Zeiss/Nikon Question

[Johan1967]

Agreed.

Picture is just OK. Too small to rate IQ BTW.

Cheers
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

 

[photowipe]

Here are some more pixels to look at. Image quality is great (remember, it's a pan at 1/30 sec- street photography is often not as tack sharp as optical bench tests, nor does it need to). Picture quality is what I'm fussy about, and this is a fun picture, the best of many I shot over the course of a beer or two on a beautiful afternoon. If the shot is good overall (sharp enough with interesting content), it's not because of some magical property of the lens, it's because I know how to pan properly, I challenged myself to do it sucessfully with a MF lens, and I know enough about editing to not show anyone the shots that didn't make the cut.





--
http://www.armorfoto.com/
http://armorfoto.tumblr.com/

 

[andrzejmakal]

Ok ok, pic is nice, but as well soft/blurred, so nothing to talk about "how ZF50/1.4 is good when it's in focus"
For me nothing magic here, but it's me)))

Cheers
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

 

[photowipe]

It's GREAT when it's in focus, just like an expensive lens should be! It's just hard to focus sometimes. Let's leave it at that. I just hope we didn't upset the original poster, who asked a good question but didn't want to start World War ZF.2- I don't blame her. Thanks for writing.

--
http://www.armorfoto.com/
http://armorfoto.tumblr.com/

 

[andrzejmakal]

Peace;-)



--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

 

[intruder61]

Thanks for the support.

Johan has been a thorn in my side (and frankly, a total waste of a poster here in dpreview - look at his postiing history over years and you'll rarely, if ever, find any positive or helpful contributions, but you will see lots of personal attacks and plenty of zeiss fanboyism). I suppose he's also unaware that while I don't personally own any Zeiss at the moment (I am considering the 25/2, I guess he missed that), that doesn't mean they are not available for me to evaluate. We do have plenty of lens rental options here in the US, and as stated to the OP, I do feel that's the best way to evaluate something prior to buying it, as opposed to just test sites reviews or the rantings of arrogant, lunatic fanboys such as a few folks who unfortunately have littered their incessant spewing of garbage into this topic.

However, as soon as "Zeiss" is brought up, it's like it's somehow exempt from rational discussion, criticism, or, god forbid, someone actually preferring other brands of glass. Talk about a cult. I'm over it, and out of this thread. I hope the OP has enough rational sense to listen to those of us that offer constructive, rational thought and, frankly, toss the personal attack comments by Johan and oneANT into the garbage can where they rightfully belong.

-m

lets get factual, PLEASE POST some images with Zeiss lenses that you own, AND images that you have based your opinions on...in giving your KNOWLEDGEABLE advise....WE WAIT in anticipation.....and im happy that you are CONSIDERING a 25/2.

 

[intruder61]

really...I could easily get such shot with 18-200VR. PP aside.

Sorry
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

please post a photo that resembles it, with the 18-200 VR ... if its that good, i may buy the 18-200VR lens, I wait for your image, PP aside of course.

 

[andrzejmakal]

really...I could easily get such shot with 18-200VR. PP aside.

Sorry
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

please post a photo that resembles it, with the 18-200 VR ... if its that good, i > may buy the 18-200VR lens, I wait for your image, PP aside of course.

))

let me know about your purchase

Cheers

--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries

 

[oldmiller]

Zeiss is a very well known, famous, old, been-around-the-block optical company. I have family who worked for Zeiss back in the old days.

Wow, now that of course means a lot when even a descendant of those people doesn't use Zeiss lenses nowadays. :O

However, there is also a lot of mystique and unfortunately, snobbery and zealotry associated with them as well.

Unfortunately these associations always are brought up by those who don't use Zeiss lenses, you have just joined the queue once again.

In a hobby which's output is visual one get's attacked for using a different brush. It's a shame.

In countless posts over the years you found many great , sensitive and wonderful words to describe the "personality" of the DC lenses, the subtle charms of the rendering of the AF-D 85/1.4 and what Nanocoating has done for you, but when Zeiss users speak in such away about their lenses, it get's connected with mystique, snobbery and black and white thinking in categories of better and not better. It's simply absurd.

The reality is that today there are quite a few brands that are quite capable of designing absolutely world class glass - Zeiss doesn't have some secret sauce extracted from east zambia goat testicles that nobody else is allowed to have - and Nikon, Canon, and certainly Olympus, all have some very talented lens designers, so I don't at all buy into this idea that only Zeiss is the best.

The reality is, that none of any Zeiss photographer I have ever read anywhere had claimed any of this.

Well, yes, for a very long time Nikon did not renew the old primes and with some focal lengths it was absolutely clear, that Zeiss delivered an optical quality in a prime not met by Nikon at that time, but no one said, Zeiss in general was superior.

Just remember the often mentioned term "The Zeiss look". From the word's itself it is so obvious, that a visual personal preference is meant.

Kind regards,
Bernd

 

[oldmiller]

AnotherMike always has a lot of text about Zeiss that doesn't make any sense. It is always the same: Zeiss is (sometimes not so) good but others (Nikon) are better.

Serious photographers don't talk about these lenses in such a way anymore. The general consensus is that many brands are excellent, but every brand has its own characteristics that you can like or dislike. A discussion about good and better is for little children.

Absolutely agreed, Johan!

 

[anotherMike]

Nice writeup from you as well. Always nice to see a dual-system shooter around - if I had the resources, I'd be the same (probably for that 17 T/S, ha ha).

Thanks also for keeping your reply mature - some here in this thread seem to go into baby mode the minute someone criticizes their brand in any way. Kind of nice to see you and a few others maintaining some decency and sensibility around here. Getting kind of rare.

-m

 

[RBFresno]

intruder61 wrote:
andrzejmakal wrote:
really...I could easily get such shot with 18-200VR. PP aside.

Sorry

please post a photo that resembles it, with the 18-200 VR ... if its that good, i > may buy the 18-200VR lens, I wait for your image, PP aside of course.

That's a clever picture: An iPhone taken with an iPhone!
(But what does it have to do with making a point about Zeiss lenses?)

Oh, while we're posting irrelevant pics, here's are a few pictures of iPhones, but taken with another lens

(Hint: the brand of lens used in this picture is also used by Vincent Laforet, a Canon shooter who also uses Zeiss and has won many awards including the Pulitzer):

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/mygear/lenses/





(Hint number 2: It wasn't taken with an 18-200VR)

And this also was not taken with an 18-200VR:



It would be puzzling if Zeiss lenses were not pretty darn good given their extensive use by the movie industry:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674785-REG/Zeiss_DigiPrime_Complete_Cine_Lens.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/674788-REG/Zeiss_DigiZoom_6_24mm_17_112mm.html

Try going on a movie set and finding Nikon lenses....



Does the use of Zeiss lenses for cinematography attest to Zeiss DSLR lenses being great or somehow unique? Not necessarily. But compare the optics for Zeiss's 100/2 Makro vs. their $5,000, 100mm cine lens.





The cine lens housing is very different; 14 blade iris in the cine lens, calibrated lens scales, etc. But at the guts of it, they both have the 9 element/8 group optics.

I think Zeiss does know a thing or two about lenses. We're not talking Samyang here......

And companies that make high end products sometimes have that technology trickle down into other products.

Not a proof of anything....just some thoughts....

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

 

[Lawrie Silverberg]

I'd like to thank the members who responded to my question with some wonderful information. I learned a lot more than expected. It's just unfortunate that it's almost impossible to have a "Z" discussion without opening up a battle.
Lawrie (male, not female)

 

[RBFresno]

I'd like to thank the members who responded to my question with some wonderful information. I learned a lot more than expected. It's just unfortunate that it's almost impossible to have a "Z" discussion without opening up a battle.
Lawrie (male, not female)

If shown two pics, could you pick out the Zeiss, assuming no post processing?

Hi!

The "assuming no post processing" qualification is interesting.

Of course most most digital images are post processed, especially JPEGS. NEF's/RAW images have the ability to be processed much more and in fact require some degree of post processing for optimal results.

There are many on this forum with photographic technical knowledge that far exceeds mine. However, my empirical observation, is that I can typically pull much more out of a high quality NEF file from a great lens in post processing than I can with a lower quality NEF from a lesser lens.

I'd be interested whether others share this thought...

Best Regards,

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

 

[Cliff Beard]

What you are really need to compare when deciding between high quality lenses of different brands is their drawing quality. Both may test about the same when MTF and other measurables are presented, but they may present the real world image in very different ways.

Lots of the top, faster glass from Nikon creates what I would describe as an isolated subject on what looks like a flat, completely blurred background. This can look great and might suit some types of imaging. I find that the Zeiss lenses have a more graceful falloff into blur and tend to render more depth in the image. OOF objects are often more recognisable rather than a very smooth colour wash.

Zeiss lenses have a very particular look with contrast. I would almost describe it as creating a black wash that falls into all the dark cracks and a biting sharpness and contrast.

