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

A value of 50
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
and even more off topic..

WAIT WAIT WAIT! are we talking about lenses with UV filters installed over the top? because I'll have you know. My hoya UV0 Filter from 1976 is simply remarkable Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kenetik wrote:
Mos6502 wrote:


Ads can say all sorts of things!




Lol, love this... the Yugo is top of its class, but keep in mind it is in a class of its own.


Hey! I once had a Yugo when I was flat broke and couldn't afford a 'real car'. Not good, but it sure beat waiting for buses in the cold and wet Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
If Gerald and Ian stopped sparring with each other and set aside their partisan sentiments, many readers of this thread (myself included) might be better informed about the very interesting world of Japanese camera evolution in the 1950s.

Sorry to say, but your entire post is only a criticism of others, with no technical contribution to the original topic of the thread.
Your interest in the evolution of Japanese lenses in the 50s is legitimate, but I remember you that the topic is about the status of photographic lenses in the mid 80s.


scsambrook wrote:
"Historical truth" is rarely found through press adverts and ...


Generic comments like yours has no purpose other than to disqualify the debate. The Nikon advertisement was published in Modern Photography November 1986, the time of the discussion raised by the OP.

MP was a magazine of global circulation, and highly respected in the photographic world. Its editor, Herbert Keppler was a connoisseur of photographic equipment that accompanied the technological developments in the area since the early 50s. Modern Photography was the last place for Nikon publishing a lie that would ultimately destroy its credibility.

If you have something interesting to enrich the debate, we will all be anxious to hear what you have to say. If you have nothing interesting to say, just listen. Thank you.

Regards


Gerald - thanks for your thoughtful comments. Advice from those better informed than one's self - especially those who clearly have such a firm concern for, and grasp of, historical truth - should always to be taken seriously. I shall sit quietly and reflect on the inadequacy of my own knowledge, properly chastened by my inability to make any interesting contribution.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some people went off-topic on purpose when they posted advertisements of cars long out of line. Their goal was ridiculing advertisements in general, and consequently discrediting an advertisement of 1986, when Nikon claimed that "Nikon cameras are used by more professional photographers than all other 35mm SLR cameras combined" (Picture below)

Those people suffer from the simplistic conception that advertising is a lie, and therefore anyone can say anything in an advertisement. This is ridiculous. If advertising were how those people think, Yashica could also have said that "Contax cameras are used by more professionals than all other 35mm SLR cameras combined!" The same for Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta ...

Those people certainly have never heard of JCIA, Japan Camera Industry Association, and CIPA, Camera & Imaging Products Association. Sales and shipments of cameras and lenses are registered, so a member of CIPA knows, for example, what was the number of cameras sent by competitors to the various markets. In 1986, Nikon knew that it sold more cameras for professionals than all other competitors combined. And the Yashica and Canon also knew that. So, Nikon could claim that "Nikon cameras are used by more professional photographers than all other 35mm SLR cameras combined".

Other important sources of information about the number of professionals who use different brands of cameras are the services of professional support of Japanese manufacturers of cameras:
Nikon: NPS - Nikon Professional Services
Canon: CPS - Canon Professional Services
Sony: SupportNET

I read somewhere that to be a member of NPS, the photographer must have at least two professional Nikon cameras. The D600/610, for example, is not considered a professional camera by Nikon. On the other hand, the D800/810 and D4 are. Nikon takes, and always took very seriously the professional photographers.

I think it is very clear that Nikon could never say that it was the absolute leader in professional photography in 1986, if it were not true. There was a lot of data that proved it.

My point was that the prices posted by Gardener made sense. Nikon lenses were as good or better than the Zeiss for Contax. Nikon was the unchallenged leader of professional photography in 1986. The professional photographers know very well the qualities and limitations of the equipment they work with. If Nikon lenses were inferior to Zeiss, most professionals would have switched to Contax.

That's all I had to say on the subject. Here I close my participation in the discussion of this topic.






PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually the reason for not looking to advertising for facts is the about the same reason for not letting an entrant into a competition be his own judge.

Not particularly difficult to understand the problem inherent.

Further, whether or not "pros" use anything is beside the point of quality. If we're discussing the qualities of lenses - then sales figures and popularity are unrelated.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Funny thing: the advertisement says nothing about optical quality of the Nikon glasses, but advertise us about metering modes and AF capabilities. This has nothing to do with the main content of this thread.
Nikon can say what they want: the only thing that is evident is a ocean of "white lenses" with some exception we can see in the Olympic games, FIFA world cup, Winter Games, etc. against a small amount of black lens which can be everything else but Canon.
Gerald, from a bunch of one hundred lenses from Nikon we pic 4-5 superb lens thinking only in optical qualities. For the same amount from Zeiss we dig 4-5 crap lenses, (maybe weak corners, etc.). MTF charts are all out there to compare the time we want.
This translates in this: buying Nikon lenses you have 95% chances to buy crap. Buying Zeiss you have 3% of acquiring a paper weight.
If you compare the best from Nikon with the worst from Zeiss you can arrive at mad results as the one you did.
But saying that, that in the 80's Nikon made lense equal in quality or even better lenses then Leica and Zeiss I can argue: about how many lens projects are we talking about? This is a generalization that presents a lot of wind but proves nothing then al preference of yourself.

About sales to the pro's, let's face the reality: the camera and lenses Nikon argue it's a pro gear is used by the minority of the pro due to skyrocket price tags. I know maybe 100 of pro's here in Brazil which uses Nikon and maybe the same amount which has Canon and other brands. I know one photographer which has a Nikon D4. And the hole group of sports photographers I know doesn't even uses a full frame camera, due to the fact that crop sensor cameras are lighter and have faster AF responses. None of the photographers I know which works with AP (Associated Press), France Press, the newspapers Estadao and Folha de S. Paulo uses a D4 in the field. Sebastião Salgado (Magnum) uses a Canon camera and lenses.

The numbers at Japan Camera Ass. are counting are too narrow to make sense. Is the same accounting stuff which states that in a year you and I had eaten 100 chicken, even if i'm a vegetarian (which is not true),

Abs,

Renato


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Nikon lenses were as good or better than the Zeiss for Contax.


This point is open to debate, my opinion, and I think many share it is that most Nikkors are inferior to the equivalent Zeiss Contax.

Gerald wrote:
Nikon was the unchallenged leader of professional photography in 1986.


In certain areas such as press photography yes, but in other fields not at all, wedding, studio and fashion pros were using Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad; freelancers were using whatever they liked, which is why Pentax, Minolta and others made pro bodies.

Gerald wrote:
If Nikon lenses were inferior to Zeiss, most professionals would have switched to Contax.


Not true. The quality of the lens is very far from the most important criteria for a pro. For a pro, if the lens is good enough, it is good enough and in the area where Nikon was the leader - press photography, the lens quality was not that important as the end result was reproduced in a newspaper as a lores image made up of benday dots. Being able to get your body repaired or to lease a replacement body were important factors and Nikon had a large dealer network and service centre network, which Contax didn't. Nikon and Contax were targetting different markets.

Bottom line, the theory that Nikon lenses must be the best because they had the largest share of the pro market is deeply flawed and there are several other factors that are more important to a pro when choosing a system.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I think many share it is that most Nikkors are inferior to the equivalent Zeiss Contax.

I think that if you make a list of Zeiss Contax lenses that have equivalent Nikkors it won't be very long, and the list of people who own matching pairs, and so can provide first-hand opinion, will be be significantly shorter. You probably will find quite a few people who own both Planars and 50mm Nikkors. Perhaps some who have both Distagon and Nikkor 28/2.8. What else would be a direct match? 135/2.8? Uber-expensive 85/1.4 and 135/2.0?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ad-wise, Miranda was the best:



PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Nikon lenses were as good or better than the Zeiss for Contax.


This point is open to debate, my opinion, and I think many share it is that most Nikkors are inferior to the equivalent Zeiss Contax.

Gerald wrote:
Nikon was the unchallenged leader of professional photography in 1986.


