This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010More Uselessness
p.3 #1More Uselessness
carstenw wrote:
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
Holy crap, it's 3 pages already??
I will be looking at it now....
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
Holy crap, it's 3 pages already??
I will be looking at it now....
Oct 10, 2010 at 03:51 PM
p.3 #2More Uselessness
sorry, i missed these tests, just now got around to following the links from carstenw's test over in the alt forum. there is no way i could have figured out which was which in the previous 2 tests, but this one was easy - you can see the 7 sided specular highlights in the nikkor shots.
Oct 10, 2010 at 05:34 PM
p.3 #3More Uselessness
sebboh wrote...but this one was easy - you can see the 7 sided specular highlights in the nikkor shots.
This (my secret is spilled, darn).
I actually like the Nikkor rendering better. I think Zeiss is barking mad with the way they favor spherical aberration under-correction (too little). It's the transition between focus and out of focus around the bottle that I prefer.
This (my secret is spilled, darn).
I actually like the Nikkor rendering better. I think Zeiss is barking mad with the way they favor spherical aberration under-correction (too little). It's the transition between focus and out of focus around the bottle that I prefer.
Oct 10, 2010 at 08:39 PM
p.3 #4More Uselessness
C1 has better bokeh, although a little bit. The difference of image quality is much much smaller than the difference of price.
Oct 10, 2010 at 10:52 PM
p.3 #5More Uselessness
I compared the Zeiss to the Nikon 105VR and at 2.8 the Nikon had better sharpness and micro contrast. It is especially noticeable at far distances where the zeiss did not perform nearly as well as it does up close.
Oct 11, 2010 at 11:49 AM
p.3 #6More Uselessness
Ask for a replacement. Your Zeiss is faulty for sure (or you have to repeat the tests at infinity).
My side-by-side comparison (here) showed that my ZF 100/2 outperforms my 105 VR at wider apertures and at *all* distances.
P.S.: I made the tests using a D300; however the class of the ZF 100/2 is clearly visible also with D700.
My side-by-side comparison (here) showed that my ZF 100/2 outperforms my 105 VR at wider apertures and at *all* distances.
P.S.: I made the tests using a D300; however the class of the ZF 100/2 is clearly visible also with D700.
Oct 11, 2010 at 11:55 AM
p.3 #7More Uselessness
I did send it back. I shot quite a few comparison shots on my D700 and thought the 105VR was noticeably better. That didn't make the Zeiss bad at all, but the 105VR is one of the most bitingly sharp lenses I have ever used.
Oct 11, 2010 at 12:02 PM
p.3 #8More Uselessness
Eric Schwab wrote:
I shot quite a few comparison shots on my D700 and thought the 105VR was noticeably better.
Contrasty lenses *seem* better. The Zeiss is not as contrasty as the 105 VR (this is why the ZF is appreciated for portraiture), nevertheless it resolves more detail (this is why landscape photographers love it).
If you subscribe to diglloyd guide to ZF lenses, you see the results of his extensive tests. He compared the ZF 100/2 to both 105 VR and Canon EF 100/2.8 L macro IS. The Zeiss won hands down. He compared the 100/2 also to the Leica 100/2.8 Apo Macro: the Zeiss showed a similar performance. The Leica did not show LoCA though, being a true apochromatic design. The Zeiss offers a flat field at infinity, whereas the Leica 100/2.8 Apo shows field curvature at distances approaching infinity focus. Therefore, the Zeiss is preferable to the Leica for landscape photography.
It is rather strange that your tests didn't reveal the superior performance of the Zeiss ...
P.S.: I love my 105 VR and use it when I need VR and/or AF.
I shot quite a few comparison shots on my D700 and thought the 105VR was noticeably better.
Contrasty lenses *seem* better. The Zeiss is not as contrasty as the 105 VR (this is why the ZF is appreciated for portraiture), nevertheless it resolves more detail (this is why landscape photographers love it).
If you subscribe to diglloyd guide to ZF lenses, you see the results of his extensive tests. He compared the ZF 100/2 to both 105 VR and Canon EF 100/2.8 L macro IS. The Zeiss won hands down. He compared the 100/2 also to the Leica 100/2.8 Apo Macro: the Zeiss showed a similar performance. The Leica did not show LoCA though, being a true apochromatic design. The Zeiss offers a flat field at infinity, whereas the Leica 100/2.8 Apo shows field curvature at distances approaching infinity focus. Therefore, the Zeiss is preferable to the Leica for landscape photography.
