wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It\'s better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he\'s favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It\'s about $800 or more though and I wanted to test \"cheap-ass\" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it\'s money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there\'s still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it\'s 17mm setting it\'s quite pronounced. Oddly there\'s an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it\'s end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor. And a 64mpx sensor if we were comparing the GH2.
The \"final conclusion\" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There\'s nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L\'s is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there\'s a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don\'t have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm (on a FF body) then the Distagon is probably the best option.
For me, on a very tight budget, I can try good lenses but I have to sell them off right away. And I can\'t be doing that with camera bodies - nor can I afford even $2k for a camera body. My GH1 cost me $500 initially and they go for as low as $250 these days. I recently sold my old and purchased a new (lightly used) GH1 and I think I paid $300 - while my older body sold for $350. The lower priced gear I can afford to keep for a few months before selling off. So for me (not being able to get a FF body) the Nikkor zoom here is by far the best option - same general level of sharpness as the Zeiss and about one tenth the price. Plus it can zoom from 18mm to 70mm.
Another thing I\'d like to point out. I don\'t think it\'s possible to achieve Zeiss\'s signature look with any focal length wider than about 25mm... even on a crop camera. The 3D-isness we see from Zeiss starts at around 35mm from what I\'ve seen. Zeiss\'s WA and UWA lenses are only sharp with low-ish distortion. So there are quite a few alternatives which come close enough or even beat Zeiss at those FLs - especially on crop cameras.
wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It\'s better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he\'s favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It\'s about $800 or more though and I wanted to test \"cheap-ass\" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it\'s money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there\'s still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it\'s 17mm setting it\'s quite pronounced. Oddly there\'s an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it\'s end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor. And a 64mpx sensor if we were comparing the GH2.
The \"final conclusion\" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There\'s nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L\'s is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there\'s a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don\'t have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm (on a FF body) then the Distagon is probably the best option.
For me, on a very tight budget, I can try good lenses but I have to sell them off right away. And I can\'t be doing that with camera bodies - nor can I afford even $2k for a camera body. My GH1 cost me $500 initially and they go for as low as $250 these days. I recently sold my old and purchased a new (lightly used) GH1 and I think I paid $300 - while my older body sold for $350. The lower priced gear I can afford to keep for a few months before selling off. So for me (not being able to get a FF body) the Nikkor zoom here is by far the best option - same general level of sharpness as the Zeiss and about one tenth the price.
Another thing I\'d like to point out. I don\'t think it\'s possible to achieve Zeiss\'s signature look with any focal length wider than about 25mm... even on a crop camera. The 3D-isness we see from Zeiss starts at around 35mm from what I\'ve seen. Zeiss\'s WA and UWA lenses are only sharp with low-ish distortion. So there are quite a few alternatives which come close enough or even beat Zeiss at those FLs - especially on crop cameras.
wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It\'s better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he\'s favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It\'s about $800 or more though and I wanted to test \"cheap-ass\" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it\'s money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there\'s still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it\'s 17mm setting it\'s quite pronounced. Oddly there\'s an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it\'s end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor.
The \"final conclusion\" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There\'s nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L\'s is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there\'s a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don\'t have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm (on a FF body) then the Distagon is probably the best option.
For me, on a very tight budget, I can try good lenses but I have to sell them off right away. And I can\'t be doing that with camera bodies - nor can I afford even $2k for a camera body. My GH1 cost me $500 initially and they go for as low as $250 these days. I recently sold my old and purchased a new (lightly used) GH1 and I think I paid $300 - while my older body sold for $350. The lower priced gear I can afford to keep for a few months before selling off. So for me (not being able to get a FF body) the Nikkor zoom here is by far the best option - same general level of sharpness as the Zeiss and about one tenth the price.
Another thing I\'d like to point out. I don\'t think it\'s possible to achieve Zeiss\'s signature look with any focal length wider than about 25mm... even on a crop camera. The 3D-isness we see from Zeiss starts at around 35mm from what I\'ve seen. Zeiss\'s WA and UWA lenses are only sharp with low-ish distortion. So there are quite a few alternatives which come close enough or even beat Zeiss at those FLs - especially on crop cameras.
wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It\'s better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he\'s favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It\'s about $800 or more though and I wanted to test \"cheap-ass\" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it\'s money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there\'s still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it\'s 17mm setting it\'s quite pronounced. Oddly there\'s an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it\'s end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor.
The \"final conclusion\" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There\'s nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L\'s is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there\'s a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don\'t have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm (on a FF body) then the Distagon is probably the best option.
For me, on a very tight budget, I can try good lenses but I have to sell them off right away. And I can\'t be doing that with camera bodies - nor can I afford even $2k for a camera body. My GH1 cost me $500 initially and they go for as low as $250 these days. I recently purchased sold my old and purchased a new (lightly used) GH1 and I think I paid $300 - while my older body sold for $350. The lower priced gear I can afford to keep for a few months before selling off. So for me (not being able to get a FF body) the Nikkor zoom here is by far the best option - same general level of sharpness as the Zeiss and about one tenth the price.
Another thing I\'d like to point out. I don\'t think it\'s possible to achieve Zeiss\'s signature look with any focal length wider than about 25mm... even on a crop camera. The 3D-isness we see from Zeiss starts at around 35mm from what I\'ve seen. Zeiss\'s WA and UWA lenses are only sharp with low-ish distortion. So there are quite a few alternatives which come close enough or even beat Zeiss at those FLs - especially on crop cameras.
wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It\'s better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he\'s favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It\'s about $800 or more though and I wanted to test \"cheap-ass\" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it\'s money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there\'s still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it\'s 17mm setting it\'s quite pronounced. Oddly there\'s an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it\'s end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor.