In certain areas such as press photography yes, but in other fields not at all, wedding, studio and fashion pros were using Bronica, Mamiya, Hasselblad; freelancers were using whatever they liked, which is why Pentax, Minolta and others made pro bodies.

Gerald wrote:
If Nikon lenses were inferior to Zeiss, most professionals would have switched to Contax.


Not true. The quality of the lens is very far from the most important criteria for a pro. For a pro, if the lens is good enough, it is good enough and in the area where Nikon was the leader - press photography, the lens quality was not that important as the end result was reproduced in a newspaper as a lores image made up of benday dots. Being able to get your body repaired or to lease a replacement body were important factors and Nikon had a large dealer network and service centre network, which Contax didn't. Nikon and Contax were targetting different markets.

Bottom line, the theory that Nikon lenses must be the best because they had the largest share of the pro market is deeply flawed and there are several other factors that are more important to a pro when choosing a system.


I think Ian has nailed it, Nikon probably had the best all round package, the camera's were legendary for their reliability and robustness - the paramount criteria when working in war zones and disasters. Getting a damaged or failed camera fixed was just as important. The optical quality of the lens was secondary - "if the lens is good enough, it is good enough" - was the bottom line which ensured their dominance. How many of the renowned images we've seen in print have been blurred or badly exposed? If it's the only picture of a news event, it's the picture we see.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why would Nikon introduce ED glasses in all its professional telephoto lenses if image quality was not important? If it was just to "get the shot", Nikon would have made all its telephoto lenses with ordinary glasses, which were good enough for newspaper photography.

If a superior image quality was not important, why Nikon would design the legendary... oops I forgot the word "legendary" is taboo here, especially when used for a Nikon lens... Noct-Nikkor 58mm F1.2 with an aspherical lens that eliminated coma?

Professional photography is not only about B&W photojournalism for newspapers. Many professional photographers used Nikon cameras for nature, sports, events, wedding, fashion and commercial photography, for publishing in high-quality color magazines like National Geographic, Time-Life, Vogue, etc. For these applications, high quality of image was paramount.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I guess it bears repeating, popularity is not directly correlated to quality.

I'd like to see some actual comparisons, in case anybody here is attempting to be serious. Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
I guess it bears repeating, popularity is not directly correlated to quality.

Neither is unpopularity.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
I guess it bears repeating, popularity is not directly correlated to quality.

I'd like to see some actual comparisons, in case anybody here is attempting to be serious. Laughing


No we have mentioned as such Shhh already, you are ruining the show Razz


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those who are so excited to see a comparison between a Zeiss and a Nikon (or Canon and Sigma), should take a look here:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/just-the-lenses-canon-and-nikon-mount-85mm-f1-4-and-1-2-primes

You will see that there is nothing like a Zeiss lens. Razz


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
Those who are so excited to see a comparison between a Zeiss and a Nikon (or Canon and Sigma), should take a look here:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/just-the-lenses-canon-and-nikon-mount-85mm-f1-4-and-1-2-primes

You will see that there is nothing like a Zeiss lens. Razz

The should test the Planar 85mm F1.2 as well as the Planar 85mm F1.4. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Roger's Take

Roger Cicala

President of LensRentals.com

Full disclosure: I love Zeiss glass. I used to shoot it on the 1DsII with an adapter and still shoot ZF lenses on Nikon bodies pretty frequently. So, I was as excited as anyone when Zeiss announced the ZE mount. The 85 f/1.4 was the first to be released, and I was less excited about that since I already love the Canon 85 f/1.2 L, but I was excited nonetheless.

The ZE lens is superbly well built with metal body and hood, and it has the smoothest focusing ring I’ve handled. The electronic autofocus confirmation system works. You focus the lens manually with the shutter button half-depressed and you get the “red box” through the viewfinder confirming focus. It’s fairly accurate, although I found it took a few minutes of practice to get used to it and live-view focusing is more accurate. It’s not as convenient or quick as motor driven autofocus but better than unaided through-the-viewfinder manual focus.