It is rather strange that your tests didn't reveal the superior performance of the Zeiss ...
P.S.: I love my 105 VR and use it when I need VR and/or AF.
Oct 11, 2010 at 02:13 PM
p.3 #9More Uselessness
Maybe something was wrong with mine. At infinity I would say the performance was "fair". Even stopped down slightly and focused with LV
Oct 12, 2010 at 10:26 AM
p.3 #10More Uselessness
This idea of Zeis superiority over quality Nikkor glass is mostly hogwash perpetrated by enthusiasts that like to think they are buying something special and will make them standout from others.
"Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
Honestly, how many of the top pro Nikon photographers in the world use Zeis glass?
S-
"Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
Honestly, how many of the top pro Nikon photographers in the world use Zeis glass?
S-
Oct 12, 2010 at 02:46 PM
p.3 #11More Uselessness
afm901 wrote:
This idea of Zeis superiority over quality Nikkor glass is mostly hogwash perpetrated by enthusiasts that like to think they are buying something special and will make them standout from others.
If this is true, and there is really no increase in quality with the Zeiss glass, I'd sure as hell like some of their marketing mojo. I could shoot 80% fewer sessions than I do, and still probably make more money.
afm901 wrote:
"Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
There's no doubt this attitude exists in some people. It's also pretty clear there's an equal and opposite "anti-Zeiss" attitude from people who aren't really optically educated and don't necessarily have the same keen eye for subtlety, and who want to feel they already have the best glass they can have, and don't want to wonder if they should be spending more money.
The inherent shortcomings of each of these "attitude" groups should be obvious.
This idea of Zeis superiority over quality Nikkor glass is mostly hogwash perpetrated by enthusiasts that like to think they are buying something special and will make them standout from others.
If this is true, and there is really no increase in quality with the Zeiss glass, I'd sure as hell like some of their marketing mojo. I could shoot 80% fewer sessions than I do, and still probably make more money.
afm901 wrote:
"Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
There's no doubt this attitude exists in some people. It's also pretty clear there's an equal and opposite "anti-Zeiss" attitude from people who aren't really optically educated and don't necessarily have the same keen eye for subtlety, and who want to feel they already have the best glass they can have, and don't want to wonder if they should be spending more money.
The inherent shortcomings of each of these "attitude" groups should be obvious.
Oct 12, 2010 at 03:04 PM
p.3 #12More Uselessness
afm901 wrote:
Honestly, how many of the top pro Nikon photographers in the world use Zeis glass?
By the way, I'm not sure this should be everyone's most-considered parameter when choosing glass for their own purposes. A lot of "top pro Nikon photographers" are shooting things that move quickly, and manual focus wouldn't be a sensible option for them.
Honestly, how many of the top pro Nikon photographers in the world use Zeis glass?
By the way, I'm not sure this should be everyone's most-considered parameter when choosing glass for their own purposes. A lot of "top pro Nikon photographers" are shooting things that move quickly, and manual focus wouldn't be a sensible option for them.
Oct 12, 2010 at 03:06 PM
p.3 #13More Uselessness
Todd Adamson wrote:
By the way, I'm not sure this should be everyone's most-considered parameter when choosing glass for their own purposes. A lot of "top pro Nikon photographers" are shooting things that move quickly, and manual focus wouldn't be a sensible option for them.
Good point Todd. I personally would hesitate to seek advice from a Pro as to which gear I should purchase. Unless I am striving to shoot exactly as they do, under identical conditions, and mimic their style - I will take their advice with a grain of salt. Just because they happen to earn a living from photography certainly does not make them qualified to say what is right for me and my style of shooting. It is also interesting that many non-Pro's often produce equal or better results than paid professionals. Don't get me wrong here - there are many, many pro's who are a far better photographer than I ever will be. As I have said before, it all comes down to one's personal needs. Just because someone uses Brand A or Brand B doesn't really matter at all....
Edited on Oct 12, 2010 at 03:45 PM · View previous versions
afm901 wrote
Honestly, how many of the top pro Nikon photographers in the world use Zeis glass?Good point Todd. I personally would hesitate to seek advice from a Pro as to which gear I should purchase. Unless I am striving to shoot exactly as they do, under identical conditions, and mimic their style - I will take their advice with a grain of salt. Just because they happen to earn a living from photography certainly does not make them qualified to say what is right for me and my style of shooting. It is also interesting that many non-Pro's often produce equal or better results than paid professionals. Don't get me wrong here - there are many, many pro's who are a far better photographer than I ever will be. As I have said before, it all comes down to one's personal needs. Just because someone uses Brand A or Brand B doesn't really matter at all....
