glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
I was fooled as well ... am I wrong or does the Nikon have more contrast than the zeiss?
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Zeiss 100mm
- Thread starter KurtKamka
- Start date
woodyspedden
New member
Ray
You have convinced me. I would probably have opted to keep the 100 2,0 Zeiss but the focus ring stiffness is just a killer IMO. I wish I had been lucky enough to get one with a smooth action. Anyway I have returned the ZF 100 to B&H photo and gotten the 105 VR in its place. I don't think I will look back.
Woody
You have convinced me. I would probably have opted to keep the 100 2,0 Zeiss but the focus ring stiffness is just a killer IMO. I wish I had been lucky enough to get one with a smooth action. Anyway I have returned the ZF 100 to B&H photo and gotten the 105 VR in its place. I don't think I will look back.
Woody
I'm glad the photos helped everyone.
Seeing the photos from the ZF on this thread, I had to try it as a direct comparison to my Nikon 105 (which I had been saying is a GREAT lens - ask Guy how much I raved about this lens).
In the end, here is what I thought:
Build quality & size go to the Zeiss.
Focus smoothness and weight go to the Nikon.
Reproduction ration of 1:1 vs. 1:2 goes to the Nikon.
Flare control is basically identical
Sharpness and contrast on center is basically identical.
ZF wins on 2.0 vs. 2.8 for max aperture.
ZF very marginally wins in the corners on sharpness and vignetting at 2.8, but only marginally.
VR on the Nikon is VERY useful on a lens of this focal length, when doing work hand held.
"Bokeh" or OOF area was virtually indistinguishable between the two lenses.
Ease of use and speed of use have to go to the Nikon with a very fast, accurate, and silent AF system.
Based on AF, 1:1 reproduction ration, and VR, I decided to stay with the Nikon as the corner advantage of the Zeiss wide open is only very marginally better.
Once again the ZF is an extraordinary lens, but the Nikon fits me on this one.
Best,
Ray
Seeing the photos from the ZF on this thread, I had to try it as a direct comparison to my Nikon 105 (which I had been saying is a GREAT lens - ask Guy how much I raved about this lens).
In the end, here is what I thought:
Build quality & size go to the Zeiss.
Focus smoothness and weight go to the Nikon.
Reproduction ration of 1:1 vs. 1:2 goes to the Nikon.
Flare control is basically identical
Sharpness and contrast on center is basically identical.
ZF wins on 2.0 vs. 2.8 for max aperture.
ZF very marginally wins in the corners on sharpness and vignetting at 2.8, but only marginally.
VR on the Nikon is VERY useful on a lens of this focal length, when doing work hand held.
"Bokeh" or OOF area was virtually indistinguishable between the two lenses.
Ease of use and speed of use have to go to the Nikon with a very fast, accurate, and silent AF system.
Based on AF, 1:1 reproduction ration, and VR, I decided to stay with the Nikon as the corner advantage of the Zeiss wide open is only very marginally better.
Once again the ZF is an extraordinary lens, but the Nikon fits me on this one.
Best,
Ray
gogopix
Subscriber
so with all this Nikon buying why isn't there all that 'slippery slope' commenting?
I guess it was the xpensive 'price' grease that caused the Leica (DMR, M, Lenses, etc.) SS
anyway, as the old saying goes...
"If I had a 105,...
I too would use it on the D300....
If I had a D300....:ROTFL:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Great work Ray , the forum thanks you for your efforts.
woodyspedden
New member
Amen Guy
These threads are so useful to forum members that it is a no brainer to be here. No matter what your end conclusions are, the experiences of the forum members save so much time and money that there is no substitute.
Just MHO
woody spedden
These threads are so useful to forum members that it is a no brainer to be here. No matter what your end conclusions are, the experiences of the forum members save so much time and money that there is no substitute.
Just MHO
woody spedden
woodyspedden
New member
Amen Guy
These threads are so useful to forum members that it is a no brainer to be here. No matter what your end conclusions are, the experiences of the forum members save so much time and money that there is no substitute.
Just MHO
woody spedden
These threads are so useful to forum members that it is a no brainer to be here. No matter what your end conclusions are, the experiences of the forum members save so much time and money that there is no substitute.