The 85 f/1.4 is not as sharp wide open as I’d hoped, and I’d consider f/1.4 for emergency use only. By f/1.8, it’s sharp and at f/2.8 is wickedly sharp—as sharp as anything I’ve shot. My take is that it’s sharpest in the mid-range (from 7 to 50 feet) and not quite as sharp at infinity, which is what would be expected from a lens who’s primary use is portraiture and not landscape. Distortion is nil. The best part is that it has that Zeiss look. It has great microcontrast, even when lighting conditions are harsh and contrast high.

One other point that needs to be made: this lens does exhibit focus shift from f/1.4 to f/2 or so. In that aperture range it will tend to front focus, especially on objects fairly close to the camera.

I know someone will ask this question, so no, it’s not “better” than the Canon 85 f/1.2 L. It’s different. It has a slightly different look in contrast and color that I personally love. It’s also a lot smaller physically than the Canon 85, which can be important sometimes.


Sounds like an excellent lens to me...


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
Gerald wrote:
Those who are so excited to see a comparison between a Zeiss and a Nikon (or Canon and Sigma), should take a look here:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/09/just-the-lenses-canon-and-nikon-mount-85mm-f1-4-and-1-2-primes

You will see that there is nothing like a Zeiss lens. Razz

The should test the Planar 85mm F1.2 as well as the Planar 85mm F1.4. Wink


It seems that Roger Cicala only tests lenses that are in production.
The Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art 85mm F1.4 are coming. It will be interesting to see how they perform.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Zeiss 1.2/85 outperforms the Canon:

Quote:
As the only alternative, there is only this Zeiss. it is an object produced with a very limited edition: a first batch in 1982 for the 50th anniversary of the Contax and a second lot in 1992 for the 60th. Derives from the lens mount to the film industry. For the avoidance of doubt subio say that is not the same as the Canon. The Zeiss is sharper, including the center, already at F1, 2 and this advantage increases by closing the diaphragm. The zeiss is also very very sharp even at the edges. Compared to the canon, however, manifests a residual AC TA, however correctable in post production. F / 2 and then disappears even that becomes sharp as a macro. This is definitely an exercise in style Zeiss particularly successful from the point of view of optical performance as well, and incredible when you consider the results to the edges in a goal so bright. From this point of view is incomparable. Staying at home Zeiss is more than 1.2 resolvent of 1.4 / 85 closedto F2. What might not like? The 85mm focal length is a portrait and a glass so perfect in this removes the sense of enhancing the center (here often called magic) that lead to the loss of risolvenza and indefiniteness perfiferica that comes with it. So many portraitists likely to go to a boring first class. For the rest of the color rendition is amazing, as well as the morbidezzo of focus, but only for what is not in focus. Compared to the Canon is more natural and more three-dimensional, with a focus clearer, less muddy. The color rendition is softer, with less contrasting lights.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
That's all I had to say on the subject. Here I close my participation in the discussion of this topic.


I am pleased that Gerald reconsidered his earlier decision to cease contributing to this thread. I continue to widen and deepen my knowledge as a result of his, and others', contributions. I regret that I still have nothing of interest or of value to add, but I shall continue to listen quietly.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
For some reason I have the music of Mortal Kombat playing through my head whenever I revisit this thread...


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nah they are a bit to passive aggressive for that, I think it has a more,

"Henry. I disagree!"

vibe going on. Razz


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Zeiss 1.2/85 outperforms the Canon

Two points here - first, as a custom produced lens (I understand only 2000 were ever made) that costs $5-6k it damn better outperform Canon. Second - not in this test it does not.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Which makes the best bokeh though? Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2014 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gardener wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The Zeiss 1.2/85 outperforms the Canon

Two points here - first, as a custom produced lens (I understand only 2000 were ever made) that costs $5-6k it damn better outperform Canon. Second - not in this test it does not.

The test on the Chinese site clearly shown the the Planar 1.2/85 is superior to the Canon 1.2/85 L interns of resolution and field flatness. Only the contrast of Canon L is better than the Planar.

In my opinion, the Contax 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 from Zeiss are designed as portrait lens and both of them are not very sharp at wide open. On the other hand, both Contax 1.2/55 and 1.2/85 are designed to delivery sharp iamge from wide open.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7