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 -

edwardkaraa

New member
Zeiss lenses have been made in Japan for ages. This doesn't lessen their value in any way. I'm sorry, but if you look at DXO's resolution graphs of the Distagon 21, a lens most famous for its sharpness across the frame at all apertures, you would be very shocked. This alone takes all credibility from these tests. This actually borders on the ridiculous. I want some of the stuff they're smoking.
 

doug

Well-known member
Numbers don't lie...
In my day job I'm creating computer models of physical systems and I can assure you that numbers can be deceptive. The numbers themselves don't lie but the test methodology, underlying assumptions, algorithm shortcuts and numerous other factors that go into creating the numbers can and often do result in questionable results. In my experience where the numbers and empirical observations conflict and in the observations the variables are adequately controlled, the numbers are most suspect.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Morning All,

I know from my own testing of optics (and am certain most others here know too) that most lenses if tested at three major distance ranges such as MFD, mid distance and infinity, generally perform weakest at MFD. Not all lenses (such as specifically designed macro/micro) but many do. Recently I tested out a couple of wide angle lenses and a telephoto and their performance at MFD was downright mediocre, but at mid and long range with their remarkable performance, one wouldn't believe these were the same lenses. So if DXO is testing off a printed test chart at near MFD range, then even two similarly performing lenses at most distances can look and perform quite differently at MFD. Just something to consider. It's not that DXo is rigging the tests, it's apparent their methodology is weak. I wish testing and subsequent results were gives for different camera/lens to subject distances, which would be a more reliable indicator of a lens performance, at least resolution wise.

Dave (D&A)
 
R

Ronan

Guest
In my day job I'm creating computer models of physical systems and I can assure you that numbers can be deceptive. The numbers themselves don't lie but the test methodology, underlying assumptions, algorithm shortcuts and numerous other factors that go into creating the numbers can and often do result in questionable results. In my experience where the numbers and empirical observations conflict and in the observations the variables are adequately controlled, the numbers are most suspect.
Please don't fine toothpick my comment :LOL:

I have a degree in business management/accounting, so i know all about numbers and how they can be misleading if their source is faulty/wrong/etc (i believe in English its called falsifying the books).

I was generally talking, the same as when i would say 2+2=4, or when tests are done in a control environment, you can assume the results are good for what you/they want.

But like i stated, numbers only say so much... ESPECIALLY in lenses! :)
 

georgl

New member
Newer designs engineered and manufactured by Zeiss (with exception of the Compact Primes, which are just ZF-designs) incorporate more advanced designs and technologies with tighter tolerances - that makes them so expensive. They just introduced a f1.2 lens with 90° horizontal angle of view for Super35 - it makes use of radical aspherical elements that cannot by handled by Cosina or Sony. The Distagon 21 is "boring" stuff for them...

When those lenses would test mediocre against "regular" Nikons it would be suspicious, but DxOMark might just got bad samples from Cosina. Sample variation is another issue, somebody who claims comprehensive testing should buy several samples and include the variation in the results.
 
R

Ronan

Guest
Newer designs engineered and manufactured by Zeiss (with exception of the Compact Primes, which are just ZF-designs) incorporate more advanced designs and technologies with tighter tolerances - that makes them so expensive. They just introduced a f1.2 lens with 90° horizontal angle of view for Super35 - it makes use of radical aspherical elements that cannot by handled by Cosina or Sony. The Distagon 21 is "boring" stuff for them...

When those lenses would test mediocre against "regular" Nikons it would be suspicious, but DxOMark might just got bad samples from Cosina. Sample variation is another issue, somebody who claims comprehensive testing should buy several samples and include the variation in the results.
Thats exactly what they are doing.

But on another note... lets say they received bad examples... thats kinda worrying. I don't know about you, but i don't plan purchasing 3-4 lenses of the same type and hope one is a good example.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Thats exactly what they are doing.

But on another note... lets say they received bad examples... thats kinda worrying. I don't know about you, but i don't plan purchasing 3-4 lenses of the same type and hope one is a good example.
Why should they receive bad samples ????
 

