thread where I play to all the 100MP's strengths, like infinity focus, narrow depth of field, macro photography, and so on
By the way, I am looking for one, selling
I looked for a few weeks, then gave up and went to KEH. Picked up an AI version rated EX for $159.99. The EX+ was $80 more, and I can't imagine the condition could have been $80 better. I was thrilled when I unboxed it, even though it was unceremoniously rolled in bubble wrap with no lens caps. Bought an EX HS-8 hood from there as well for $7, and I'm stylin'. 
