Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

[Ronan]

"Numbers don't lie." Oh, really?

On my accountant's office wall: "Numbers don't lie, but they speak many languages, and can be made to say many things".

Anyone who says 'numbers don't lie' has never done any logic, or deeper maths, for sure. Numerical results—while perhaps internally consistent— depend on starting assumptions. The DxO results equilibrate quite different qualities (qualia in philosophy-speak)—the assumption is that these qualities can be arrayed and compared as if they are the same kind of things (which a moment's reflection will show that they are not).

Although seemingly less 'scientific', qualitative assessments are often much closer to real-world experience (and, from my perspective, big "R" reality is never wrong!).

The DxO tests are flawed, in this exact way. HTH, KL

See previous responses which would have saved you typing.

Or i can just tell you, numbers don't lie, in this case (we aren't talking about something else, lets stay on topic), since DxO tests under controlled environment. Or else what would the point be? Unless you are saying they are deliberately doing this (see other response, creating drama).

BTW if you read another response, you would see that they were contacted and said it could be bad examples of lenses (which started another conversation).

DxOMark is still waiting on Zeiss to send them new examples.

:sleep006:

Lens reviews need images. Measurements aren't enough!

Yes, but theirs other websites for that. Even DxOMark warns people about it.

AFAIK no one buys lenses base on a couple measurements only.

 

[Amin]

Yes, but theirs other websites for that. Even DxOMark warns people about it.

I wasn't criticizing DxOmark. I'm a fan . Just emphasizing that their tests aren't reviews.

 

[GradyPhilpott]

This thread caused me to google Zeiss lenses and the first article that popped up was this, which echos some of the sentiments posted here.

“DxOMark focuses only on image quality performance but does not cover many other criteria that are important when looking for cameras or lenses that fit your needs.”

So, they do say you need to tread carefully through their pages. More, they also state that “In particular, DxOMark does not measure or consider such criteria as mechanical robustness, shooting time and rate, ease of use, back LCD display quality, camera control ergonomics, flexibility, value for money, etc. While sensor and lens performance are critically important, they are not the only factors that should be taken into consideration when choosing a digital camera.

Also, with its current scope, DxOMark does not measure the quality of the image processing, nor do we address “camera control” (sometimes called “3A” for Auto Exposure, Auto-Focus, and Auto White Balance).

To give a broader perspective to our readers about lenses and cameras overall performance, DxOMark provides links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by renowned websites, magazines and blogs.”

http://www.pixiq.com/article/zeiss-lenses-nikon-and-canon-beat-them​

I never heard of DxOMark before a few minutes ago, but it seems that their tests are limited and inform the reader that their results are not exhaustive and do not take into consideration factors that many photographers may find important in choices of equipment.

Someone made an audio analogy and I'll make a similar one. Transistors revolutionized the audio industry and others, but all the numbers in the world couldn't pry tube amps from the hands of those who loved them for the warmth of their output and their resistance to clipping.

As for THD, the human ear can tolerate about 10% THD, so when the THD wars were in their heyday and THD figures were out to the thousandths of a percent, an apparent huge difference would be completely indistinguishable to the ear.

I'm new to photography, so I'm learning a lot here, but the fact of the matter seems to be when it comes to art and technology, some of us prefer some flaws to others and distortion is a matter of taste and is desirable in some cases.

Oh, and hello to everyone. I am GradyPhilpott.

 

[edwardkaraa]

There is nothing subjective about mtf numbers, they are as objective and scientific as can be. The mtf numbers at DXO are clearly incorrect, and for sure not due to decentering as it is shown clearly in the field maps. My guess is their bad manual focusing abilities, combined to shooting at MFD lenses that are designed for infinity.

 

[Ronan]

I wasn't criticizing DxOmark. I'm a fan . Just emphasizing that their tests aren't reviews.

Exactly!

 

[woodyspedden]

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:

Reminds me of a similar story when I first became a CEO. I asked my CFO what was two + two and his answer was, like yours, what do you need it to be.

Woody

 

[woodyspedden]

"Numbers don't lie." Oh, really?

On my accountant's office wall: "Numbers don't lie, but they speak many languages, and can be made to say many things".

Anyone who says 'numbers don't lie' has never done any logic, or deeper maths, for sure. Numerical results—while perhaps internally consistent— depend on starting assumptions. The DxO results equilibrate quite different qualities (qualia in philosophy-speak)—the assumption is that these qualities can be arrayed and compared as if they are the same kind of things (which a moment's reflection will show that they are not).

Although seemingly less 'scientific', qualitative assessments are often much closer to real-world experience (and, from my perspective, big "R" reality is never wrong!).

The DxO tests are flawed, in this exact way. HTH, KL

These arguments have been raging in the stereo music world for decades now. The magazines loved the "objective" approach where numbers were king. The problem was the relationships between the numbers and what was heard were often dramatically different. This issue of course was the relevance of what was being measured to what "counted", subjectively, to the listened experience. So the scientific part of the audio community started attempts to correlate the measured data to the subjective data. Without belaboring the issue to death "new" measurements began to take on increasing importance. The traditional measure for distortion, almost always harmonic distortion ( with all the hue and cry about what sounded worse.....even or odd harmonics ) started to fade in importance and elements like inter-modulation distortion and then transient inter-modulation distortion became pre-eminent. Over time it became clear that if you pursued many forms of distortion and were able to measure them in the electronics under test, the differences between the "measured sound" and the "subjective listening experience" began to diminish. Nowadays the measurements of an amplifier pretty well predict what you will hear but even now, with fast fourier measurements et al, listeners can still perceive differences between amplifiers that measure the same.

All i'm saying hear is that test methods are key in stereo and they are in photography as well. The tests performed by DXO are simply not adequate to predict the performance of the device under test in the real world. Someday we may have a universally agreed upon standard by which to judge the comparative performance of lenses..............but not today. So let your eyes be the final arbiter.

JMHO

Woody Spedden

 

[GradyPhilpott]

Someday we may have a universally agreed upon standard by which to judge the comparative performance of lenses..............but not today. So let your eyes be the final arbiter.

:thumbup:

 

[Ronan]

Reminds me of a similar story when I first became a CEO. I asked my CFO what was two + two and his answer was, like yours, what do you need it to be.

Woody

Well that explains the US 1.2 trillion $ deficit. :ROTFL:

 

[rayyan]

To those that say they have had both the Nikon and Zeiss lenses and found
Nikon to be better.

Good for you.

I have only purchased one sample each of the zf 25/2, 35/2, 50/2, 50/1.4 and the 100/2 version 1.

I used to have a big collection of Nikon lenses.

Now I only use Zeiss.

Good for me.

I have not printed poster size..I do not intend to. I print as wall hangers.

I post in this forum. It is there for all to see. Good or bad.

I am happy with my Zeiss results.

Numbers won't convince me. My prints do.

 

[ptomsu]

To those that say they have had both the Nikon and Zeiss lenses and found
Nikon to be better.

Good for you.

I have only purchased one sample each of the zf 25/2, 35/2, 50/2, 50/1.4 and the 100/2 version 1.

I used to have a big collection of Nikon lenses.

Now I only use Zeiss.

Good for me.

I have not printed poster size..I do not intend to. I print as wall hangers.

I post in this forum. It is there for all to see. Good or bad.

I am happy with my Zeiss results.

Numbers won't convince me. My prints do.

Good for you!

 

[tjv]

The Zeiss lenses I've owned in F mount were amazing performers. Both the 50mm f1.4 and the 35mm f2 totally blew me away, but only when I got the focus right. My eyes weren't up to focusing the 35mm consistently at middle distances and so my bad technique killed any advantage I stood to gain using them. I was really disappointed with myself so bought a split prism focusing screen but that produced some crazy back focus and I gave up quickly. I now own the Nikon 50mm G and while it focuses properly and is mostly sharp for some reason I find it really uninspiring to use and the results are a little dead compared to the Zeiss. Oh well, I can't have it all...

 

[Ronan]

Update, More lenses:

Carl Zeiss Distagon T 18mm f/3.5 ZF2 (score=16)
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 25mm f/2.8 ZF2 (score=17)
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 28mm f/2 ZF2 (score=23)
Carl Zeiss Distagon T 35mm f/2 ZF2 (score=29)

 

[Steen]

Interesting. Thanks for the informations, Ronan.
Ronan, have you yourself ever tried out, or tested, or used on a regular basis, or owned any of these ZF lenses ?
I mean do you have any substantial first hand experiences with them ?
And if so, I'd be curious to know how your personal experiences correspond to these test results ?
Best,
Steen

 

[Ronan]

Interesting. Thanks for the informations, Ronan.
Ronan, have you yourself ever tried out, or tested, or used on a regular basis, or owned any of these ZF lenses ?
I mean do you have any substantial first hand experiences with them ?
And if so, I'd be curious to know how your personal experiences correspond to these test results ?
Best,
Steen

I have used the first one's mention since my colleague and a friend shoots with them.

