This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Another useless comparison - 100mm
p.4 #1Another useless comparison - 100mm
Argh. I am going to have to whack you on the ears.
Oct 10, 2010 at 01:55 PM
p.4 #2Another useless comparison - 100mm
i'm happy enough with this. i apparently couldn't tell the difference between the zeiss and the nikkor and couldn't pick a favorite. i already have the nikkor so i am not at all surprised that it performs very well. i never really had any interest in the zeiss unless somebody was giving them away for free, the fact that i couldn't decide which i preferred between the two certainly won't change that. i'm not going read too much into that though, i'm sure if i had a few days with both lenses i would have no problem picking a winner.
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:06 PM
p.4 #3Another useless comparison - 100mm
You know what, I blew the 100MP vs. 105 AI-S difference in Todd's tests half the time. Big deal. There are specific reasons for wanting either, and we all make our choices. The 105 AI-S has really earned my respect through these tests. I will give it another chance and see if I can't find an area where I prefer it.
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:09 PM
p.4 #4Another useless comparison - 100mm
thanks for taking the time to do all that. I don't know any of the mentioned units, but I expect the 105 cost a lot less than the 100mp, yet it holds up very well, at least it seems to for me in the shots above.
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:11 PM
p.4 #5Another useless comparison - 100mm
gpop wrote:
thanks for taking the time to do all that. I don't know any of the mentioned units, but I expect the 105 cost a lot less than the 100mp, yet it holds up very well, at least it seems to for me in the shots above.
the 105 costs about 5% what the zeiss does (at least mine did).
carstenw wrote:
You know what, I blew the 100MP vs. 105 AI-S difference in Todd's tests half the time. Big deal. There are specific reasons for wanting either, and we all make our choices. The 105 AI-S has really earned my respect through these tests. I will give it another chance and see if I can't find an area where I prefer it.
ah, i never followed your links to those tests, i figured the nikkors in that would would be auto-focus. i'll have to read those now.
thanks for taking the time to do all that. I don't know any of the mentioned units, but I expect the 105 cost a lot less than the 100mp, yet it holds up very well, at least it seems to for me in the shots above.
the 105 costs about 5% what the zeiss does (at least mine did).
carstenw wrote:
You know what, I blew the 100MP vs. 105 AI-S difference in Todd's tests half the time. Big deal. There are specific reasons for wanting either, and we all make our choices. The 105 AI-S has really earned my respect through these tests. I will give it another chance and see if I can't find an area where I prefer it.
ah, i never followed your links to those tests, i figured the nikkors in that would would be auto-focus. i'll have to read those now.
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:15 PM
p.4 #6Another useless comparison - 100mm
The Zeiss can be had for 1500 Euro, whereas the Nikkor set me back 250 Euro, so for me a factor 6, or 17%. My Nikkor is nearly perfect though, and came with packaging. The Nikkor is a fantastic lens, but with a 1m near focus limit, and it is somewhat sensitive to flare.
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:18 PM
p.4 #7Another useless comparison - 100mm
The have rather good prices here on many Zeiss lenses. http://www.cameranu.nl/index.php?hg_id=843&sg_id=3383
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:27 PM
p.4 #8Another useless comparison - 100mm
Thank you for the test Carsten! 
I did actually learn something - that the Hasselblad 110 is sort of similar to the Zeiss Z* Planars - at least close up. The Nikkor's performance is surprisingly good as well but the 100 MP is clearly better.
With lenses we have always the principle of diminishing returns - each improvement costs a lot more than the previous. A Canon 50/1.8 will set you back $100 while a Leica 50/0.95 will cost you $10,000. Is the Canon 50mm 100x better in terms of raw optical performance? Definitely not. That's the way things are and if you want that extra quality or that special look..it's time to with a stiff upper lip open your wallet
I did actually learn something - that the Hasselblad 110 is sort of similar to the Zeiss Z* Planars - at least close up. The Nikkor's performance is surprisingly good as well but the 100 MP is clearly better.
