This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010More Uselessness
p.2 #1More Uselessness
This one to me was easier because if you know the Zeiss you can start to look for the differences - albeit minor - in these images. The Zeiss shows a bit better contrast and if you look at certain things (like the detail in the countertop or the blinds in the BG) you can spot them. It's more than just sharpness, but as you've proven many people aren't going to be willing to pay for those variances when those older AI-S gems can often be had for a song.
I think certain scenes aren't going to demonstrate the differences enough, but regardless you have a fantastic copy of that 105/f2.5 and I'd be hanging on to that one a long time.
I think certain scenes aren't going to demonstrate the differences enough, but regardless you have a fantastic copy of that 105/f2.5 and I'd be hanging on to that one a long time.
Oct 09, 2010 at 10:40 AM
p.2 #2More Uselessness
I can't tell any difference at all in the first 4 pics
Oct 09, 2010 at 10:42 AM
p.2 #3More Uselessness
Todd Adamson wrote:
Clayton got it right right away, and so did DJ. A1 and B2 are from the Zeiss. One more pair for today...it's a little easier. Which one was shot with the Zeiss?
I'm giving Zebrabot at least a 50% chance of getting this one right.
haha, this one is great.
Clayton got it right right away, and so did DJ. A1 and B2 are from the Zeiss. One more pair for today...it's a little easier. Which one was shot with the Zeiss?
I'm giving Zebrabot at least a 50% chance of getting this one right.
haha, this one is great.
Oct 09, 2010 at 12:41 PM
p.2 #4More Uselessness
Zebrabot wrote:
haha, this one is great.
What's your guess?
haha, this one is great.
What's your guess?
Oct 09, 2010 at 12:57 PM
p.2 #5More Uselessness
C1 was taken with a vivitar series 1 lense and the C2 was taken with a novoflex macro lense.
Oct 09, 2010 at 02:33 PM
p.2 #6More Uselessness
Haha ;p this is where the Zeiss comes into its own - it can take pics of itself!
;p nice comparison Todd - there isn't much diff b/w these 2 lenses for a lot of applications, have to agree...
I wonder whether this is b/c you have a particularly good 105/2.5? I have definitely noticed a significant difference between Zeiss & Nikon for a lot of the applications I use them for (esp at 35mm f/l for example)...
;p nice comparison Todd - there isn't much diff b/w these 2 lenses for a lot of applications, have to agree...
I wonder whether this is b/c you have a particularly good 105/2.5? I have definitely noticed a significant difference between Zeiss & Nikon for a lot of the applications I use them for (esp at 35mm f/l for example)...
Oct 09, 2010 at 04:00 PM
p.2 #7More Uselessness
Thanks for the test Todd. Love the last comparison! I'm surprised you have kept your Zeiss for so long..... Sell it to me or better yet trade me - I have lot's of older AIS glass which you would love better.
I'm surprised you have kept your Zeiss for so long..... Sell it to me or better yet trade me - I have lot's of older AIS glass which you would love better.Oct 09, 2010 at 07:12 PM
p.2 #8More Uselessness
Gary Clennan wrote:
I'm surprised you have kept your Zeiss for so long..... Sell it to me or better yet trade me - I have lot's of older AIS glass which you would love better.
Well, I'm not 100% sure I am keeping it. But I really want to give it the best chance possible to impress me, and I am definitely starting to see some things I like. To me, the boke is noticeably better under many circumstances, though it may be a subtle effect to some eyes. The build quality is unbelievably nice. I pretty much have to point it right into the sun to get it to flare, which actually came in handy at today's session.
I got some images I really like with it today:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/944499
No direct comparisons there, but some were shot with the Zeiss, and some with the 70-200/2.8. The EXIF is embedded, but it's reeeally easy to tell which are which. Definitely some extra dimensionality with the Zeiss images.
I'm surprised you have kept your Zeiss for so long..... Sell it to me or better yet trade me - I have lot's of older AIS glass which you would love better.
Well, I'm not 100% sure I am keeping it. But I really want to give it the best chance possible to impress me, and I am definitely starting to see some things I like. To me, the boke is noticeably better under many circumstances, though it may be a subtle effect to some eyes. The build quality is unbelievably nice. I pretty much have to point it right into the sun to get it to flare, which actually came in handy at today's session.
I got some images I really like with it today:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/944499
No direct comparisons there, but some were shot with the Zeiss, and some with the 70-200/2.8. The EXIF is embedded, but it's reeeally easy to tell which are which. Definitely some extra dimensionality with the Zeiss images.
