Todd this test of yours - despite any inherent controversy as always seems to accompany tests like it - got me thinking. I\'ve always liked my 105/f2.5 AI-S lens as you know, but I never thought it was near the same level of contrast and sharpness as the Zeiss lens, so I set about a quick test of my own to see if my AI-S could be so close to the Zeiss and did a quick snap or two at f2.8 and f4 to compare them.
Here\'s the basic scene, resized... certainly no great image of any kind, just a test scene I wanted to take a 100% crop from. Shot off a tripod and allowing the camera to meter the way it wanted with both lenses, all other settings the same.
So here\'s the 100% crops from the focus point on the image...
Zeiss 100MP at f4:
Nikkor 105AIS at f4:
Zeiss 100MP at f2.8:
Nikkor 105AIS at f2.8:
Not trying to make this a peeing contest obviously, since I love the 105 Nikkor and some of the great shots I\'ve grabbed with it. It really is a gem of a lens for the age and the money. But I\'m wondering if your copy is either exceptional or if maybe you were stopped down more than I was for this test?
There\'s a lot to like about the 105/f2.5. It\'s sharp, has decent contrast, and the OOF is extremely pleasing too. Here\'s a shot I\'ve always liked from this lens:
... and I have more and could go on ad nauseum. I realize pixel-peeping is not what photography should be about. But I really think the differences between MY copies of these two lenses are more easily distinguishable, not to mention the huge gap in precise focussing, build, and overall color rendition. Your test seems to have minimized this a little more for whatever reason. Again, really not trying to flame on the 105/f2.5... I\'ve recommended it to a lot of people and still do.
Sep 27, 2010 at 07:20 PM
Previous versions of dj dunzie's message #8888573 « A fairly useless exercise »
