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

I took my new 5D3 out to my usual spot earlier today to compare against the D800E using a single lens for both, the Zeiss 2/28mm ZF, considered one of the sharper Zeiss lenses made for the Nikon/Canon mounts. The Zf model has a native mount for Nikon cameras and for the Canon shots, I used an adapter. At the conclusion of the shooting, I threw the 24-70 II on the 5D3 to shoot a set to compare to shots taken a few weeks on the 5D2. Back at the hacienda, I discovered I had left the zoom at 28mm so this has now become a slightly different comparison.

5D3 + 24-70 II ISO 100, f5.6, 1/500

5D3 + Zeiss 2/28mm ZF ISO 100, f5.6, 1/500

In addition to these smallish images (downsized by Flickr), you can download unscathed, full size jpegs, tiffs and RAWs at the following link:

https://www.box.com/s/lll7qcz1bbf0ur8j9h9z

If your answer is number 3, Baam!!, you may have already come to the realization of how good the 24-70 II is.

Can't get the link to work.  And, IMO, the posted images are too small to allow for a meaningful comparison.

For larger sizes and RAW, please copy/paste link in the Original Post to your browser.

bhollis wrote:

Can't get the link to work. And, IMO, the posted images are too small to allow for a meaningful comparison.

Thanks for looking (or attempting to). Copy/paste the link to your browser. DPR has an issue with it for some reason. The site where my files are located is Box.net. Quite respectable.

From what I can tell, the Zeiss lens is sharper. There are color differences too, there's more blue in the Canon pic.

Zeiss Sample

Canon Sample

salamander1 wrote:

can't tell the difference. 24-70 f/2.8L II is an amazing lens.

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.

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, 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.

(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.

lenses only get so sharp and the 24-70L II is easily among the sharpest I have owned. have you tried the lens? also the zoom is weathersealed, has ring USM and is prime like thoughout the range.

to me, that makes the zeiss waaaay overpriced.  looks the poll may even agree with me :-).

Nope, have tried either lens. I thought we were judging the two sample pictures.

Agree that other factors are also important when choosing a lens, see comment "b" in my note.

Agree that others are weighing-in in favor of the Canon lens, see comment "a" in my note.

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.

rebel99 wrote:

thank you for posting these comparison photos, i have both lenses (zeiss 21mm f2.8 and 100mm f2.0) on canon mount so it will help my expectation from both lenses, as i haven't used neither extensively as of yet! i have noticed that perhaps the metering in your photo with canon 24-70 f2.8II could be off because it seems a bit darker or under exposed!

i have 2 zeiss lenses (as i have mentioned above), 21mm f2.8 distagon and 100mm f2.0 makro, and i clearly see the advantage goes to zeiss optics when i compare my result. it seems like zeiss lenses have their own signature and characteristic that are unmatched, whether it is sharpness or micro contrast, but they are distinct, imho. i just received my canon 24-70 f2.8II and i haven't used it seriously yet but from short period that i have used it casually, i have noticed the iq of this lens to be on par with zeiss lenses in every aspect. i have plan to use these lenses for the purpose of comparison shortly and hopefully be able to post my result for participants in these forums soon

cheerz.

I eagerly await this comparison. My Zeiss 28 isn't the lofty 21mm but it is considered quite good but I'd like to see this though the mismatch in FL will be a problem for some.

I bracketed these shots so that I would have a variety of shutter speeds to match as closely as possible. I was able to obatin the same aperture and shutter speed for both images but the one still turned out a bit darker than the other. if you downloaded the RAWs and turned everything to zero and matched WB, the 24-70 II still turns out darker (or should we say more contrasty?). Perhaps the coatings are doing this.

Rick Knepper wrote:

rebel99 wrote:

thank you for posting these comparison photos, i have both lenses (zeiss 21mm f2.8 and 100mm f2.0) on canon mount so it will help my expectation from both lenses, as i haven't used neither extensively as of yet! i have noticed that perhaps the metering in your photo with canon 24-70 f2.8II could be off because it seems a bit darker or under exposed!

i have 2 zeiss lenses (as i have mentioned above), 21mm f2.8 distagon and 100mm f2.0 makro, and i clearly see the advantage goes to zeiss optics when i compare my result. it seems like zeiss lenses have their own signature and characteristic that are unmatched, whether it is sharpness or micro contrast, but they are distinct, imho. i just received my canon 24-70 f2.8II and i haven't used it seriously yet but from short period that i have used it casually, i have noticed the iq of this lens to be on par with zeiss lenses in every aspect. i have plan to use these lenses for the purpose of comparison shortly and hopefully be able to post my result for participants in these forums soon

cheerz.

I eagerly await this comparison. My Zeiss 28 isn't the lofty 21mm but it is considered quite good but I'd like to see this though the mismatch in FL will be a problem for some.

I bracketed these shots so that I would have a variety of shutter speeds to match as closely as possible. I was able to obatin the same aperture and shutter speed for both images but the one still turned out a bit darker than the other. if you downloaded the RAWs and turned everything to zero and matched WB, the 24-70 II still turns out darker (or should we say more contrasty?). Perhaps the coatings are doing this.

Okay this was a terrible sentence above but DPR will not let me edit the post.

My Zeiss 28 isn't the lofty 21mm but it is considered quite good. I'd like to see this though the mismatch in FL will be a problem for some.

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.

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.

I can't see much difference between them, even in the crops supplied by another poster.  Yeah, some slight differences, but nothing very significant to me.  Note that I am not all that impressed with either photo, but I guess that is because we are looking at the results of RAW files with minimal processing.

billythek wrote:

Note that I am not all that impressed with either photo, but I guess that is because we are looking at the results of RAW files with minimal processing.

These are not intended to pose as finished photos. Other than ACR's standard 25%/.05 radius  sharpening (that I use for capture sharpening), there is zero processing (other than to matched WB of several degrees). I've supplied jpeg, tiff and RAW for those who wish to apply their own standard PPing regimen. It's good to know that the thought crossed your mind. In my next posted comparison, I will mention the PPing or lack thereof so that the intention is clear.