Colours look very natural.

The fast primes often vignette strongly wide open, which I love as it creates a subject isolation, depth and a natural border.

Some lenses (85, 50 f1.4) have a lot of spherical aberration wide open, which renders a slightly hazy image, that some may love and others hate, but sharpen to razor levels on stopping down.

The manual focus is a smooth, accurate joy and far superior to MF on any motor driven lenses, but its a no go for action stuff.

Build quality is better than most, solid and dense in feel...they could last several lifetimes with care.

For weddings and action stuff where fast response and ease of use are king, I tend to shoot my AF Nikon glass, for the odd special wedding shot and much of my private stuff, I love using the Zeiss glass.

--
Where can I buy some natural artistic ability?!

 

[aldoc]

Very nice summary of the optimizing process involved in the design of any optical device. Years ago having had inside information about some of these processes at Kern, Aarau formed my identical sight of matters as yours.

There is simply no simple answer to "which is the better lens"... and to many more questions ;-)
So, thanks for your well balanced article, it's been a joy to read
Alfred

 

[Lawrie Silverberg]

The "assuming no post processing" qualification is interesting.

Of course most most digital images are post processed, especially JPEGS. NEF's/RAW images have the ability to be processed much more and in fact require some degree of post processing for optimal result.
Best Regards,
RB

Hi RB,

The reason I put that in, is that PP brings in a human aspect. Some are good at PP and some (me) aren't. Also, different people have different ideas of optimal results.
BTW, thanks for you input

Regards,
Lawrie

 

[RBFresno]

The reason I put that in, is that PP brings in a human aspect. Some are good at PP and some (me) aren't. Also, different people have different ideas of optimal results.

Hi!

Inreresting....

Let me share a bit of my post processing journey with you.

When I got my first DSLR (a D70 in 2004) I had the notion that digital would be great. All I had to do was taken the picture, take out the memory card, put it into the photo machine at the drugstore, and the picture would come out.

And that's exactly what I did...for a while. I only shot JPEGS at the time (I wasn't sure what a RAW image was, but darn, it sure took up a lot of memory the couple of time that I tried it and the pictures didn't look as sharp as the JPEGs).

Then I noticed some controls on the Drug store's photo machine: "Gee, I can crop, and adjust brightness and contrast".

I was pretty happy for a while, but began to notice that my pictures didn't look as nice as some of those taken by more experienced photographers.

So after doing a littel reading I got photoshop (Photoshop 7, I think). Nightmare! . I couldn't figure out how to do even basic cropping, brighness, etc. I thought, "Damn, this is the most use unfriendly piece of software I've ever used! There must be something better; so I started fooling arounf with Elements and NX. All the while still putting in time with Photoshop. And alot of that time was frustrating.

However, I was becoming aware that I was able to improve almost all of my pictures with post processing. Did more practicing and reading.

Boy, I was I was back in Ansel Adams time. Whoops; I didi more reading. Ansel typically spent more time in the darkroom with a picture than he didi taking it in the first place. Sometimes he would would for weeks in the darkroom to get the result he wanted.

So yes, there is a "human aspect" in photogrpahy, and I find that this is what distinguishes my very best efoorts from ones not so good.

So now, 8 years later, I am much more sophisticated not only in acquiring the image, but also in processing it. Photoshop, Lightroom, Noise Ninja, Photomatix, NX2, ImageTrends, Portrait Professional, Nik software, calibrated monitor, etc. are all part of my current armamentarium.

It's true of course that "different people have different ideas of optimal results." But it's a rare digital photo that can't be improved with post processing.

Which of these do you like better?

Here's the "out-of the-camera" JPEG:
Nikon D3 ,Nikkor AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
1/160s f/9.0 at 24.0mm iso200



And here's the post processed:



Guess which one was closest to what my eye was seeing? The post processed one.

Again, an "out-of-camera" image:
1/1250s f/5.0 at 70.0mm iso800



And processed:

BTW, thanks for you input

You're welcome!

Hope these few examples encourage you to continue developing your post processing skills!

Best Regards,

RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges
http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

 

[larrywilson]

I also shoot raw (nef files) but lets don't put too much importance on PP over proper capture. Its still best to capture the image well focused, right settings and approximately the right exposure. A bad capture can not be totally solved with PP, lots of time detail can not be bought out when over exposing or under exposing too far. I shoot like I did with slide film, very carefully and make sure that I check the histrogram on static subjects when there is time to adjust the capture.

Larry

 

[Riccardo Polini]

Best,

Riccardo