Oct 09, 2010 at 08:28 PM
p.2 #9More Uselessness
dj dunzie wrote:
I think certain scenes aren't going to demonstrate the differences enough, but regardless you have a fantastic copy of that 105/f2.5 and I'd be hanging on to that one a long time.
Conditions for my tests were semi-controlled, and it's definitely hard to tell the difference in them. But in real-world shooting, I am starting to prefer the Zeiss, and it's more versatile for sure.
As far the Nikkor, my copy is definitely sweet, but I suspect there are many out there that are every bit as good, thus the reputation. For sharpness in the center of the frame, I honestly doubt the Zeiss is any better than the Nikkor.
I think certain scenes aren't going to demonstrate the differences enough, but regardless you have a fantastic copy of that 105/f2.5 and I'd be hanging on to that one a long time.
Conditions for my tests were semi-controlled, and it's definitely hard to tell the difference in them. But in real-world shooting, I am starting to prefer the Zeiss, and it's more versatile for sure.
As far the Nikkor, my copy is definitely sweet, but I suspect there are many out there that are every bit as good, thus the reputation. For sharpness in the center of the frame, I honestly doubt the Zeiss is any better than the Nikkor.
Oct 09, 2010 at 08:34 PM
p.2 #10More Uselessness
The 105 f/2.5 that I have is also very good... Bought mine for super cheap from alt forum member Paul (cogitech) and the performance has been fantastic (albeit on DX).
Oct 09, 2010 at 09:16 PM
p.2 #11More Uselessness
firewireguy wrote:
I can't tell any difference at all in the first 4 pics
No one can, that's whole point. Not one person has consistently guessed which is which, between 150$ Nikkor and 1800$ Zeiss, in several Todd's comparisons.
I can't tell any difference at all in the first 4 pics
No one can, that's whole point. Not one person has consistently guessed which is which, between 150$ Nikkor and 1800$ Zeiss, in several Todd's comparisons.
Oct 09, 2010 at 09:32 PM
p.2 #12More Uselessness
Funny, the first two people who guessed got it bang on based on a small web-sized image of a controlled scene, so maybe you shouldn't be QUITE so quick to play the "Zeiss is a waste of money" card... Not even Todd is implying THAT.
Having said that, I do believe that with these two lenses you have to appreciate that the Nikkor is highly impressive as a 30-year-old lens selling for peanuts on the used market. Not everybody will be able to convince themselves that the ZF100 is a smart investment for themselves if considering both of these lenses.
Not even Todd is implying THAT.Having said that, I do believe that with these two lenses you have to appreciate that the Nikkor is highly impressive as a 30-year-old lens selling for peanuts on the used market. Not everybody will be able to convince themselves that the ZF100 is a smart investment for themselves if considering both of these lenses.
Oct 09, 2010 at 09:43 PM
p.2 #13More Uselessness
I'll definitely take one of those Nikkors for a couple of hundred bucks...
Oct 09, 2010 at 11:25 PM
p.2 #14More Uselessness
Not one person has consistently guessed which is which, between 150$ Nikkor and 1800$ Zeiss ...
And this is why the Zeiss costs more.
In fact, the Zeiss is a "macro" lens which performs in terms of bokeh as well as the 105/2.5. Moreover, it has a huge amount of micro-contrast (much more than *any" 105 Nikkor/Micro-Nikkor lens) and outstanding behavior in landscape photography.
Finally, it's about 1 stop faster than 105/2.5, another useful (and costly) feature when shooting in available light.
P.S.: I've used in the past the following 105mm Nikon lenses:
AIS 105/2.5
AIS 105/1.8
AI Micro-Nikkor 105/4
AIS Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8
AF Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8
AFS 105 VR (currently owned)
And this is why the Zeiss costs more.
In fact, the Zeiss is a "macro" lens which performs in terms of bokeh as well as the 105/2.5. Moreover, it has a huge amount of micro-contrast (much more than *any" 105 Nikkor/Micro-Nikkor lens) and outstanding behavior in landscape photography.
Finally, it's about 1 stop faster than 105/2.5, another useful (and costly) feature when shooting in available light.
P.S.: I've used in the past the following 105mm Nikon lenses:
AIS 105/2.5
AIS 105/1.8
AI Micro-Nikkor 105/4
AIS Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8
AF Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8
AFS 105 VR (currently owned)
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:08 AM
p.2 #15More Uselessness
dj dunzie wrote:
Not everybody will be able to convince themselves that the ZF100 is a smart investment for themselves if considering both of these lenses.
