Mudman
Well-known
I love my Nikon zooms... as long as I don't have to walk to far.
How did Zeiss get spanked on DXOMark?
- Thread starter sper
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 42
- Views 7K
sper
Well-known
I know Canon and Nikon zooms are pretty fantastic, and I'm not saying that Zeiss needs to be better based on name. But I would think it's embarrasing for Zeiss who is presumably making 'premium' prime lenses, forgoing autofocus for mechanical quality.
But if that's no so, Zeiss should do better.
Anyway, meh, I'm buying a Canon 17-40 F4L today. I think it'll compliment my Voigtlander 40mm F2 pretty well. It was between that and the 28-70, and I figure I like wides more.
But if that's no so, Zeiss should do better.
Anyway, meh, I'm buying a Canon 17-40 F4L today. I think it'll compliment my Voigtlander 40mm F2 pretty well. It was between that and the 28-70, and I figure I like wides more.
tlitody
Well-known
the zeiss lenses for canon and nikon are essentially the same as the old contax lenses but slightly re-hashed with more modern glass. I note that zeiss haven't published MTF charts for them which they did for the old contax lenses. If you compare the MTF charts of the old contax lenses with the MTF charts for the ZEISS ZM lenses, the ZM lenses are clearly better, especially the 35 F2.0(well it is a biogon!). So I suspect that since the canon and nikon lenses are state of the art designs(for canon and nikon), they may well be the equal of the old contax designs but not as good as the new zm lenses. Just my suspicions that's all. Unfortunately the ZM lenses aren't in DxO to check my theory.
Soothsayerman
Established
Soothsayerman
Established
No, they are not essentially the same. You cannot reformulate a lens, change the glass and have it be essentially the same. About the only thing those lenses have in common are the f-stop and the focal length. I guess in that regard they are the same, but they do not have the same output.
Neare
Well-known
Are we photographers or scientists?
B
berlincontemporary
Guest
Slower lenses should be sharper anyway. I have used all Canon EF 50s except the f1.0 and I liked the 50/1.8 best. It slaps the 1.2 L in the face for being such a diva.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Some of us are both.
gavinlg
Veteran
I seriously can't believe people are defending DXO for dud analysis. If anybody here had actual experience with the 21mm distagon, the 100mm makro-planar and the 50mm makro-planar, they would laugh hysterically at those stupid graphs and results.
There's no way in hell that a 16-35mm (which is a good lens regardless) beats the 21mm f2.8 distagon in resolution. Not a chance in hell.
There's no way that ANY canon or nikon lens around the same focal length beats the 100mm makro-planar in resolution.
The results are just plain wrong. Accept it.
There's no way in hell that a 16-35mm (which is a good lens regardless) beats the 21mm f2.8 distagon in resolution. Not a chance in hell.
There's no way that ANY canon or nikon lens around the same focal length beats the 100mm makro-planar in resolution.
The results are just plain wrong. Accept it.
gavinlg
Veteran
The current range is overall optically better than the famed contax lenses from 10-20 years ago. Place of manufacture has nothing to do with it, and you should probably consider the the other option that DXO is just plain wrong.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The 'resolution revolution' ... I don't need (nor want) any part of it!
I'm with Gav ... it's a wank and gets in the way of photography!
I'm with Gav ... it's a wank and gets in the way of photography!
Harry Lime
Practitioner
andredossantos
Well-known
Me three :angel:
PKR
Veteran
That was my first thought also, but I think (please correct me) the glass is made by Zeiss and Cosina provides the housings and assembles the lens. Maybe there are issues in the non glass construction. My Nikon Primes always out perform my Nikon Zooms. One zoom, however (17-35 f2.8) was sharper at 35mm than my prime, but underperformed the Primes at all other FL.
I've worked around a few DPs and they will always use a Cooke or Nikon Prime rather than the latest Angenieux if their isn't a FL change in the take.
I know that Lucasfilm uses Nikon Primes. I also know that many are tested and reassembled by their Techs. before seeing any use if they don't test up to their standard.
GSNfan
Well-known
Placebo is very real. If you strongly expect for some lens to provide great image quality, your eyes will follow your expectation and you'll "see" great image quality... There is a very good reason why sometimes you see images posted and the person who took them appears extremely excited yet for the rest its just another normal or worse mediocre image.
These tests by DXO cuts through the bs that permeates the internet when it comes to photography gear and provides hard numbers which do correlate with lens performance in real life - after all the companies that make these lenses, use similar technology to test their lenses and built them.
I trust DXO any day over high on placebo photographers.
sper
Well-known
+1
I chased resolution all the way to 8x10, now I'm happy skipping from 35mm to 645, to 4x5, coupled with a 5DII hickup. I'm more concerned now with the style of the cameras, the workflow and the look they give my photos.
sper
Well-known
Manufactured in Japan by Cosina. This has nothing to do with the possible quality of the lenses as far as I'm concerned. Just because they're not made in Germany doesn't mean they're not up to the Zeiss standards of design. My Contax G lenses say "Lens made in Japan" on the barrel, so I'm not to worried about country of origin.
Plus Cosina knows what they're doing. Look at the 35mm 1.2, 50mm 1.1, 21mm f4... SLR mount 40mm f2. They've designed and produced some stellar optics. I love how they make them available to the masses with their pricing too!
gavinlg
Veteran
Thankyou for the laugh!
Diglloyd did a solid comparison with real world images of the 21mm distagon and the 16-35L here if anyone's interested.
His conclusion: "There’s really no contest in this comparison, the ZF 21/2.8 wins easily." Of course believing a numerical graph result with absolutely no evidence via actual images is MUCH more reliable - right?
Last edited:
tlitody
Well-known
Aren't these DxO figures measured from the sensor they are captured on? If thats the case then the sensors will be a great leveler and don't really represent what a lens is capable of but rather what a seensor can get from a lens.
gavinlg
Veteran
you can equalize it by selecting the camera tested with the lens. I don't think they even test each lens with each camera, there's just too many of them - it's probably theoretical.
Similar threads
