How did Zeiss get spanked on DXOMark?

S

sper

Well-known
Local time
3:26 AM
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
494
View My Gallery
These scores seem wrong to me. Nearly every Canon or Nikon pro zoom beat out the Zeiss primes. Even the low end Canon or Nikon primes scored higher than most of the best lenses Zeiss has to offer. Even the 100mm Macro, and the 21mm 2.8, which every review states to be a killer lens with no current equal, scored lower than the zooms.

What's going on here?

The other thing I notice is Pentax and Olympus lenses scoring almost ridiculously low. I have a hard time believing Canon and Nikon have a monopoly on good lenses. I wouldn't be surprised if the Nikon 35mm 1.4 was as good as the Zeiss 35mm 1.4, but no way the 24-70 2.8 is better than the primes...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en.../(brand)/Zeiss/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikkor

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en.../(brand)/Zeiss/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Nikkor
 
Whoops, I read that wrong. The 100mm scored higher, but only just. And the Zeiss primes only seem to equal the zooms in most cases.

Except for the 50mm 1.4, which I'm only surprised isn't better than the Canon 50mm 1.8. Other than that I know it's not that great from experience.
 
Because DXO is crap for real life application of information. Half the stuff on there doesn't correlate to results in real life use. I keep saying this but nobody listens!
 
They only do lens+body tests. Does Nikon disable in-camera sharpening for third party lenses? Or do the lateral CA filters (which they will only have for "known", i.e. their own, lenses) have that much impact even for a good prime?
 
sevo said:
They only do lens+body tests. Does Nikon disable in-camera sharpening for third party lenses? Or do the lateral CA filters (which they will only have for "known", i.e. their own, lenses) have that much impact even for a good prime?
Click to expand...

Similar results in their tests with the canon bodies as well - and canon bodies do no extra correction to their lenses.
 
Certainly zoom lenses have gotten better over the last 30 years. But that good. I'm not giving up my 50mm prime f/1.4 lenses.
 
I've taken photographs that prove my primes are mostly sharper than my zooms. DXOMark is missing the point by far,especially since real world photographs don't enter the least bit into their ratings.

They should just say that the ratings only indicate test target performance and nothing else.
 
Nikon RAW files are not corrected for CSA, or other optical shortcomings, unless you process them using Nikon's NX2 software.
 
You also have to look at what is actually being rated. if you compare the Canon 1.2L II, Nikon 85 1.4D and Sigma 85 1.4, the first lens is rates at f1.2 and the others at 2.8 .... no wonder the others record greater sharpness.

Nothing beats seeing results with your own eyes. On paper performance can be handy to know, bit it means nothing if subjective factors are not to your liking.

Canon and Nikon make some amazing lenses thats for sure, but people will buy Zeiss wide primes for such things as corner performance. I doubt much weighting is given in DxO for this small part of the frame, but it means an awful lot to a landscape photographer, along with the sparkle and contrast Zeiss lenses deliver.
 
Their rating is based on some (arbitrary) weighting of individual scores. Your preferred weights may be different, since different things matter to you.

They only rate by extinction resolution, a single number, usually where MTF drops below 50% or any other arbitrary threshold. How a lens behaves at resolutions lower than this is not taken into account, but determins the look of images an their perceived sharpness <b>much</b> more than the highest resolution the lens achieves.

For me, tests like this are correct, but useless.
 
They're very clever guys, and their software for improving lenses is brilliant, but somehow, I've never quite been in sympathy with their ratings of lenses. So I never read them. Easy.

Cheers,

R.
 
Steve McCurry mentioned in an interview:

Today I use a Nikon D700 DSLR and a Hasselblad medium format camera. In the old days, I mainly used prime lenses like a 28mm, a 35mm and a 50mm, but these days, I am happy with the results of my Nikkor 28-70 zoom lens that I find gives me sharp results.
Click to expand...

http://www.fotoflock.com/index.php/features/feature-interviews/30/2723

If quality zoom lenses are good enough for Steve McCurry, they should be good enough for the average mortals as well.
 
I thought most Zeiss lenses are now made by Cosina, so why expect some miracle prime lens. Has it occured to anyone that Nikon and Canon lenses may actually be better than a japanese brand lens with the name "Zeiss".
Having said that, I really like the character of the zeiss lenses I use.
 
GSNfan said:
If quality zoom lenses are good enough for Steve McCurry, they should be good enough for the average mortals as well.
Click to expand...

Most lenses are 'good enough' for most people, though depending on what you're shooting and how it's going to be used, some will be better than others: advertising, reportage and landscape may all make different demands. Also, why deny the importance of personal taste? I'll back my taste, for me, aganst Steve McCurry's taste, for me, any day. Just as I'd expect him to back his taste against mine, for him.

I also know one Fleet Street reporter who ordered an M9 the day it came out. He had to use DSLRs for immediacy, but (as far as I recall) 18 out of his 24 press awards were won with Leicas. Like many of us, he likes using them better, and finds that he gets better pictures when using cameras that he likes. Others may be in the same situation but he's one I know personally.

Cheers,

R.
 
loneranger said:
I thought most Zeiss lenses are now made by Cosina, so why expect some miracle prime lens. Has it occured to anyone that Nikon and Canon lenses may actually be better than a japanese brand lens with the name "Zeiss".
Having said that, I really like the character of the zeiss lenses I use.
Click to expand...

Some of Zeiss line up are made by Zeiss in Germany 🙂
 
Roger Hicks said:
Most lenses are 'good enough' for most people, though depending on what you're shooting and how it's going to be used, some will be better than others: advertising, reportage and landscape may all make different demands. Also, why deny the importance of personal taste? I'll back my taste, for me, aganst Steve McCurry's taste, for me, any day. Just as I'd expect him to back his taste against mine, for him.

I also know one Fleet Street reporter who ordered an M9 the day it came out. He had to use DSLRs for immediacy, but (as far as I recall) 18 out of his 24 press awards were won with Leicas. Like many of us, he likes using them better, and finds that he gets better pictures when using cameras that he likes. Others may be in the same situation but he's one I know personally.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I agree, if you enjoy using a certain type of lens and camera, the chances of doing better work increases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
ampguy
dxomark sensor info. for nex, g1, m8
Replies
1
Views
2K
noirist
N
C
interesting website
Replies
11
Views
2K
barjohn
barjohn
gavinlg
Nikon d300 + Zeiss Planar 1.4... hmm
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
grainhound
G
NickTrop
  • Locked
Are Rangefinders Still the Best Tool for Steet Photography? - The Nikon D5000
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
8K
NickTrop
NickTrop
Back
Top Bottom