Therein lies the great question (that many a spouse wants answered).
Yes, you can spend that large increment in $$$$ to get that last Nth percentile in performance (God knows many of use have and still do), but that difference in resolution is often only viewable on screen at 100% vs. in real-life prints with any differences in color, contrast, etc between A and B often closed in PS in ~5 minutes.
If a client/customer loves your prints taken with a $00 lens, will they see (vs our own inner lens connoisseur) and pay for any marginal utility within the same prints taken with a $000 lens?
If so, buy the lens but do so with open eyes as no lens is perfect, no matter who makes it and the platitudes (typically excessive) they receive on web forums from owners.
If not, use the saved $$ for other unique lenses that do your style and IQ more justice for the $$. There are a LOT of modest $$ lens out there that compare VERY, VERY (did I say VERY?) favorably to their much costlier peers.
Note: On the 90/2AA (have owned twice); while it takes a bit of shopping (and staying away from the $$ silliness on Ebay), both of mine were acquired for LESS or the same $$ as a new ZE 100/2. Just as fast, just as sharp, far better CA control but at cost of a tad harsher bokeh and of course macro ability (barring tubes). Replaced the last 90AA/R with a CV 90/3.5APO.
Anyway, just one shooter\'s perspective. Good luck.
..... panos.v wrote:
If you have the money why not get it?
Because there\'s beauty in the economy of \"just enough\", whether it\'s a lens or anything else. The 105 mm f/2.5 Nikkor is much smaller and lighter, just as well made (unlike any autofocus lens), and can provide very attractive pictures. Unless you have a good reason to prefer the Zeiss (large aperture performance or close subjects), I don\'t see the point in spending the money on it.
Jun 29, 2010 at 08:30 AM
Previous versions of Conner999's message #8613807 « Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0 »