Dustbak

Member
No, some might have said this but not the majority. Actually the chances of getting a Zeiss lens with sample variation ought to be much smaller than with Nikon. Part of what you are paying for is the additional QC. Sample variation would be a very bad excuse for these 'remarkable' numbers.

Read the calculated MTF charts of Nikon & the measured MTF charts of Zeiss and see the numbers that are derived from tests that IMO have a lot more authority. The MTF charts paint a totally different view than DxO making me severely doubt their practices with regard to lens testing.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/list.htm#single-focal

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/8401A54783ED1154C12570F90049667D

On the Zeiss site you need to click on the link datasheets.

BTW, using different interpretations or systems that lead to different outcomes is not falsifying the books, not as long as you are staying within the boundaries of the law that apply in that particular case. Naturally interpretations or usage of systems can be open for discussion or court rulings but still no falsifying perse. I don't have a degree in accounting but used to be a tax advisor in a previous life which might count for my different view ;)
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member

Quote from DxOMark's website:
"Although we can never exclude outliers, our tests show that it is not very likely that variances in lens manufacturing will significantly change (for better or worse) the performance of a lens."
[ The quote is from this page: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Learn-more/What-is-DxOMark/Lens-manufacturing-variability-and-DxOMark ]


This does not coincide with my personal experiences.
And it doesn't coincide with all the totally opposite statements from different people concerning a specific lens model or a specific camera model.
I firmly believe in sample variation, not only with regards to lenses, but also with regards to cameras.

I have come to a point where I only trust what I can see with my own eyes.
I therefore wish that more forum members, reviewers, test labs etc. would link their tiny webified sample images to full resolution versions so that we could see for ourselves and judge for ourselves. (Actually reviewers and test labs ought to link to the RAW files as well).
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member

Quote from DxOMark's website:
"Although we can never exclude outliers, our tests show that it is not very likely that variances in lens manufacturing will significantly change (for better or worse) the performance of a lens."
[ The quote is from this page: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Learn-more/What-is-DxOMark/Lens-manufacturing-variability-and-DxOMark ]


This does not coincide with my personal experiences.
And it doesn't coincide with all the totally opposite statements from different people concerning a specific lens model or a specific camera model.
I firmly believe in sample variation, not only with regards to lenses, but also with regards to cameras.

I have come to a point where I only trust what I can see with my own eyes.
I therefore wish that more forum members, reviewers, test labs etc. would link their tiny webified sample images to full resolution versions so that we could see for ourselves and judge for ourselves. (Actually reviewers and test labs ought to link to the RAW files as well).
Exactly like I do - only trust what I see and test. I am so much done with all that tests - be it DxO or Dpreview or whatever, who all claim to know exactly what they are doing and in most cases are comparing apples and oranges :D

My own observation WRT Nikon and Zeiss lenses (for Nikon) were that the Zeiss lenses are in best case equal to Nikkors, in many cases inferior. And of course they do not have AF. So end of the day what remains from the Zeiss glass for me is that I can say I have taken a specific shot with a Zeiss lens - I can tell you I do not give ..... on this any longer.

My suggestion - try to test the lenses you want to buy for yourself and compare, this is the best way to go!
 

MMPhoto

Member
My version of a test.

A few years ago I was considering the purchase of the Nikkor 105 f2.8 AF to replace my Micro Nikkor 55 f 3.5 AI, mainly for studio close up shots of the product. (AF was not a must in this case, just to get newer lens design construction)

The set was backpacks on white background, since the client wanted some close-up on details a very short focus lens was needed. I keep my background 1 to 1.5 stop over the product for close cutting ease, so light fringing is a factor and it plays on the contrast, a prime lens coating and shades are needed to control that fringing.

So I rented the 105 Nikkor from my local shop and shot some with the 55 and the 105 of the same details.

Under my needs and condition for that type of lens. Only then I was able to say if that lens versus the other was worth the investment.