With lenses we have always the principle of diminishing returns - each improvement costs a lot more than the previous. A Canon 50/1.8 will set you back $100 while a Leica 50/0.95 will cost you $10,000. Is the Canon 50mm 100x better in terms of raw optical performance? Definitely not. That's the way things are and if you want that extra quality or that special look..it's time to with a stiff upper lip open your wallet
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:37 PM
p.4 #9Another useless comparison - 100mm
Yes, the stiff upper lip is ready. As good as the Nikkor is, I do want the 100MP!
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:39 PM
p.4 #10Another useless comparison - 100mm
carstenw wrote:
The Zeiss can be had for 1500 Euro, whereas the Nikkor set me back 250 Euro, so for me a factor 6, or 17%. My Nikkor is nearly perfect though, and came with packaging. The Nikkor is a fantastic lens, but with a 1m near focus limit, and it is somewhat sensitive to flare.
i got mine for $70 but it is a beater - lots of wear on the body, wobbly collapsible hood, and a fair amount of dust inside. image quality is great though so i'm happy. i was surprised to discover it is actually quite good for landscapes as well as portrait distance work.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2730/4417433998_4ccdb9c4ef_b.jpg
The Zeiss can be had for 1500 Euro, whereas the Nikkor set me back 250 Euro, so for me a factor 6, or 17%. My Nikkor is nearly perfect though, and came with packaging. The Nikkor is a fantastic lens, but with a 1m near focus limit, and it is somewhat sensitive to flare.
i got mine for $70 but it is a beater - lots of wear on the body, wobbly collapsible hood, and a fair amount of dust inside. image quality is great though so i'm happy. i was surprised to discover it is actually quite good for landscapes as well as portrait distance work.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2730/4417433998_4ccdb9c4ef_b.jpg
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:39 PM
p.4 #11Another useless comparison - 100mm
Very nice panorama. Where is that? My hood is wobbly too I guess they are just like that.
I guess they are just like that.Oct 10, 2010 at 02:43 PM
p.4 #12Another useless comparison - 100mm
carstenw wrote:
Very nice panorama. Where is that? My hood is wobbly too I guess they are just like that.
great salt lake, utah.
yeah, i've heard other people complain about the hood as well. it's a shame, when done right (leica), i like collapsible hoods so much better than detachable ones.
Very nice panorama. Where is that? My hood is wobbly too
I guess they are just like that.great salt lake, utah.
yeah, i've heard other people complain about the hood as well. it's a shame, when done right (leica), i like collapsible hoods so much better than detachable ones.
Oct 10, 2010 at 02:51 PM
p.4 #13Another useless comparison - 100mm
Ah, I was there once! I don't remember the mountains though. I was on the south side somewhere, on the way to Colorado on a motorcycle, in late summer/early fall.
I remember that the whole beach was black, but only from the water's edge for about 3m or so. It looked very strange, like an oil spill only on the beach, but not in the water, so I walked closer, and then onto the black area. Around my feet, there was a constant small white area, just sand, no matter where I went! I was a bit spooked by this, and kneeled down to see what it was, trying to touch the black. It was made entirely of tiny little flies, who would fly elsewhere whenever I came close, but they wouldn't fly up, just staying close to the surface of the sand!
Is that normal there, or was it special for that time (1990)?
I remember that the whole beach was black, but only from the water's edge for about 3m or so. It looked very strange, like an oil spill only on the beach, but not in the water, so I walked closer, and then onto the black area. Around my feet, there was a constant small white area, just sand, no matter where I went! I was a bit spooked by this, and kneeled down to see what it was, trying to touch the black. It was made entirely of tiny little flies, who would fly elsewhere whenever I came close, but they wouldn't fly up, just staying close to the surface of the sand!
Is that normal there, or was it special for that time (1990)?
Oct 10, 2010 at 03:00 PM
p.4 #14Another useless comparison - 100mm
carstenw wrote:
Ah, I was there once! I don't remember the mountains though. I was on the south side somewhere, on the way to Colorado on a motorcycle, in late summer/early fall.