I have never compared & contrast my Nikon glass vs Zeiss glass because i couldn't care less. I'm more than happy with my superb Nikkor lenses, and i also shoot sport, so AF is quite appreciated. When ever i feel like shooting manual, i have a little collection of vintage SLR and manual glass to use.

What i can say, is i appreciate the Zeiss glass for their 'different' aspect they give images, and i appreciate my Nikkor glass for all the personal & professional work i do with them.

Which one is better? Depends of the users and their needs/wants.

Edit: I can add that i have shown the results with my colleague and my friend, and they say they aren't too surprised since they feel the Zeiss legend has a lot of myth in it, but they are excellent glass and can vouch for them any day.

 

[Godfrey]

...
I am happy with my Zeiss results.
Numbers won't convince me. My prints do.

Bravo! I feel the same way. Nikon and Zeiss both make superb lenses.

Olympus E-5 + Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8
ISO 1250 @ f/2.8 @ 1/25 second (hand-held)​

Numbers are a waste of time unless you're engineering a lens.

 

[hoagie]

New here, but I guess I don't understand the heat generated by a test result from DXO.

I own and use both Zeiss and Nikon. I find certain models from both brands are suited to MY liking for particular uses. After reading any given test result published by DXO (or any source, for that matter), I will readily attest to the fact that it has made absolutely no difference in the results I achieved with the given lens. Likewise, the advent of the latest and greatest bodies from the big brands has yet to render any of my working tools obsolete just because they were "last years model".

I look at DXO as just another tool.....sometimes useful, sometimes not, and never suited for all applications.

 

[Ronan]

New here, but I guess I don't understand the heat generated by a test result from DXO.

I own and use both Zeiss and Nikon. I find certain models from both brands are suited to MY liking for particular uses. After reading any given test result published by DXO (or any source, for that matter), I will readily attest to the fact that it has made absolutely no difference in the results I achieved with the given lens. Likewise, the advent of the latest and greatest bodies from the big brands has yet to render any of my working tools obsolete just because they were "last years model".

I look at DXO as just another tool.....sometimes useful, sometimes not, and never suited for all applications.

Because some people believe Zeiss glass to be the holy grail in every aspect

You should have seen some of the 'conversations' on other forums that this test generated.

People were pretty civil here though :salute:

 

[ryc]

Those numbers are interesting and it certainly shows the old nikon and canon as the winner.

The zeiss 50mm 1.4 is not their best lens and it clearly shows here. However, I look at it this way. The zeiss has more diaphragm blades and better contrast which would yield a more pleasing image to look at. Especially if you are into that bokeh. I rarely shoot anything that requires me to look at 50lpm vs 58lpm It would really be difficult to see in a print or even monitor unless you are shooting test charts

In the end, although the zeiss shows lower performance in the lab, I still find that in the real world, the zeiss produced images that I prefer over the others.

However, keep in mind that my Favorite Zeiss 50 is the f2 makro which would probably blow everything out of the water. In fact, In my bag I have a zeiss 50mm f2 and a Nikon 50mm f1.2 I love the nikon 1.2

Browse through these samples with the zeiss 50mm 1.4

On a canon
http://zeissimages.com/standardgallery.php?lenstype=360&showall

On a Nikon
http://zeissimages.com/standardgallery.php?lenstype=437&showall

JT

 

[rayyan]

This indeed is a very civil and friendly forum.

There is no heat generated if people use various lenses. As a matter of fact,
I have yet to find in any of the various categories of cameras/lenses in GetDPI anyone arguing that their equipment is the ' Holy Grail '.

The OP gave some results from somewhere which supposedly ' proved ' that one lens manufacturer's lenses were better than someone else's.

Good, if the OP ( whose ' friends ' use/own/tried one ) and did not like them, so what's the big deal.

Use what suits you. But use your lenses and show what you can do with them, rather than just discuss them.

There is a time for such considerations. Before you buy them. After that use them. Don't like it give/sell or lend them to your ' friends ' and buy the ones you like to take photographs with.

What's the ' Holy Grail ' got to do in a photographic forum. Maybe some other
forum talking about ' Holy Grails ' might be more appropriate.

Enjoy what you have. And if you please, show us what you can do with your camera/lens combination.

Maybe then we all can benfit from each other''s experience.

I really like to see photos taken by members. I learn and can hope to improve my photographic pleasure.

Talk really never did convince me. And neither do numbers. I have already made my decision. I am happy with it.

Go find your happiness and let us be happy too. Please.

p.s pretty please. Thank you.

p.p.s Just wondering if you have posted any pics here. maybe that might convince us to try some of the lenses you use. How's the MF doing? Any pics from that yet?