Mid week Evil lens test.

[redisburning]

Where is the bokeh?

don't worry, I found him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qSs7cGNXUU

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I love these tests. Shows me that in general image quality remains about the same across wide ranges of cost. Thanks for posting these, Keith.

The only difference of any substance (and it doesn't matter at all) is that the B photo is a bit brighter. That could simply be a result of the aperture openings of each lens being calibrated slightly differently (i.e.: maybe f/2 is actually f/2+ on the Nikkor, or f/2 on the Zeiss is actually f/2-).

 

[brbo]

The only difference of any substance (and it doesn't matter at all) is that the B photo is a bit brighter. That could simply be a result of the aperture openings of each lens being calibrated slightly differently (i.e.: maybe f/2 is actually f/2+ on the Nikkor, or f/2 on the Zeiss is actually f/2-).

Keith explained that he evened the exposure between the two in PP.

 

[Keith]

why do they have to be so small?

I don't think you're going to hurt anyone's feelings if you make the 1024 or 1280 on the longer side =/

B looks a lot better. Don't know if it's the Zeiss but I would suspect as much.

If I had done that the differences become pretty obvious actually ... at full resolution there's a lot to see. There would have been little guessing! 😀

 

[Keith]

I love these tests. Shows me that in general image quality remains about the same across wide ranges of cost. Thanks for posting these, Keith.

The only difference of any substance (and it doesn't matter at all) is that the B photo is a bit brighter. That could simply be a result of the aperture openings of each lens being calibrated slightly differently (i.e.: maybe f/2 is actually f/2+ on the Nikkor, or f/2 on the Zeiss is actually f/2-).

Very astute Jamie ... for some reason I was never able to quite even out the apparent exposure with the two lenses. One seemed to catch light entirely differently to the other ... almost a third of a stop difference!

 

[brbo]

Very astute Jamie ... for some reason I was never able to quite even out the apparent exposure with the two lenses. One seemed to catch light entirely differently to the other ... almost a third of a stop difference!

A third of a stop? So, pretty much the diff between 1/160 (A) and 1/125 (B).

 

[rxmd]

If I had done that the differences become pretty obvious actually ... at full resolution there's a lot to see. There would have been little guessing! 😀

This actually nicely demonstrates the pointless nature of many online discussions where people discuss subtle differences in lenses based on 720x480 JPEGs.

 

[jonmanjiro]

A third of a stop? So, pretty much the diff between 1/160 (A) and 1/125 (B).

Someone's been peeking at the EXIF data 😉

I did too, but the shutter speed difference was the only thing I found. I wasn't able to determine which lens was which from it.

Do we have an answer yet?

 

[Keith]

Someone's been peeking at the EXIF data 😉

I did too, but the shutter speed difference was the only thing I found. I wasn't able to determine which lens was which from it.

Do we have an answer yet?

Most people were right in guessing the second image to be the Zeiss.

That exposure thing was weird ... I had the camera on the tripod with the settings locked in manually and started with the Nikon then switched to the Zeiss and immediately noticed how much darker the image was! I increased exposure until the histograms matched which resulted in the different shutter speeds between the two lenses. Even then the images looked a lot different in the way the light was distributed when I checked them on the computer monitor.

That was something I really wasn't expecting!

I wish I had a 50mm Nikkor so I could compare it to my Planar because I supect the result may be the same. I remember someone saying in thread a while ago that they thought the 50mm f1.4 planar was nearer an f2 in reality.

 

[gavinlg]

Most people were right in guessing the second image to be the Zeiss.

That exposure thing was weird ... I had the camera on the tripod with the settings locked in manually and started with the Nikon then switched to the Zeiss and immediately noticed how much darker the image was! I increased exposure until the histograms matched which resulted in the different shutter speeds between the two lenses. Even then the images looked a lot different in the way the light was distributed when I checked them on the computer monitor.

That was something I really wasn't expecting!

I wish I had a 50mm Nikkor so I could compare it to my Planar because I supect the result may be the same. I remember someone saying in thread a while ago that they thought the 50mm f1.4 planar was nearer an f2 in reality.

Actually I think it's just vignetting on the ZF lenses. My ZE 35mm distagon vignetted like crazy on my 5d - so much so that the whole image was darker. There was a little hot spot on the center though that matched my 35L at f2...

 

[mfogiel]

The B is Zeiss obviously. I made the same test on a Fuji S3 digital, and the differences were small anyway. The reason is, that Nikkor is actually a pretty decent lens, and secondarily, that you need more resolution to see a major difference. At 24 MP you will see a major gap between the two. A more interesting result was between the Nikkor 50/1.4 D and Makro Planar 50/2 - the Planar was sharper at f2.0 than the Nikkor at f5.6...

 

[ssmc]

Actually I think it's just vignetting on the ZF lenses. My ZE 35mm distagon vignetted like crazy on my 5d - so much so that the whole image was darker. There was a little hot spot on the center though that matched my 35L at f2...

Funny you should mention that...

I had a ZM 35C Biogon that vignetted slightly worse at f/5.6 than my old $99 Minolta 50/1.4 does at f/2. I know, one's a RF lens and the other's for an SLR but the difference was striking, and falloff was still visible at f/8. Combined with the Biogon's extreme contrast, it gave B&W photos a very harsh "film-noir-crime-scene" look which was okay on very flat overcast days but otherwise I really didn't like so I eventually sold it. Combined with the near-spot meter of the M6-TTL the severe vignetting made shooting color film a real chore - only the central "hot-spot" was close to the meter reading, and as a result gave an overall underexposure which was pretty much fatal to color negs (can you say "murky"? It made all my shots look like they were taken on expired film that had been left in a car gloverbox in summer...)

On the other hand I also have a ZF 25/2.8 Distagon which seems like a bit of an orphan in the ZF range but (for how I use it) works great on my D700. In particular the transition from in focus to OOF is very gentle and pleasing. Central sharpness is excellent if not quite as razor-like as the Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS, but away from the center the AIS seemed to "fall apart" (even on APS-C) and I thought the OOF rendering was quite messy and distracting. My only real beef with the ZF 25 is that I have an early non-chipped version and flash exposures are rather hit-and-miss compared to any D-type Nikkor. I don't use flash much anyway so this is not really a big deal for me, and I have never been disappointed with it in actual use. The notorious field curvature of the 25mm is only an issue at extremely close range; photographing maps taped to a wall at ~50x the FL to check for de-centering it was not really apparent and the lens performed much better on this test than I'd been given to expect.

Regards,
Scott

 

[mathomas]

This actually nicely demonstrates the pointless nature of many online discussions where people discuss subtle differences in lenses based on 720x480 JPEGs.

I tend to agree with what you're saying. However, here, on this small photo, most people (myself included) could identify the Zeiss. I'd have put pretty good money on it. Is that because the differences aren't subtle?