The \"final conclusion\" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There\'s nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L\'s is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there\'s a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don\'t have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm then the Distagon is probably the best option.
For me, on a very tight budget, I can try good lenses but I have to sell them off right away. And I can\'t be doing that with camera bodies - nor can I afford even $2k for a camera body. My GH1 cost me $500 initially and they go for as low as $250 these days. I recently purchased sold my old and purchased a new (lightly used) GH1 and I think I paid $300 - while my older body sold for $350. The lower priced gear I can afford to keep for a few months before selling off. So for me (not being able to get a FF body) the Nikkor zoom here is by far the best option - same general level of sharpness as the Zeiss and about one tenth the price.
Another thing I\'d like to point out. I don\'t think it\'s possible to achieve Zeiss\'s signature look with any focal length wider than about 25mm... even on a crop camera. The 3D-isness we see from Zeiss starts at around 35mm from what I\'ve seen. Zeiss\'s WA and UWA lenses are only sharp with low-ish distortion. So there are quite a few alternatives which come close enough or even beat Zeiss at those FLs - especially on crop cameras.
wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It\'s better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he\'s favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It\'s about $800 or more though and I wanted to test \"cheap-ass\" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it\'s money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there\'s still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it\'s 17mm setting it\'s quite pronounced. Oddly there\'s an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it\'s end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor.
The \"final conclusion\" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There\'s nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L\'s is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there\'s a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don\'t have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm then the Distagon is probably the best option.
For me, on a very tight budget, I can try good lenses but I have to sell them off right away. And I can\'t be doing that with camera bodies - nor can I afford even $2k for a camera body. My GH1 cost me $500 initially and they go for as low as $250 these days. I recently purchased sold my old and purchased a new (lightly used) GH1 and I think I paid $300 - while my older body sold for $350. The lower priced gear I can afford to keep for a few months before selling off. So for me (not being able to get a FF body) the Nikkor zoom here is by far the best option - same general level of sharpness as the Zeiss and about one tenth the price.
Another thing I\'d like to point out. I don\'t think it\'s possible to achieve Zeiss\'s signature look with anything focal length wider than about 25mm... even on a crop camera. The 3D-isness we see from Zeiss starts at around 35mm from what I\'ve seen. Zeiss\'s WA and UWA lenses are only sharp. So there are quite a few alternatives which come close enough or even beat Zeiss at those FLs.
wfektar wrote:
Well, pretty clear that the order of the lenses was always the same, but thought it was N, Z, P. That N18-70 is seriously underrated, far from a perfect lens but serious bang for the buck. Disappointing from the Pentax, have to say.
Yeah, from 20 to 24 the Pentax is pretty weak. It\'s better at 18 and again from 35 to 55.
JaanOs wrote:
Hm, difference between Zeiss ZE Distagon 21/2.8 and Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S DX is not that spectacular in case camera body used for test. Considering price difference. And by Ken Rockwell he\'s favorite is better and cheaper 18-55. Maybe in case 18-55 there no diffrence at all Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime.
Yeah, the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX AF-S G ED is considerably better. It\'s about $800 or more though and I wanted to test \"cheap-ass\" zooms against the Zeiss. If you want a fair test try the Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 against the Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8D IF-ED FX on a FF body - which at 21mm and at f/4.5 like these tests were at, will give the Zeiss a real run for it\'s money and really even at f/2.8 (from 17 to about 24mm). From 24mm to 35mm it wants to be stopped down a stop or so to maintain that ultra-sharpness across the frame. The FX Nikkor at 24mm has zero distortion but at 21mm there\'s still some slight pin-coushion remaining - and at it\'s 17mm setting it\'s quite pronounced. Oddly there\'s an increasing amount of barrel distortion from 28mm to it\'s end. You can get the FX for about half the Zeiss price (often around $800 to $900 used).
Or is it purely body ability to bring out fine detail and GH1 is just not capable to utilise what could be bring out from one or another lens So what is final conclusion about this test?
If anything it would be just the opposite. The GH1 is a high-rez crop. To match it in a FF sensor you would need a 48mpx sensor.
The \"final conclusion\" is whatever your eyes and common sense tell you. There\'s nothing profound or hidden here. If one has the cash to burn the Zeiss on a FF body is probably the best choice for 21mm performance. If some zoom is desirable one of the Nikkor EDs or one of the Canon L\'s is almost as good (splitting hairs), will go wider (there\'s a 14, 16 and a 17 option in just Nikkor that I know to be excellent), and will save you some cash at the same time. They don\'t have the Zeiss name on them though. Which means a slightly lower resale value and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one.
Also as Edward points out there are not many PRIME lenses in the 21mm FL that can match the Zeiss for corner sharpness and low distortion on a FF. So if prime lenses are your thing and you want a fast 21mm then the Distagon is probably the best option.
Apr 19, 2012 at 07:43 AM
Previous versions of Bifurcator's message #10557945 « Next "Zeiss isn't any different" thread ... »
Kind of frighten me away from thought about EVIL (crop body) when there no difference about kit zoom and prime. 
Which means a slightly lower resale value ten years from now and probably fewer Ooos and Awwwes when posting images on sites like this one. 