I remember that the whole beach was black, but only from the water's edge for about 3m or so. It looked very strange, like an oil spill only on the beach, but not in the water, so I walked closer, and then onto the black area. Around my feet, there was a constant small white area, just sand, no matter where I went! I was a bit spooked by this, and...Show more →
that sounds crazy, it is a strange strange place. i can't tell you if that is normal though i've only been there once for a couple of hours (only time i had free at a conference in salt lake city). i need to go back with my full gear some time, it was an amazing place to photograph. it was in february, so insects were in short supply and certainly not covering the beach. that shot was taken from the causeway to antelope island as i was heading back.
Ah, I was there once! I don't remember the mountains though. I was on the south side somewhere, on the way to Colorado on a motorcycle, in late summer/early fall.
I remember that the whole beach was black, but only from the water's edge for about 3m or so. It looked very strange, like an oil spill only on the beach, but not in the water, so I walked closer, and then onto the black area. Around my feet, there was a constant small white area, just sand, no matter where I went! I was a bit spooked by this, and...Show more →
that sounds crazy, it is a strange strange place. i can't tell you if that is normal though i've only been there once for a couple of hours (only time i had free at a conference in salt lake city). i need to go back with my full gear some time, it was an amazing place to photograph. it was in february, so insects were in short supply and certainly not covering the beach. that shot was taken from the causeway to antelope island as i was heading back.
Oct 10, 2010 at 03:30 PM
p.4 #15Another useless comparison - 100mm
Nice cemetery!
In the spirit of the presentation - which do you prefer and why - lens 3 of each set disappeared fast from contention - flat, lifeless and murky. Lenses 1 and 2 in each set both had great appeal and preference seemed to depend on the composition and exposure for a few images, like the closeup pine cone and crypt door.
I feel the lens 2 images were very appealing even though the palette was far from neutral - greens tend to blue easily due perhaps to greater macro contrast (see 'Far subject, rear foliage boke'). Low tone, near neutral tones tend to blue more easily for Lens 2 also, as in 'Detail, shadow, CA'. The yellow text in this set is also quite different - Lens 1 shows a strong variation in tone, Lens 2 much less so.
Lens 2 reds can become cherry-like and less graceful, a victory of sorts of saturation over tonal separation - see 'Rose, crop'. And only Lens 1 handled the flare test with aplomb, I did not even notice the text on the gravestone in the other two. Lens 1 shows sharper detail on the tap retainer bolt and nearby detail.
I feel unqualified to comment on nuances of bokeh, it's not really a great personal interest.
Overall, the first two lenses are a matter of taste for each individual image shot, depending on contrast and saturation preferences. For my image preferences Image (lens) 1 would be the one.
I do like these comparisons and feel they are far from useless; and thank you for this one, much obliged.
In the spirit of the presentation - which do you prefer and why - lens 3 of each set disappeared fast from contention - flat, lifeless and murky. Lenses 1 and 2 in each set both had great appeal and preference seemed to depend on the composition and exposure for a few images, like the closeup pine cone and crypt door.
I feel the lens 2 images were very appealing even though the palette was far from neutral - greens tend to blue easily due perhaps to greater macro contrast (see 'Far subject, rear foliage boke'). Low tone, near neutral tones tend to blue more easily for Lens 2 also, as in 'Detail, shadow, CA'. The yellow text in this set is also quite different - Lens 1 shows a strong variation in tone, Lens 2 much less so.
Lens 2 reds can become cherry-like and less graceful, a victory of sorts of saturation over tonal separation - see 'Rose, crop'. And only Lens 1 handled the flare test with aplomb, I did not even notice the text on the gravestone in the other two. Lens 1 shows sharper detail on the tap retainer bolt and nearby detail.
I feel unqualified to comment on nuances of bokeh, it's not really a great personal interest.
Overall, the first two lenses are a matter of taste for each individual image shot, depending on contrast and saturation preferences. For my image preferences Image (lens) 1 would be the one.
I do like these comparisons and feel they are far from useless; and thank you for this one, much obliged.
Oct 10, 2010 at 06:43 PM
p.4 #16Another useless comparison - 100mm
Carsten, thanks for the test! It was definitely entertaining to be on the other side of one of these.
