Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Zeiss Nikon Voigtländer... which pass the D800 36mpix test?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:55 pm    Post subject: Zeiss Nikon Voigtländer... which pass the D800 36mpix test? Reply with quote
EDIT: Added a few lenses

You are free to agree or disagree with findings, as long as you remember that whether you agree or disagree is not really my concern. Thanks to bicubic sharpen downsize on 36 mpix files, almost any lens will look good downsized to HD resolution, but very few lenses attached to this camera look very good when printed original size. Anything below the dotted line will no doubt be a stunner on M4/3, crop DSLR or <12mpix, but that likely is of little interest to those who want to red-line their D800 body.

5 stars - use lens without hesitation wide open to stopped down, at any focal distance
4 stars - use lens with some reservation for premium results
3 stars - good for most use and images downsized from 36mpix
2 stars - good stopped down and in favorable circumstances
1 star - modest performance suitable for amateur and/or artistic value


5 stars
Zeiss Distagon T* 25/2 ZF.2
Zeiss Distagon T* 35/2 ZF.2 (absolutely awesome)
Zeiss Distagon T* 35/1.4 ZF.2 (absolutely awesome)
Nikkor 55/2.8 Ai-S (best value for money, ever)
Nikkor 85/2.8 PC-E (absolutely awesome even tilted or shifted)
Zeiss Makro Planar 100/2 ZF.2 (yeah bokeh CA but still stunning)
Nikkor 105/2.5 Ai-S
Voigtländer 125/2.5 Macro APO Lanthar (absolutely awesome)

4 stars
Nikkor 24/2.8 Ai-S
Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2
Voigtländer 40/2 Ultron
Zeiss Makro-Planar 50/2 ZF.2
Nikkor 50/1.2 Ai-S (if it wasn't for performance wide open, it would receive 5 stars)
Nikkor 50/1.4 Ai and Ai-S
Nikkor 50/1.8 Ai-S (2nd best value for money for D800 owners)
Voigtländer 58/1.4
Nikkor 85/1.4 Ai-S
Nikkor-N 85/1.8 (1975 version)
Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 ZF.2
Voigtländer 90/3.5 APO Lanthar
Nikkor 105/2.8 Ai-S
Nikkor 105/2.5F
Nikkor 135/2.8 Ai-S
Nikkor 135/2 Ai-S (stunning portrait lens)
Voigtländer 180/4 APO Lanthar (I am tempted to give it 5 stars but won't)

3 stars
Zeiss Distagon T* 15/2.8 ZF.2 (who pays this much for this ***t?)
Nikkor 20/2.8 Ai-S
Zeiss Distagon T* 21/2.8 ZF.2 (two f-stops of vignetting makes it resemble a circular fisheye)
Nikkor 28/2 Ai-S
Nikkor 28/2.8 Ai-S
Nikkor 35/2 Ai-S
Nikkor 50/2 Ai
Nikkor Noct 58/1.2 (overpriced due to rarity, don't confuse premium price with premium quality)
Voigtländer 75/2.5 Color Heliar
Nikkor 180/2.8 Ai-S ED


2 stars
Nikkor 18/3.5 Ai-S
Nikkor 24/2 Ai-S
Nikkor 35/1.4 Ai-S


1 star
MC Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye

For obvious reasons, I chose not to include AF lenses although they are my primary interest with this camera body.

Last edited by Esox lucius on Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:58 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't believe that Zeiss 2.8/21 gets only '3 stars'. !!! Wink

I have got Distagon 2.8/21 Contax version and Orio can confirm that this lens works like a 'ZOOM'

Heavy crops from this lens are still showing a plenty of details..

However - it would be interesting to see how Canon FD lenses can perform on D800.

tf


PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
I can't believe that Zeiss 2.8/21 gets only '3 stars'

3 stars is not that bad, Esox say it is good enough for amateur so it should be good for you, me and most in this forum Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:22 am    Post subject: Re: Zeiss Nikon Voigtländer... which pass the D800 36mpix te Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

5 stars
Nikkor 55/2.8 Ai-S (best value for money, ever)


Really? (no ironic or anything ..)

this lens?
Click here to see on Ebay

price quality ratio is indeed great then


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
I can't believe that Zeiss 2.8/21 gets only '3 stars'. !!! Wink
I have got Distagon 2.8/21 Contax version and Orio can confirm that this lens works like a 'ZOOM'
Heavy crops from this lens are still showing a plenty of details..


All rankings that are based on personal preferences rather than on scientific measurements are always going to be subjective.
For instance, on a digital camera I would personally consider much worse chromatic aberration than vignetting. Yet Vilhelm places the
Makro-Planar 2/100 in the first category and the Distagon 2.8/21 in the third - two categories difference.
This shows that to everyone his own.
Another example of subjectivity, I owned the Nikkor 2.5/105 AIs for many years and although I consider it a very good lens,
especially for it's time, I would not consider it a first ranking lens.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks very much for that extensive list!

I can agree to the results of those lenses I know.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
is this your personal D3X- test "amplified" or are there other rankings than on 24MPx ?
What i am interested is to know, if there is a tendency or if it is sometimes unpredictable


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Another example of subjectivity, I owned the Nikkor 2.5/105 AIs for many years and although I consider it a very good lens,
especially for it's time, I would not consider it a first ranking lens.


Oh dear I thought this lens was supposed to be sharper than the previous Nikon Sonnar and was going to treat myself by buying one......I wont bother now Sad


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Orio wrote:

Another example of subjectivity, I owned the Nikkor 2.5/105 AIs for many years and although I consider it a very good lens,
especially for it's time, I would not consider it a first ranking lens.


Oh dear I thought this lens was supposed to be sharper than the previous Nikon Sonnar and was going to treat myself by buying one......I wont bother now Sad


Don't get me wrong, it's a very good lens! Surely worth buying, especially at the current used prices it is a real bargain.
It's just that, for me, the first category is for lenses such -say- an Apo-Summicron. I mean, that kind of lenses.
The Nikkor 2.5/105 albeit very good it's not up to the first class level for me. Just to make a comparison example, the Voigtländer 3.5/90 APO Lanthar, which Vilhelm puts in second category,
was, in my personal experience, superior to the 2.5/105 under most respects, on par only about the flare resistance (which is a weak point of both).
But the 2.5/105 is surely a great buy, a lens that I used for about 20 years with much joy.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess that all 4 and 5 star lenses in this list are definitely better than we need it.
Even the 3 star lenses are, as I understand it, good enough, unless you want to pixel-peep.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
trifox wrote:
I can't believe that Zeiss 2.8/21 gets only '3 stars'

3 stars is not that bad, Esox say it is good enough for amateur so it should be good for you, me and most in this forum Wink


oh, I got it now ..

tf


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
I can't believe that Zeiss 2.8/21 gets only '3 stars'. !!! Wink


Stan: On the D800, the ZF 2.8/21 has

excess vignetting = minus 1 star
Wide open there's 2 f-stops of it, and it reaches all but the very center of the full frame. You can't get rid of it even stopped down - there's still half an f-stop of it at f/11. Sure, you can remove the vignetting in pp - resulting in softer corners and noise, which you have to denoisify thus removing even more detail.

not so stellar corners = minus 1/2 star
Even stopped down to f/5.6 the Z has softer corners than the Nikkor 14-24/2.8G wide open.

moustache type geometric distortion = minus 1/2 star
much more complicated to remove in post-processing, and more irritating and visible than regular barrel distortion when shooting interiors and subjects with straight lines.

That's why I am willing to give it "only" 3 stars, which still is perfectly enough for most users. Many people never shoot this lens wide open, but I live in Scandinavia, where 6 months of the year it is very dark and f/2.8 is constantly needed. Many others will use it for landscapes, where geometric distortion is irrelevant and vignetting actually adds, as it deepens the skies. These users undoubtedly will give it 5 stars, but I won't (especially that the mentioned Nikkor 14-24/2.8G AF-S is better in every aspect except price).

poilu wrote:
trifox wrote:
I can't believe that Zeiss 2.8/21 gets only '3 stars'

3 stars is not that bad, Esox say it is good enough for amateur so it should be good for you, me and most in this forum Wink


Exactly.

kansalliskala wrote:
Esox lucius wrote:

5 stars
Nikkor 55/2.8 Ai-S (best value for money, ever)


Really? (no ironic or anything ..)


In recent years, I have paid 100-150 EUR for this lens used. Given that it delivers stellar detail even on the 36mpix D800, I call that a lot of bang for the buck and together with the Nikkor 50/1.8 Ai-S (version with min. focus distance 0.45cm) best value for money, ever.


Orio wrote:
All rankings that are based on personal preferences rather than on scientific measurements are always going to be subjective.


This is in itself totally true, but in this case not applicable.

I'm a full time photographer, who together with a colleague also run a camera rental service: we have access to multiple copies of the same lens models. Running a camera rental service also gives me a good negotiating point with lens importers and camera stores (I buy a lot), and I give 5 stars to lens importers for service in providing samples for evaluation. We test every single lens before we rent them to clients (we even test them before we decide if we are going to buy them or not). If we didn't, we'd have to refund money to those who rent what turns out to be coke bottles or bad copies. This D800 post is not based on personal gut feel, there is a very considerable amount of time and effort with academically validated research methods behind these "opinions" of mine.

Orio wrote:
For instance, on a digital camera I would personally consider much worse chromatic aberration than vignetting. Yet Vilhelm places the Makro-Planar 2/100 in the first category and the Distagon 2.8/21 in the third - two categories difference.
This shows that to everyone his own.


The Zeiss 2.8/21 Distagon has multiple problems (read my reply to Stan) whereas bokeh CA is the Makro Planar 2/100 only issue. That issue is today less relevant than it used to be, now that ACR 7.2 finally does an excellent job with targeting and removing LoCA and LaCA. Furthermore, The Makro-Planar's vignetting is about 2/3 of an f-stop wide open and removed stopped down, making it essentially a non-issue.

Orio wrote:
Another example of subjectivity, I owned the Nikkor 2.5/105 AIs for many years and although I consider it a very good lens, especially for it's time, I would not consider it a first ranking lens.


