Poll: what is your preference? 24-70 II @28mm or Zeiss 2/28 ZF

cale johnson wrote:

Sorry Cale. I was going to respond to your post above but I wanted to use it as a bump too.

cale johnson wrote:

I can't tell if you want us to believe that the Canon is an amazing lens or if you want us (the viewers) to believe that it is capable of identical results.

My objective was to publish a comparison and let others decide for themselves. Perhaps I did potential lookers a disservice by being so flip. Whenever these types of comparisons are posted, you always get someone who will say "I can't tell the difference" so I was offering a bit of logic to attach to the observation i.e. so if the image looks the same to you, which lens gives you the extra value-added?

If the first, I agree the Canon lens is a great lens considering that it is a zoom lens. Albeit an expensive zoom.

But if you are searching for the answer

I am not searching an answer. I've purchased and used enough lenses to know what I am looking for nearly the instant I see it. I posted because others may be searching for an answer.

, is it capable of identical results and you want us to believe it is...I'm sorry to say, it is not as sharp as the Zeiss. That's not conjecture, that's a fact.

Okay. Cool.

What part of the image did you compare to one another? The street in the distance is the center of the lens.

(Of course, this assumes that each lens was used to it's maximum potential in your test, which I am simply incapable of determining.)

Note: I have 30 years of experience in the sale of high-end commercial offset printing. I've looked at enough detail and done enough press checks over the years to know that; a) most people don't really look at images carefully enough, and b) getting the best possible image sometimes isn't worth the bother. YMMV.

You know something? I totally agree with both of these things and I would think this comparison would illustrate what you've said quite brilliantly.

In my first post I offered links to the two pictures, each enlarged to offer detail. Having done that, I now see the obvious difference between the two pictures when I observe them even casually. In printing, the effect of being drawn instantly to a "flaw" or item of "brilliance" could turn the client's mood from one extreme to the other. The more experienced clients being the most resilient.

I was drawn to your thread because I just purchased a zeiss 135 for my D7100. Problem is, it's very expensive and if I open the box, I'll forfeit 15% in restocking fees should I do the smart thing and return it. Your thread has only added confusion to my situation.

Just to provide full disclosure, I have not printed an image in at least 8 years so I am unfamiliar with the issues.

Sorry again, I responded to the 2nd post without going back to the first but I do not think it registered upon me at the first reading that those were links. You've given folks inclined to look at this comparison a good starting point within the image to make their comparisons. However, 99% of my photography does not include such obvious straight lines.

The reason I upload different variants of the images in this type of comparison is so that folks can apply their typical PPing regimen to the images at the image size they commonly use. It is possible that those special wunderkinds on PS and other editing software can mitigate the difference to a degree in some parts of the image on characteristics involving sharpness, color and contrast.

I do not want to color this thread with any more personal opinions but I will say that differences between the two images are more visible in certain small areas of the image at the size I generally use making the difference of the majority of area within the image a big Meh. I would advise folks to look at the images at 100% and at the sizes they commonly use.

Your situation is tough. Nikon doesn't have a 24-70 II equivalent in terms of IQ. I own the 24-70G and no matter the camera, D3x or D800E, whatever Canon camera I use in combination with the 24-70 II, 5D2 or 5D3, the images from the Canon combo appears sharper, crisper to my eye. That's all lens there. I do not own any Nikon lenses in the range you have concerns about.

I recently divested all of my Canon primes save the specialty lenses I feel have a leg up on Nikon, the TSE 17mm & 100L Macro for reasons I have discussed ad neaseum in many other threads. The reason I kept my entire bevy of Zeiss lenses in the ZF mount (18, 25/2.8, 28, 35/2 & 50/2 Makro) was because they ARE decidedly sharper to varying degrees than the Nikon equivalent FL in the 14-24G & 24-70G zooms I own with the sad exception of the 25/2.8.

My opinion only but I wouldn't buy an expensive 135 for a crop camera unless it was the very reasonably priced 135L. If you own a FF or if you have plans to acquire a FF, then the Zeiss 135 could be a difference-maker. On crop, you are cropping away much of the image area the Zeiss 135 would address otherwise and which contributed greatly to its big price.