To me that is the best test you can do to compare one to the other.
 

doug

Well-known member
I firmly believe in sample variation, not only with regards to lenses, but also with regards to cameras.
And testers :p The tests that have been most useful for me have been my own. They take into account my working habits and conditions, my intended use of the photos, and my personal sample variation :D
 
R

Ronan

Guest
BTW, using different interpretations or systems that lead to different outcomes is not falsifying the books, not as long as you are staying within the boundaries of the law that apply in that particular case. Naturally interpretations or usage of systems can be open for discussion or court rulings but still no falsifying perse. I don't have a degree in accounting but used to be a tax advisor in a previous life which might count for my different view ;)
Yes but we weren't talking about that ;)

Tax Advisor... blah I still remember my tax/law courses (both Canadians and US). I much preferred the administration side of business than financial.

I do find it interesting though, that people are complaining/arguing because the results aren't in line with their believes of 'legendary' Zeiss lenses.

Anyone considered that those testes were correct?

Now i'm not saying anyone is wrong, or gaga, if it works for you, thats the ONLY thing that matters, but still... if the results were the other way around... this conversation would be quite different ;)
 

philip_pj

New member
This statistical analysis works for me - as a work of fiction, that is.

So, apt that it is sourced from some place called Nikon 'rumours'! Indeed.

Where is their 'test' of microcontrast or of contour definition, two of the crucial characteristics that make images worth looking at?

It appears they do not have one...how about modulation across the frame, or anything more than a *single figure* for resolution? Is that not just a little too abbreviated? How about Zones A,B and C maybe? No.

It looks like informed people will just have to make do with Zeiss's industry leading MTF charts, which accurately depict continuous MTF across the frame for 10,20 and 40 lpmm, at typical taking apertures: wide open and two stops down, for infinity (standard measure) and for image ratios of 1:10 and 1:5 (or 1:2), for *actual* lenses. With distortion and light fall-off data across the frame thrown in.

Where can one find equivalent data for the (here) vaunted Nikkor lenses? Well, we cannot - because they are not made available by Nikon, who would certainly have access to Zeiss's industry-leading optical bench. Sad, but true.

FWIW, the two Makro Planars are very close to peerless image producers, in *any* company, excluding perhaps the Leica APO 100/2.8, for the longer FL lens.
 
R

Ronan

Guest
This statistical analysis works for me - as a work of fiction, that is.

So, apt that it is sourced from some place called Nikon 'rumours'! Indeed.

Where is their 'test' of microcontrast or of contour definition, two of the crucial characteristics that make images worth looking at?

It appears they do not have one...how about modulation across the frame, or anything more than a *single figure* for resolution? Is that not just a little too abbreviated? How about Zones A,B and C maybe? No.

It looks like informed people will just have to make do with Zeiss's industry leading MTF charts, which accurately depict continuous MTF across the frame for 10,20 and 40 lpmm, at typical taking apertures: wide open and two stops down, for infinity (standard measure) and for image ratios of 1:10 and 1:5 (or 1:2), for *actual* lenses. With distortion and light fall-off data across the frame thrown in.

Where can one find equivalent data for the (here) vaunted Nikkor lenses? Well, we cannot - because they are not made available by Nikon, who would certainly have access to Zeiss's industry-leading optical bench. Sad, but true.

FWIW, the two Makro Planars are very close to peerless image producers, in *any* company, excluding perhaps the Leica APO 100/2.8, for the longer FL lens.
Actually the DxOMark information... is from DxOMark. Nikonrumors simply copy/pasted it, same as the other forums/websites talking about it. ;)

It seems you are stating that DxOMark results are false, which we are still waiting to be proved (that their results are wrong).

Personally, i think the result are in line from what iv been told by Zeiss users. Crappy lab performance, outstanding real-world results.
 

Dustbak

Member
What is wrong with this picture:

1) Zeiss's Lab tests, which are well documented and accepted for their scientific value : Excellent.
2) Field reports/experience by users (including myself) which are admittedly subjective : Excellent.
3) DxO, while their test methodology and its scientific value is yet unknown: Mediocre at best.
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
"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
 

Amin

Active member
I've owned the Nikon 85/1.4 but not the Zeiss and the Zeiss 50/2 but not the Nikon.

The only corresponding pair I've owned was the Nikon 35/2 and the Zeiss 35/2, and I can tell you that in that instance, the Zeiss was dramatically better in nearly every way except autofocus speed :D.

Lens reviews need images. Measurements aren't enough!
 
Top