Just MHO
woody spedden
woodyspedden
New member
David
Looking at my double post it seems I already did
Woody
Looking at my double post it seems I already did
Woody
deepdiver
New member
This morning a had fun with my Old Nikon D50 + ZF 100/2 (yes without Exposure metering, so i have to guess the metering by looking at the histogram )
Played with it around 5 minutes at the garden of my house....
IXIF intake
These 2 images are 100% right out from the camera, without any PS.
Only resize them to 72 dpi
No Unsharp mask applied
Andree
Played with it around 5 minutes at the garden of my house....
IXIF intake
These 2 images are 100% right out from the camera, without any PS.
Only resize them to 72 dpi
No Unsharp mask applied
Andree
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Beautiful compositions, Andree.
Technically the files don't seem to have quite the same rich, fat, vital and juicy glow and 3-Dimensionality as the D3 and D300 files you have shown us, and of course some difference would be expected.
On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if you knew how to add your usual magic even to these D50 files in post process, since you've already shown us a deeply 3-Dimensional underwater shot with the D50 :thumbup:
It surprises me that you are able to focus the ZF 100 with the small, dark and dim D50 tunnel viewfinder. Impressive.
By the way, I have the little cheap lightweight D50 myself and I actually like it a lot.
It served me well for a couple of years during my search for the right tool until I finally got the D300.
Now the only thing that might make me switch to D3 is the larger and brighter viewfinder and the better MF focusing confirmation system of the D3.
Apart from that viewfinder detail I am for the first time in the digital age completely satisfied with a camera tool.
At the time when we see the larger sensor/viewfinder put into the smaller body I'll probably upgrade.
Technically the files don't seem to have quite the same rich, fat, vital and juicy glow and 3-Dimensionality as the D3 and D300 files you have shown us, and of course some difference would be expected.
On the other hand I wouldn't be surprised if you knew how to add your usual magic even to these D50 files in post process, since you've already shown us a deeply 3-Dimensional underwater shot with the D50 :thumbup:
It surprises me that you are able to focus the ZF 100 with the small, dark and dim D50 tunnel viewfinder. Impressive.
By the way, I have the little cheap lightweight D50 myself and I actually like it a lot.
It served me well for a couple of years during my search for the right tool until I finally got the D300.
Now the only thing that might make me switch to D3 is the larger and brighter viewfinder and the better MF focusing confirmation system of the D3.
Apart from that viewfinder detail I am for the first time in the digital age completely satisfied with a camera tool.
At the time when we see the larger sensor/viewfinder put into the smaller body I'll probably upgrade.
H
hermie
Guest
I got my Zeiss 100 today. What a wonderful lens, it's so sharp.
Here's a snapshot taken from my balcony (ISO 200, 1/100 sec @ f/5.6 handheld).
Uwe Steinmueller's 'EasyD DetailResolver' does a great job, here's a 100% crop without and with 'EasyD DetailResolver' applied.
Herman
Here's a snapshot taken from my balcony (ISO 200, 1/100 sec @ f/5.6 handheld).
Uwe Steinmueller's 'EasyD DetailResolver' does a great job, here's a 100% crop without and with 'EasyD DetailResolver' applied.
Herman
Last edited:
M
Mort54
Guest
A very useful thread. I've had the Nikon 105 VR for awhile now and really like the lens, but I've read lots of good things about the Zeiss 100/2 and wondered how they compared. Based on this discussion, it seems the 105 VR holds up its end very well. One other advantage for the 105 VR that may come in handy is that it can be used with Nikon's teleconverters. Not something you'd use all the time, but handy when you need a little extra reach, or want to pack as light as possible.
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
I had the Zeiss for quite a while, and it is a great lens, to be sure. The new 105 Nikkon has both AF and VR—and on a daily basis, I find that this obviates the need for a tripod, so work is faster as a result.
Optically, IMHO the Zeiss has the edge, but day-to-day the Nikkor does a fine job. cheers all
Optically, IMHO the Zeiss has the edge, but day-to-day the Nikkor does a fine job. cheers all
That's actually how I use the 100/2.8VR Macro quite a bit for wedding photography. Most wedding shots are printed 8X10, so the IQ demands aren't as critical compared to getting the shot and content right. AFS and VR make it practical to use,
I sold my big 70-200/2.8VR after discovering that many of the shots with it were in the 100 to 140mm focal length range when shooting weddings ... the 100+1.4X put me right in that zone, and it's much more compact to fit in the roller I use. It's a little slower, but the D700 is so good at higher ISOs it really isn't much of an issue.