Edited on Oct 12, 2010 at 03:45 PM · View previous versions
Oct 12, 2010 at 03:20 PM
p.3 #14More Uselessness
afm901 wrote:
This idea of Zeis superiority over quality Nikkor glass is mostly hogwash perpetrated by enthusiasts that like to think they are buying something special and will make them standout from others.
"Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
Honestly, how many of the top pro Nikon photographers in the world use Zeis glass?
S-
I gotta admit, this post has really got me curious. I'm assuming no one would flat out insult a good number of forum members and accuse them of buying camera gear to feel "special" about themselves without having a good deal of first-hand experience with the equipment. Please do share more in-depth knowledge of the equipment in question from your experience. Otherwise, your comments are not only arrogant and pretentious, they're also ignorant.
I do find it amusing though that your experience hasn't even led you to the correct spelling, but that's trivial on my part I realize.
Look, I own some of the best Nikon lenses. I also own some great Zeiss glass, some great Sigma glass, and some great Tamron glass. I have no bias. And while you might choose to believe otherwise, I also don't purchase camera gear to feel "special". Surprisingly, I have more important things in life to accomplish that - like a great family.
I just have to question why anyone would resent camera gear so much as to flat out insult others for using it. Maybe it's just me here, but I don't think that's a great way to gain any kind of credibility. But then, I might be one of those enthusiasts shouting "Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
This idea of Zeis superiority over quality Nikkor glass is mostly hogwash perpetrated by enthusiasts that like to think they are buying something special and will make them standout from others.
"Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
Honestly, how many of the top pro Nikon photographers in the world use Zeis glass?
S-
I gotta admit, this post has really got me curious. I'm assuming no one would flat out insult a good number of forum members and accuse them of buying camera gear to feel "special" about themselves without having a good deal of first-hand experience with the equipment. Please do share more in-depth knowledge of the equipment in question from your experience. Otherwise, your comments are not only arrogant and pretentious, they're also ignorant.
I do find it amusing though that your experience hasn't even led you to the correct spelling, but that's trivial on my part I realize.
Look, I own some of the best Nikon lenses. I also own some great Zeiss glass, some great Sigma glass, and some great Tamron glass. I have no bias. And while you might choose to believe otherwise, I also don't purchase camera gear to feel "special". Surprisingly, I have more important things in life to accomplish that - like a great family.
I just have to question why anyone would resent camera gear so much as to flat out insult others for using it. Maybe it's just me here, but I don't think that's a great way to gain any kind of credibility. But then, I might be one of those enthusiasts shouting "Oh my God, I have a Zeis manual focus lens! Aren't I cool!!"
Oct 12, 2010 at 03:41 PM
p.3 #15More Uselessness
DJ - I am waaaay cooler than you because I have four Zeiss lenses! 
Unless you have bought a few recently (ZF25 perhaps?) which we don't know about.... To each their own I say.
Unless you have bought a few recently (ZF25 perhaps?) which we don't know about.... To each their own I say.Oct 12, 2010 at 03:46 PM
p.3 #16More Uselessness
Todd Adamson wrote:
[By the way, I'm not sure this should be everyone's most-considered parameter when choosing glass for their own purposes. A lot of "top pro Nikon photographers" are shooting things that move quickly, and manual focus wouldn't be a sensible option for them.
Let's pull out some names. Rankin, Kander, Bailey, McNally.......
These guys don't shoot just action. Do they throw Zeiss glass on their Nikon bodies?? No.... I bet these guys make a lot more not shooting Zeiss than you do shooting Zeiss. These guys make a lot of compelling images that have NOTHING to do with the with the glass on their cameras.
What about "Afgan Girl" shot by Steve McCurry with a Nikkor 105mm F2.5 lens. Would that photograph have been better had he used a Zeiss? No!!
S-
[By the way, I'm not sure this should be everyone's most-considered parameter when choosing glass for their own purposes. A lot of "top pro Nikon photographers" are shooting things that move quickly, and manual focus wouldn't be a sensible option for them.
Let's pull out some names. Rankin, Kander, Bailey, McNally.......
These guys don't shoot just action. Do they throw Zeiss glass on their Nikon bodies?? No.... I bet these guys make a lot more not shooting Zeiss than you do shooting Zeiss. These guys make a lot of compelling images that have NOTHING to do with the with the glass on their cameras.