If you have always driven a FIAT car, you don't know how much better BMW is ...
Not everybody will be able to convince themselves that the ZF100 is a smart investment for themselves if considering both of these lenses.
If you have always driven a FIAT car, you don't know how much better BMW is ...
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:19 AM
p.2 #16More Uselessness
Ripolini, Todd, and anyone else who is interested, I would love to have your thoughts in the 100mm comparison thread over in the Alt forum:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/944413
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/944413
Oct 10, 2010 at 12:33 PM
p.2 #17More Uselessness
voka_gsw wrote:
No one can, that's whole point. Not one person has consistently guessed which is which, between 150$ Nikkor and 1800$ Zeiss, in several Todd's comparisons.
But I can't see ANY difference. But people have been making guesses, so I assume they see some differences.
firewireguy wrote
I can't tell any difference at all in the first 4 picsBut I can't see ANY difference. But people have been making guesses, so I assume they see some differences.
Oct 10, 2010 at 12:37 PM
p.2 #18More Uselessness
When comparing small jpeg pictures, one can just have a rough idea about vignetting, bokeh, distorsion. About bokeh, I think it is clear how good the bokeh of 100/2 Makro-Planar is, being similar to that of a Gauss-type design lens such as the AI 105/2.5.
Now, seriously speaking, do you think that - after I have seen how my 100/2 ZFperforms - I continue to use it instead of swapping it for a used 105/2.5 because I have money to through away?
I can tell you that, after I saw the performance of my ZF 100/2, I sold the AIS 105/1.8 ... and I loved the 105/1.8 ...
But probably I am not able to judge lenses as other people believe they are (on the basis of small jpegs posted in a Forum). I just compared full-res, raw files processed by NX2 ...
Take care,
R
Now, seriously speaking, do you think that - after I have seen how my 100/2 ZFperforms - I continue to use it instead of swapping it for a used 105/2.5 because I have money to through away?
I can tell you that, after I saw the performance of my ZF 100/2, I sold the AIS 105/1.8 ... and I loved the 105/1.8 ...
But probably I am not able to judge lenses as other people believe they are (on the basis of small jpegs posted in a Forum). I just compared full-res, raw files processed by NX2 ...
Take care,
R
Oct 10, 2010 at 01:59 PM
p.2 #19More Uselessness
I'm bored with these tests now.... I say, stop it Todd. I don't get it... What do you have second thoughts about the 1800 dollars Zeiss lens? Sell it and stick with your old Nikon 105....
Oct 10, 2010 at 03:27 PM
p.2 #20More Uselessness
Gregg B. wrote:
I'm bored with these tests now.... I say, stop it Todd. I don't get it... What do you have second thoughts about the 1800 dollars Zeiss lens? Sell it and stick with your old Nikon 105....
You are not required to look!
Like I said, I was bored. And several people are interested in this, or at least entertained by it. I'm probably done though, at least for a while.
I like the comparisons because they show how nice the old Nikon glass is, and I have a few pieces of that old stuff I like to use now. These tests have favored the Nikkor, though, as they have been at "long" focal distances and wide apertures, mostly with neutral backgrounds, and where sharpness only mattered in the center. If I were to do another comparison, it would be under conditions that strongly favored the Zeiss, just to help some people see why some other people are willing to drop the cash for the Zeiss.
I know I will keeping and using my Nikkor 105, and I think I will likely keep the Makro-Planar, too. Mine's a used copy of the ZF version, so not as expensive as you think.
I'm bored with these tests now.... I say, stop it Todd. I don't get it... What do you have second thoughts about the 1800 dollars Zeiss lens? Sell it and stick with your old Nikon 105....
You are not required to look!
Like I said, I was bored. And several people are interested in this, or at least entertained by it. I'm probably done though, at least for a while.
I like the comparisons because they show how nice the old Nikon glass is, and I have a few pieces of that old stuff I like to use now. These tests have favored the Nikkor, though, as they have been at "long" focal distances and wide apertures, mostly with neutral backgrounds, and where sharpness only mattered in the center. If I were to do another comparison, it would be under conditions that strongly favored the Zeiss, just to help some people see why some other people are willing to drop the cash for the Zeiss.
I know I will keeping and using my Nikkor 105, and I think I will likely keep the Makro-Planar, too. Mine's a used copy of the ZF version, so not as expensive as you think.
Oct 10, 2010 at 03:50 PM