This makes me very happy (or lucky?) then, because the three copies I have perform equally, and all up to the 5 stars I give to it on the D800. My copies have been checked (and when needed; adjusted) by qualified Nikon servicemen because of the previously mentioned reason: I can't expect clients to pay rental fees for bad copies.

56 DIN wrote:
is this your personal D3X- test "amplified" or are there other rankings than on 24MPx ?
What i am interested is to know, if there is a tendency or if it is sometimes unpredictable


I'm not sure if I quite follow you. This post was my verdict on these lenses when used with the D800, which is 36mpix. I no longer own a D3x

Tendency or unpredictable - I'm not sure I understand you. I have taken considerable measures to rule out research error, cross-validating results both in the studio and field, filling in with customer feedback. I'm not backing my opinion up with only one afternoon of biased lens checker fumbling, it has taken me six months to compile the ratings I wrote in my first post.

LucisPictor wrote:
I guess that all 4 and 5 star lenses in this list are definitely better than we need it.
Even the 3 star lenses are, as I understand it, good enough, unless you want to pixel-peep.


Exactly.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
So is it true that the D800 sensor is more demanding? I'm not sure I understand the maths here.


This was both a choice of misleading phrasing as well as terminology on my part. With lens flaws, the same issues are there no matter if the image file is 10, 16 or 36mpix. It's just that smaller file sizes don't show problems as much as larger files do, which is why almost any coke bottle will look good when downsized (bicubic sharpen) to let's say web resolution. If my client needs product photos for a small brochure the files will not require the same attention to camera handling, choice of lens, choice of exposure or amount of post-processing, as they would if my client wanted to use the file for a photo print sized 100x150cm.

"sharp" and "sharp enough" are very subjective choices of words. Sharp enough for you is not sharp enough for my clients who compare product photography results with those of more expensive 3D rendering of their products. This is why I am much more demanding on lenses than the average user, and the very reason why my 3-star rating makes a lens more than good enough for most.

I repeat myself:

Esox lucius wrote:
whether you agree or disagree is not really my concern.


This information is provided as is, with a possibility of at least some level of subjectiveness. You may or may not like or agree with these - you are free to agree/disagree, use or neglect what ultimately is just my opinion.

Last edited by Esox lucius on Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:30 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wilhelm - there must be something wrong with Distagon 2.8/21 ZF

I know about one test - Contax Distagon 2.8/21 vs Nikkor 14-24/2.8

Both tested at f=21mm - they were equally good even wide open and Distagon had sharper corners than Nikkor 14-24/2.8

Distagon had slightly less CA and -

Contax version has sharp corners even at f2.8 - I have a proof of that.

Therefore, 'new' Distagon 2.8/21 must be worse than Contax version.

However:
1 - vignetting on Distagon 2.8/21 - I fully understand that issue
2 - moustache distortion on Distagon 2.8/21 - I understand that issue

tf


PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
Therefore, 'new' Distagon 2.8/21 must be worse than Contax version.


This is a logical conclusion which I basically agree with - but I can't validate this assumption because I no longer have Canon bodies. Comparing the 2.8/21 Distagon's Contax version to a ZE would be interesting indeed, but out of my reach of possibilities to explore.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:

This is in itself totally true, but in this case not applicable.
I'm a full time photographer, who together with a colleague also run a camera rental service: we have access to multiple copies of the same lens models. Running a camera rental service also gives me a good negotiating point with lens importers and camera stores (I buy a lot), and I give 5 stars to lens importers for service in providing samples for evaluation. We test every single lens before we rent them to clients (we even test them before we decide if we are going to buy them or not). If we didn't, we'd have to refund money to those who rent what turns out to be coke bottles or bad copies. This D800 post is not based on personal gut feel, there is a very considerable amount of time and effort with academically validated research methods behind these "opinions" of mine.


I'm sorry that you sound so irritated. I surely respect you and your professional ability as photographer, and I surely do not doubt that your opinion is a highly respectable one.
However, I still stand with my opinion that a scientifical test is something different than what you did, and that unless you bring evidence that shows
that your tests are conducted with scientifical measuring equipment in a controlled and repeatable environment, yours remain highly respectable opinions.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
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.


Which UWA does not have vignetting to some degree ? It's an inherent trait of UWA lenses wide open - though the vast majority of people use them stopped down anyway. You mention the 14--24 but as DxO shows the distortion is virtually identical. If you are shooting buildings you really need a T/S.

I did not say the 14-24 had VR I said it is WR (weather resistant). If you want to talk about putting it in your bag the 21mm fits in my pocket ..... I need a suitcase for the 14-24 (hyperbole intended) Wink


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Frogfish wrote:
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


This is a test of the Contax 21 mm not the ZF.2.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 15, 2013 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Frogfish wrote:
If you want to talk about putting it in your bag the 21mm fits in my pocket ..... I need a suitcase for the 14-24 (hyperbole intended) Wink


The 12-24 can be used at more than one FL - a point made by David Clapp in the test you quoted. So if you want to shoot at several FLs you are going to need several pockets.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2