What about "Afgan Girl" shot by Steve McCurry with a Nikkor 105mm F2.5 lens. Would that photograph have been better had he used a Zeiss? No!!
S-
Oct 12, 2010 at 03:48 PM
p.3 #17More Uselessness
I am not anti-Zeiss. I am of German decent and appreciate German engineering. What I am is against the crazy idea that Zeiss lenses are far superior to the better Nikkor lenses.
S-
S-
Oct 12, 2010 at 03:58 PM
p.3 #18More Uselessness
Gary Clennan wrote:
DJ - I am waaaay cooler than you because I have four Zeiss lenses! Unless you have bought a few recently (ZF25 perhaps?) which we don't know about.... To each their own I say.
Well then my newly-learned math teaches me you are twice as cool as me!
(And I'm not afraid to admit it has likely nothing to do with lenses! )
Seriously, with the scenery you live so close to Gary, you really do have a head start with "cool".
DJ - I am waaaay cooler than you because I have four Zeiss lenses!
Unless you have bought a few recently (ZF25 perhaps?) which we don't know about.... To each their own I say.Well then my newly-learned math teaches me you are twice as cool as me!
(And I'm not afraid to admit it has likely nothing to do with lenses!
)Seriously, with the scenery you live so close to Gary, you really do have a head start with "cool".
Oct 12, 2010 at 04:30 PM
p.3 #19More Uselessness
afm901 wrote:
I am not anti-Zeiss. I am of German decent and appreciate German engineering. What I am is against the crazy idea that Zeiss lenses are far superior to the better Nikkor lenses.
S-
I can only think of about one person who would make such a sweeping, blanket generalization that Zeiss is "far superior" to Nikon under all circumstances. And he's kind of a poser, TBH.
I've done some testing which convinced me that for portraits on neutral backgrounds where corner sharpness wasn't important, the Zeiss was probably not significantly better than the Nikkor 105. On the other hand, the Nikkor would likely fall flat in a landscape shot focused at infinity at smaller apertures. I can pretty much guarantee the Nikkor would also pretty much fail at macro work which required close minimum focus distance.
I've decided that in many situations (especially strong specular highlights), the boke on the Zeiss is nicer. "Far" nicer? I don't know. Depends on who's looking. Worth the extra money? Once again, depends on how discriminating you are. Some people are more finicky than others about IQ. There's nothing wrong with that. And just because one person can't see a difference between two lenses doesn't mean it isn't there.
Some people are not discerning at all about IQ, wouldn't be able to identify different types of lens aberrations to save their life, and just generally like to spout BS without bothering to inform themselves about the matter. Not mentioning any names, of course.
I am not anti-Zeiss. I am of German decent and appreciate German engineering. What I am is against the crazy idea that Zeiss lenses are far superior to the better Nikkor lenses.
S-
I can only think of about one person who would make such a sweeping, blanket generalization that Zeiss is "far superior" to Nikon under all circumstances. And he's kind of a poser, TBH.
I've done some testing which convinced me that for portraits on neutral backgrounds where corner sharpness wasn't important, the Zeiss was probably not significantly better than the Nikkor 105. On the other hand, the Nikkor would likely fall flat in a landscape shot focused at infinity at smaller apertures. I can pretty much guarantee the Nikkor would also pretty much fail at macro work which required close minimum focus distance.
I've decided that in many situations (especially strong specular highlights), the boke on the Zeiss is nicer. "Far" nicer? I don't know. Depends on who's looking. Worth the extra money? Once again, depends on how discriminating you are. Some people are more finicky than others about IQ. There's nothing wrong with that. And just because one person can't see a difference between two lenses doesn't mean it isn't there.
Some people are not discerning at all about IQ, wouldn't be able to identify different types of lens aberrations to save their life, and just generally like to spout BS without bothering to inform themselves about the matter. Not mentioning any names, of course.
Oct 12, 2010 at 04:31 PM
p.3 #20More Uselessness
does only zeiss give cool points or does my voigtlander 40/2 add some cool points?
Same company, cosina, same production facility as I understand it (so good chance if a voigtlander lens builder called out sick....my CV 40/2 may have had the honor of being touched by a builder filling in off of the zeiss assmebly line lol). CV's got to be worth at least a .5 cool point, amiright
Same company, cosina, same production facility as I understand it (so good chance if a voigtlander lens builder called out sick....my CV 40/2 may have had the honor of being touched by a builder filling in off of the zeiss assmebly line lol). CV's got to be worth at least a .5 cool point, amiright
Oct 12, 2010 at 10:31 PM