Personally, I think such exercises can be valuable for some people, even though the results aren’t definitive and the methods aren’t critically controlled. The more one knows about optics and individual lenses, and photography in general, the more caveats one can come up with. But especially for someone newly exploring alternative glass, it may help to show them how important are skill, knowledge, experience, and method, and that barring great attention to lens-specific strengths or weaknesses, we might not see dramatic differences just because we used an expensive piece of glass.
As I have stated before, my own casual tests avoided the weaknesses of the Nikkor, and didn’t exploit the strengths of the Zeiss, and consequently, the Nikkor looked pretty darn good. Well.....it IS pretty darn good when shooting at wide apertures on neutral-ish non-specular backgrounds when corner sharpness and MFD don’t matter (i.e., a portrait).
In your tests, I was certain that the A lens was the Zeiss as soon as I saw the first image of the tree and bench (I assumed that one of the lenses had to be the 100 MP, even though you didn’t say that). Then that certainty faded with the ensuing sets, as I felt like B had a nicer boke in some of them. But with the flare and CA tests, I was back to thinking A was the Zeiss. With the chess board, B had to be the Zeiss. I was hopelessly uncertain; not that my thoughts would matter much anyway. I have only been really seriously looking at this stuff for a brief time, and don’t have the developed eyes and wide-ranging glass expertise that many on this board have. In the end, I didn’t even make a firm guess, but just kept reading until the answer was revealed.
I will say I never once considered that C was a high-quality optic...I just assumed it was a consumer zoom.
Maybe just my inexperienced eyes, maybe the medium format lens doesn’t perform well on a D3, or maybe there really is a fault with the lens.
Personally, I think such exercises can be valuable for some people, even though the results aren’t definitive and the methods aren’t critically controlled. The more one knows about optics and individual lenses, and photography in general, the more caveats one can come up with. But especially for someone newly exploring alternative glass, it may help to show them how important are skill, knowledge, experience, and method, and that barring great attention to lens-specific strengths or weaknesses, we might not see dramatic differences just because we used an expensive piece of glass.
As I have stated before, my own casual tests avoided the weaknesses of the Nikkor, and didn’t exploit the strengths of the Zeiss, and consequently, the Nikkor looked pretty darn good. Well.....it IS pretty darn good when shooting at wide apertures on neutral-ish non-specular backgrounds when corner sharpness and MFD don’t matter (i.e., a portrait).
In your tests, I was certain that the A lens was the Zeiss as soon as I saw the first image of the tree and bench (I assumed that one of the lenses had to be the 100 MP, even though you didn’t say that). Then that certainty faded with the ensuing sets, as I felt like B had a nicer boke in some of them. But with the flare and CA tests, I was back to thinking A was the Zeiss. With the chess board, B had to be the Zeiss. I was hopelessly uncertain; not that my thoughts would matter much anyway. I have only been really seriously looking at this stuff for a brief time, and don’t have the developed eyes and wide-ranging glass expertise that many on this board have. In the end, I didn’t even make a firm guess, but just kept reading until the answer was revealed.
I will say I never once considered that C was a high-quality optic...I just assumed it was a consumer zoom.
Maybe just my inexperienced eyes, maybe the medium format lens doesn’t perform well on a D3, or maybe there really is a fault with the lens.Oct 10, 2010 at 06:55 PM
p.4 #17Another useless comparison - 100mm
carstenw wrote:
A: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF.2
B: Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-S
C: Hasselblad (Zeiss) 110mm f/2
.
If you recall from the early post, lens A was my choice out of three.
As far as Lens C goes, I do have a few Pentacon six Zeiss lens and a Bronica SQ set so I know exactly how big of he circle from the bokeh highlight would show up in the photo. Not many 35mm lens can do this in such small focal length. Also, from the Queen chess piece, if you look at it closely, you will see that it has shallower DOF by far. So it must be longer than the other two. With that in mind, obviously I look at your website and profile to find some clue. I know I was looking for medium format lens ... and that's the only one that fits the description.
Were you surprise I got it right?
cheers
A: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF.2
B: Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-S
C: Hasselblad (Zeiss) 110mm f/2
.
If you recall from the early post, lens A was my choice out of three.
