Zeiss Nikon Voigtl�nder... which pass the D800 36mpix test?

Esox lucius · Expire: 2011-11-18

No reason to be sorry Orio as I am not offended - I may sound harsh likely as I am not writing in my native language so I can't express myself in se same nuances that my mother tongue allows.

You are most welcome to debate and share your own view and experiences on these lenses, this is what this forum is all about. It's just that I am not interested in involving myself in lengthy discussions or posting librariers of test images and side-by-side crops - that is very time-consuming and time is a luxury I don't have. I have already dedicated this too much time and effort, that is away from more important tasks (running business, raising our baby and supporting the family).

This book was only just released, and had it appeared earlier it would have saved me considerable time and several days of time-consuming lens sample variation and side-by-side tripod test chart hours...

I don't have access to all the lenses tested in this publication, so more thorough results can be accessed by purchasing this: here is I think DxO chief tester's 74 scientific tests of lenses on the D800. The PDF book is in French and costs EUR 16.99, the diagrams and lens test results are very easily interpreted even though you don't speak French.

http://izibook.eyrolles.com/produit/2316/9782212167726/Le%20Nikon%20D800D800E

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I just want to add, I was questioning because I am interested in gaining a greater understanding of how different sensors perform and why. I'm not sure I understand the relationship between sensor resolution and lens resolution. Of course, resolution isn't the only issue and I find the info about vignetting and other aspects very useful, cheers.

james · Expire: 2011-12-28

I've re-animated this thread as I wanted to see if there was any changes or additions to Vilhelm's list by the author or participants with six months of shooting on the D800. What's been the experience out there?

Personally, I decided to hold on to a D700 with a Katz Eye focus screen for my MF lenses. In low-light, I realized that MF on the stock screen in the 600 & 800 is frustrating and yields a significantly lower usability ratio to the images shot. I'm not a pro so I can live with the image compromises.

Frogfish · Joined: 06 Apr 2010 Posts: 57 Location: Shanghai

I really thank Vilhelm for the list - excellent work and very helpful.

What I do disagree with is the most contentious lens rating on that list, that of the Zeiss Distagon T* 21/2.8 ZF.2. The vignetting is never an issue and easily corrected on import into LR5 or A3 by setting up a lens profile. It is an absolutely awesome lens (first on a D800 and now D800E), stunning sharpness and clarity with low distortion that is almost imperceptible in the vast majority of scenes I shoot (the 14-24 will edge it out on straight lines) which is borne out by the DxO stats below. Vilhelm also gave the Zeiss Distagon T* 35/2 ZF.2 5 stars - I can agree with the rating as these are my 2 ZE lenses (after owning 5 Contax's from 28 thru 85) and it's a stunner, but again it would be absolutely impossible for me to rate it 2 stars above the 21mm, or even 1 star above, they are on equal footing but for different subjects of course, IMHO.

There are a number of threads in the Nikon gear forum on FM discussing the 21mm vs the 14-24 and there is absolutely no consensus of opinion there, it is that close (personally I see a little more sharpness in the corners of the 14-24 but at roughly x1.5 the price - of course you gain AF, multiple FLs and WR - that and needing to pay another $500 for a filter system that actually fits the 14-24 (which doesn't accept filters) means I did not need to consider the Nikon. All that said the 14-24 has a world class reputation for a reason ....... as does the Zeiss 21mm.

DxO Testing
14-24 : Distortion 0.4%, Vignetting -1.6 EV, CA 10 um (note measurements are at it's best performing FL, 18mm).
21mm : Distortion 0.6%, Vignetting -1.9EV , CA 5 um

Here's a fine test (spoiler : 21mm better wide open, f4 f8 f11 nothing in it, whilst at f5.6 the Nikon is better.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/carl-zeiss-21mm-f-2-8-and-nikon-14-24-f-2-8-lenses-are-put-to-the-test--review-11118

Thanks again to Vilhelm for the interesting list ... I'm researching the unknown to me lenses.

Esox lucius · Expire: 2011-11-18

Feel free to agree or disagree, Cool

we are all entitled to our opinions

Removing two f-stops of vignetting results in less detail and contrast plus it adds luminance noise (and often color shift) in the areas where the vignetting control was applied. Whereas many photogs can afford spending lots of time on postprocessing individual images to perfection, I don't - I prefer lenses which improve my profit margin by cutting my hours in postprocessing to a minimum. For a landscape photographer who includes skies in compositions, the vignetting likely only improves the image. Shoot architecture, large spaces and interiors for a client who wants the "corporate look", and it turns into a nuisance.

Nikkor 14-24/2.8G btw does not have VR (vibration reduction) and that's good, it doesn't need it. Filter holders are available for much less than the $500 you mention (Amazon sells one kit for $190), but as always with large size filters "the better, the more they cost". Price is high yes but in this case you get more than what you pay for: it's so good that it replaces four prime focal lengths, and for pros who buy rationally the total cost of your bag is what counts.

Frogfish · Joined: 06 Apr 2010 Posts: 57 Location: Shanghai

Esox lucius · Expire: 2011-11-18

You made your point clear and I mine, chill out. If you want to start a yes/no internet debate then email Ken Rockwell, I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not.

sichko · Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Note to members:
In this forum there are people with different levels of experience and skills. Please remember that experienced members are not obliged to always be responsive
after they publish information in here. At the same time, less experienced members do not deserve to be patronized or looked down.
Mutual respect here is a requirement, not an option.
Thank you.

sichko · Joined: 20 Jun 2008 Posts: 2475 Location: South West UK

Frogfish · Joined: 06 Apr 2010 Posts: 57 Location: Shanghai

Frogfish · Joined: 06 Apr 2010 Posts: 57 Location: Shanghai

Esox lucius · Expire: 2011-11-18

What sensor size are most of you using? If your DSLR sensor is 36 mpix then you should read this from the beginning, including the first page of replies to doubts posted against these findings. If you are using DSLRs with smaller sensors, then you can safely neglect everything written in this post.

The difference between 16mpix and 36mpix is similar to the difference in detail that your bare human eye can distinguish (close focusing distance 0.30m) vs. what a magnifying glass will reveal to you. Believe me, one day when you'll plug that lens onto a really big sensor you will notice that lens designers very often make shortcuts, with design performance goals meeting sensor standards that later will be broken.

The fact that a lens no longer looks stellar when you mate it with a very large FF sensor does not make it less capable for most use. If you never print large or never deliver commercial work where every pixel you sell will be scrutinized by an Art Director who has a fetish for large image files, then you never need to worry about issues I raised in my original post.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Good point about who the client is. I've had 20x30 inch prints made from 14mp NEX-3 files that looked great and I've sold a few of them.

But, I doubt that same 20x30 print would get you in the door at he clients Esox has.

Depends on who's eyes are viewing it how good it looks.

Farside · Expire: 2013-12-27