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!

Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Does not surprise me! I always had a feeling that the very much praised Zeiss lenses made for Nikon, Canon and Sony are not really as great. maybe the build quality, but not the optical quality. One of the reasons I sold my Sony Alpha because the Zeiss zooms did not hold up against the Nikkor zooms (2.8/14-24 and 2.8/24-70).

This is not only based on my findings, but also on those of some of my photographing friends.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Nikon does make excellent glass, no doubt. However, one should take these tests for what they are. A lens that may produce outstanding results at infinity may not be well corrected at close distances. DXO tests are done at very close distances and reflect the lens performance for that particular use.

From the lenses shown above, I own the planar 50/1.4 and have extensive experience with it. I looked at the resolution tests and field map part in the DXO charts and I have no idea where did the results come from. I think they must have a problem with manual focusing. Otherwise I really can't explain the results ???
 

Dustbak

Member
I have most Zeiss lenses as well as the Nikon counterparts. The DxO results are not in-line with what I am getting as results using these tools on a regular basis. Lets put it that way.

I wonder how they have performed their tests or how they came to their conclusions? It is just that I often find them odd.
 
Last edited:

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I'm reminded of the days of THD numbers for amplifiers and the complete lack of correlation to sound quality. The numbers don't necessarily equate to photographic ability unfortunately.

Like others here, I've owned the Zeiss and currently still own the Nikon glass. There is a distinctly different look to the Zeiss images, particularly in relation to apparent sharpness (micro contrast) and 3D separation between in focus and out of focus areas that the Nikon lenses don't achieve and I'm sure can't be measured by a DXO test.

That said, I'm very happy with my Nikon AF glass. If I were building a MF outfit for landscapes etc with a D3x again then I'd probably stick to the Zeiss offerings.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Lies, Damned Lies and statistics!

I'm really pleased (and of course I completely agree) with Dxo findings with respect to the sensor on the Pentax K5 . . . . however, these findings on lenses are clearly garbage :ROTFL:

Where's the values for 'Feel', 'Bokeh', 'Micro Contrast', 'General Loveliness'?
:)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Happily, there is much more to Photography than tests, reviews, statistics and bit-banging.


..."Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." ...
 
R

Ronan

Guest
I have most Zeiss lenses as well as the Nikon counterparts. The DxO results are not in-line with what I am getting as results using these tools on a regular basis. Lets put it that way.

I wonder how they have performed their tests or how they came to their conclusions? It is just that I often find them odd.
Numbers don't lie though, even how 'ackward' they area.

This is creating great debates in a lot of forums, but at the end of the day, numbers are just that... numbers.

Good kick to the Zeiss lenses though ;)
But yes, other 'artistic' equations aren't considered.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I am very disappointed with DXO's lens tests. I thought they should know better, being such a professional company, that handles sensor tests in a very objective manner by the way. In fact most the results they show look fishy, and yes, numbers do lie. It all depends on the methodology and DXO seems to have the wrong methodology. A real testing bench from Carl Zeiss that measures lens performance with white light at infinity regardless of the camera sensor only costs around 200,000$. I think a company like DXO can afford one easily. What they do however is stick a testing chart on the wall, put the camera on a tripod, focus the lens, and take a photo that they analyze with their software. The first drawback of this method is that the biggest testing target available is 80x120 cm if I remember correctly. For some WA lenses this would mean less than 50cm shooting distance and for most lenses, they would be shot at MFD. Of course there are other issues like accurate focusing, camera alignment, lens alignment, AA filters and what not. The list of things that can go wrong in quite extensive.
 

Dustbak

Member
Numbers don't lie though, even how 'ackward' they area.

This is creating great debates in a lot of forums, but at the end of the day, numbers are just that... numbers.

Good kick to the Zeiss lenses though ;)
But yes, other 'artistic' equations aren't considered.
Numbers themselves do not lie however the road towards these numbers can be manipulated leading to a different outcome. This way numbers are mouldable.