As far as Lens C goes, I do have a few Pentacon six Zeiss lens and a Bronica SQ set so I know exactly how big of he circle from the bokeh highlight would show up in the photo. Not many 35mm lens can do this in such small focal length. Also, from the Queen chess piece, if you look at it closely, you will see that it has shallower DOF by far. So it must be longer than the other two. With that in mind, obviously I look at your website and profile to find some clue. I know I was looking for medium format lens ... and that's the only one that fits the description.
Were you surprise I got it right?
cheers
Oct 10, 2010 at 06:59 PM
p.4 #18Another useless comparison - 100mm
I think this shot speaks volumes. What awesome bokeh. I understand that other lenses out there can produce a similar drawing style, but you just don't see it ( or I have not seen it ) with Nikon/Canon. I had a Pentax DA 70mm That had a similar drawing style in some situations.
Great Shot.
denoir wrote:
I don't think the dedicated threads necessarily show a lens's character fairly. These threads tend to be dominated (if not in number, then in mindshare) by a few talented individuals, and who knows what these individuals could produce from other lenses? We all have our favorites, and rarely stray far from them...It's true that the perception of a lens can be changed by good or bad photographers using the lens. However the people that produce good images with a lens usually know it. The good examples show what you can do with it if you invest some time and learn the lens.
Then there is the personal experience of people that have owned a lens for a longer time. One has to tread carefully because people have an obvious bias towards their lenses. They don't want to appear as if they have spent their money on something inferior. There is however the...Show more →
Great Shot.
denoir wrote:
carstenw wrote
I agree that more photos is better, but I am only human here I don't think the dedicated threads necessarily show a lens's character fairly. These threads tend to be dominated (if not in number, then in mindshare) by a few talented individuals, and who knows what these individuals could produce from other lenses? We all have our favorites, and rarely stray far from them...Then there is the personal experience of people that have owned a lens for a longer time. One has to tread carefully because people have an obvious bias towards their lenses. They don't want to appear as if they have spent their money on something inferior. There is however the...Show more →
Earlier quote
Interesting, and again, somewhat unexpected. From the tap shots, I find that A has most 3D, and from the chess shot, B.Oct 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM
p.4 #19Another useless comparison - 100mm
philip_pj and Todd, thanks for the comments. It was kinda fun to do, even though I more or less had only one afternoon for it, plus a little extra time on Sunday. I would have liked to have more time and a better way to neutralize the focal length differences in an exact manner.
Philip, the 110/2 really isn't flat, murky and lifeless, it is a great optic! Clearly it cannot compete on the 100MP's home ground (which is essentially how I used the lenses), but it comes into its own in other places. It may need a tuneup though, it is old.
Todd, I share your uncertainty. I couldn't reliably tell which lens was which in your tests. I even went against a big clue (which I did see) in guessing one of the shots, and blew it. The 105 is really a fantastic little lens, and I have all the more respect for it now. Did you find the 100MP easier to focus? I found the difference quite noticeable.
s23, well, you have some Sherlock Holmes skills Yes, I remember that you (and several others) preferred A, but I didn't repeat that in my summary, because I don't expect that to change once you found out the truth.
If I find any time this week, I might add a few more technical shots. This organic mess doesn't tell it all.
Philip, the 110/2 really isn't flat, murky and lifeless, it is a great optic!
Clearly it cannot compete on the 100MP's home ground (which is essentially how I used the lenses), but it comes into its own in other places. It may need a tuneup though, it is old.Todd, I share your uncertainty. I couldn't reliably tell which lens was which in your tests. I even went against a big clue (which I did see) in guessing one of the shots, and blew it. The 105 is really a fantastic little lens, and I have all the more respect for it now. Did you find the 100MP easier to focus? I found the difference quite noticeable.
s23, well, you have some Sherlock Holmes skills
Yes, I remember that you (and several others) preferred A, but I didn't repeat that in my summary, because I don't expect that to change once you found out the truth.If I find any time this week, I might add a few more technical shots. This organic mess doesn't tell it all.
Oct 10, 2010 at 11:56 PM
p.4 #20Another useless comparison - 100mm
All I know is that I was pretty happy to see B being the cheapest, as I liked the look of it the best.
Might have to get me one.
Might have to get me one.
Oct 11, 2010 at 12:15 AM