Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
In another thread about some 135mm lenses S.P. asked about examples that could illustrate Peter "ptomsu"s remarks about the characteristics of Zeiss lenses compared to other brands like e.g. Nikon. I have the Zeiss ZF 1.4/50 and the new Nikon AF-S 1.4/50 G, so here's an identical shot with both 50mm lenses.
I shot the Nikon first with Aperture priority, and then shot the Zeiss with identical speed.
On tripod. Distance approximately 3 meter. D300. WB Direct Sunlight. ISO 200. 1/5000 sec at f/2.8. Spot metering. Single-point Autofocus (the Nikkor). Converted in Capture NX from RAW to JPEG. No post processing, i.e. no contrast, no sharpening, no nothing applied.
(At f/2 or wider aperture I would have needed a shutter speed beyond the cameras max shutter speed of 1/8000 sec).
Here's the full scenery, focused on the little box in the middle, first Nikon, then Zeiss.
And here are the actual pixels crops, again Nikon first, and then Zeiss.
This is in no way scientific and I'm not trying to prove anything, just trying to illustrate what I experience with some of my own lenses. And lets not forget that the world is full of sample variations.
In my mind my Zeiss 50mm has a somewhat better contrast (and overall sharpness) adding to the three dimensional look. Today it is ~ 517 USD at B&H. (It's all metal).
My Nikkor 50mm has Autofocus, still it is cheaper, today it is ~ 485 USD at B&H. (It's all plastic).
Pick your poison. I chose to have both of them
I shot the Nikon first with Aperture priority, and then shot the Zeiss with identical speed.
On tripod. Distance approximately 3 meter. D300. WB Direct Sunlight. ISO 200. 1/5000 sec at f/2.8. Spot metering. Single-point Autofocus (the Nikkor). Converted in Capture NX from RAW to JPEG. No post processing, i.e. no contrast, no sharpening, no nothing applied.
(At f/2 or wider aperture I would have needed a shutter speed beyond the cameras max shutter speed of 1/8000 sec).
Here's the full scenery, focused on the little box in the middle, first Nikon, then Zeiss.
And here are the actual pixels crops, again Nikon first, and then Zeiss.
This is in no way scientific and I'm not trying to prove anything, just trying to illustrate what I experience with some of my own lenses. And lets not forget that the world is full of sample variations.
In my mind my Zeiss 50mm has a somewhat better contrast (and overall sharpness) adding to the three dimensional look. Today it is ~ 517 USD at B&H. (It's all metal).
My Nikkor 50mm has Autofocus, still it is cheaper, today it is ~ 485 USD at B&H. (It's all plastic).
Pick your poison. I chose to have both of them