If it is true that DxO takes images from sample charts and examines them with their software that will be one of the most flawed ways to test lenses. They basically test the whole system including their own eyes and focussing skills. You cannot say which was the determining factor in the outcome.

MTF charts are in that case much more reliable and even with MTF charts you can have calculated charts or measured charts. In the MTF charts provided by Zeiss for their lenses they use measured charts.

Zeiss's numbers show different things than DxO.

If numbers don't lie how is that possible? ;)

I much rather rely on Zeiss's numbers than on DxO's if I have to make a choice based on numbers. In the end I trust only myself and leave the numbers for what they are.
 
Last edited:

dhsimmonds

New member
As a one time CEO in a former life, I well remember asking my financial director (VP in the States) what profit we were likely to make for that year, his reply was "how much do you want to make".

The only reviews I trust are from non aligned working photographers who use the equipment every day to please customers and make themselves a living.

Fan club members of this or that camera or lens I ignore for usually what they are! Similarly magazines who carry a lot of advertising for usually just two brands! :deadhorse:
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Exactly! There are plenty of real life samples on various forums, notably FM, that show what these lenses are capable of. Numbers are meaningless, especially if they contradict the real life results.
 

rayyan

Well-known member
What are we trying to prove here.

For some Nikon is better.

For some Zeiss is better.

What is better and works for you.

Some of my friends find Sigma works wonders. For others it is Tamron.

I find Zeiss works for me. I like what they produce for me. My posts are from Zeiss.

You might not like them. I like the results.

Let's take more photographs and show what we can do. Irrespective what lens we used to create our vision.
 

MMPhoto

Member
Morning,

I just love those test done under control conditions, I under stand that you must set a bench mark.
In reality,
how many times do you shot with full control of all the elements?
how many times do you shot at the widest aperture on the lens?

My point is simple, every top lenses maker that make (Pro Prime Lenses) make fine optics that will perform well at a certain range of apertures and conditions. The best test you can do is to actually get the lens go out and shot, shot the way you like example: your range of f-stops, prefer type of lighting conditions and focus points.

If possible try renting the different lenses you are considering before buying and shot with them. You will see that certain lenses will work for you and other won't.

Michel
 

TRSmith

Subscriber Member
The good news is that both Zeiss and Nikon are offering some excellent lenses. You may decide the extra expense of a particular Zeiss lens makes sense in order to obtain a certain look. But if—for budget reasons for example—you buy the Nikon instead, it's not like you're getting a complete dog. I think we're fortunate to live with so many great options for gear.
 
R

Ronan

Guest
Had a talk with DxOMark.

They said the lenses could be 'sends in' from people, or they could be 'bad' examples.

They are waiting on lenses/info/stuff from Leica.

But DxOMark does make money from their software, so they do want to be accurate (and at the same time, they could create drama to bring people to their site).

Cheers.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
But DxOMark does make money from their software, so they do want to be accurate (and at the same time, they could create drama to bring people to their site).
I honestly don't think they want to create drama to bring more traffic, it's just their testing method, like most other review sites, is very flawed. I hope they are not basing their image correction on these unscientific tests though. Lenses perform very differently at their 2 focusing extremes and there is potential for significant sample variations. Doesn't help with buyer confidence with their products ;)
 

georgl

New member
I agree, taking test charts and symplifying the results is misleading.
But their camera tests came up with some misleading results as well (like cameras with the very same sensor and similar real-wold results performing entirely different).

But Nikon is capable of designing and making fine lenses and the "Carl Zeiss"-lenses shown here are made by Cosina and designed to meet their capabilities in manufacturing and Zeiss' profit request. Carl Zeiss only manufacturers very few photographic lenses, their professional lenses are decades ahead in optical and mechanical quality... and price ;-)
We've learned to love brands, not manufacturers and Zeiss knows that - putting a Zeiss-design on Zeiss-testing-equipment doesn't make it a Zeiss-lens, not for this price.
 
Top