Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 62

Thread: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

  1. #1
    Ronan
    Guest

    Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Saw this on Nikonrumors earlier, interesting:


    More Info



    More Info



    More Info



    More Infro

  2. #2
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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 ???
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    If a photograph were just numbers...


  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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 by Dustbak; 14th February 2011 at 01:55.

  6. #6
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,803
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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

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

    Just this guy you know

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

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


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

  9. #9
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dustbak View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronan View Post
    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 by Dustbak; 15th February 2011 at 00:55.

  12. #12
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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!
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  13. #13
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    rayyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  15. #15
    Senior Member dhsimmonds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hampshire, UK
    Posts
    904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    20

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    +1
    Cheers, Dave
    www.simmondsphotography.com

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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

  17. #17
    Subscriber Member TRSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Central Maine, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,406
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  18. #18
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  19. #19
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronan View Post
    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
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  21. #21
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  22. #22
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    710
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronan View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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)

  24. #24
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by doug View Post
    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

    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!

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  26. #26
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by georgl View Post
    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.

  27. #27
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronan View Post
    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 ????

  28. #28
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Why should they receive bad samples ????
    Thats what people are saying, to explain the poor DxOMark results.

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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/im...m#single-focal

    http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B...2570F90049667D

    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

  30. #30
    Senior Subscriber Member Steen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denmark, CPH
    Posts
    2,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -


    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/Lea...ty-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).

  31. #31
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Steen View Post
    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/Lea...ty-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

    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!

  32. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal, Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  33. #33
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    710
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Steen View Post
    I firmly believe in sample variation, not only with regards to lenses, but also with regards to cameras.
    And testers 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

  34. #34
    Senior Subscriber Member Steen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Denmark, CPH
    Posts
    2,500
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    so true, Doug

  35. #35
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Dustbak View Post
    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

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    363
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  37. #37
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by philip_pj View Post
    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.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

  39. #39
    Subscriber Member kit laughlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Two suitcases and the latest MBA
    Posts
    1,334
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    "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

  40. #40
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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 .

    Lens reviews need images. Measurements aren't enough!

  41. #41
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    "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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    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.

  42. #42
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronan View Post
    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.

  43. #43
    GradyPhilpott
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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-l...anon-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.

  44. #44
    Senior Member edwardkaraa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.
    M262 ZM 25/2.8 35/1.4 50/2 85/2

  45. #45
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    I wasn't criticizing DxOmark. I'm a fan . Just emphasizing that their tests aren't reviews.
    Exactly!

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by dhsimmonds View Post
    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!
    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

  47. #47
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado
    Posts
    2,077
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by kit laughlin View Post
    "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

  48. #48
    GradyPhilpott
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by woodyspedden View Post
    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.


  49. #49
    Ronan
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    Quote Originally Posted by woodyspedden View Post
    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.

  50. #50
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    rayyan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,887
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Nikkor vs Carl Zeiss - DxOMark -

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •