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!

Zeiss 21 2.8 on D800/E

kuau

Workshop Member
Dave if I was going to go Sigma,
I would wait for the new 180/2.8 Macro OS...

Steven

I know I'm going to get hit over the head with this one...but I personally would select the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro over the Nikon 180. The recently discontinued Sigma non OS version of this lens if relative compactness is desired (although it's still heftier than the Nikon 180) or the recently released OS version if Image Stabilization is desired. Both have built in rotating tripod collars and optically I much prefer one of the Sigma's.

Dave (D&A)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Guy,
So you have been pretty happy with your 180?
Of course the 200/2 is the bomb but defeats my purpose of keeping my kit as small as possible.

Steven
Yes it's better than I thought it would be on it. Just have to AF tune it
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave if I was going to go Sigma,
I would wait for the new 180/2.8 Macro OS...

Steven
Can't comment on the new Sigma 180 OS, but the recently discontinued older Sigma 180 macro was clearly inferior "optically" to the 150...it wasn't even close! The Sigma 150 macro has quite a excellent reputation and I would say its one of a small group of superb Sigma lenses. It even does exceptionally well with their 1.4x and makes a excellent 210mm f4 lens. So how much or whether the new 180 Macro OS is better, it's hard to say.

One thing that many have noticed is that with some of the recent Sigma lenses being discontinued in favor of newer OS versions of the same or similar lens....optically speaking, some seemed to have been improved, some slightly if that, and others actually not as good. It doesn't appear sample to sample variation is the culprit for these observations although there is a lot of variability in Sigma lens samples in general.

Dave (D&A)
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
If you are comparing to a D3/d700 experience you may be surprised ......not in a positive way ...weaknesses not visible at 12MP can become bothersome at 36MP. I experienced this with the d3X . I also have a D7000 which has the same sensor at the pixel level ..so when I look at 100% is not that much different .

Diglloyd did a run down on the zeiss glass for the D800..which I think is blogged not subscription and he knows the zeiss lenses as well as anyone . he went through each lens and gave a short POV.

I can t follow at all the logic of how a lens that wash t great on a 12mp sensor would be better on a 36mp sensor . Maybe the corrections are occurring in the camera processor or in post processing .
....

No much is said about handling or character . For example in the 35mm range ...the Zeiss 35/2 handles like a dream ..its small ,pretty light and has a short throw . This is a lens I can follow focus on a kite boarder and get a high percentage of sharp images. It has too much CA and can get some color twists in the shadows ...I try to shoot it at F5.6 . It has the classic clinical zeiss look and bokeh is not noteworthy.The 35/1.4 zeiss is huge and heavy ...a lens that needs a purpose . It has a fantastic bokeh making it a nice Cafe cruiser ..but its slow with a long throw . Rich colors my favorite for character . See the examples on the Zeiss site .The Nikon has a nice all around balance to my eye it has deeper color than older Nikkors and superb micro contrast . This is a lens that can stay on the camera where you can leverage all the AF bells and whistles .

All three lenses are plenty sharp enough for my usage ..but that have different personalities . I also come from a street,travel POV and you might think differently if you will be on a tripod doing landscape etc. or in a studio working with models .

Steven, at this point, those who are actively shooting and testing these lenses with the D800 are more qualified to respond as my experiences up to date is primarily with the D700/D3s, except in a few cases where I had time to perform some quick lens tests with the D800. That will change soon of course as I am begining some active testing with that body.

So regarding 35mm lenses, I've used fairly extensively the Zeiss 35mm f2 and Nikon 35mm f1.4 . For strictly distant landscape use, I would have no hesitation to recommend the Zeiss as nice as the Nikon is. I feel the Nikon is a more of a "look" lens that strictly an ultrasharp landscape one. How this will change on a D800, I cannot currently say. The wildcard for me personally is the Zeiss 35mm f1.4. I haven't had any experience with that one. If you're stopping down to f5.6 or f8, I personally for you use would choose the Zeiss 35mm f2 but with the cavet that it still performs much the same way on the D800. That is the big question with many of these lenses.

Dave (D&A)
 

D&A

Well-known member
Much agree Roger. Although I previously used a D3x for a short time and tested many of my favorite and well respected lenses on it, no doubt some of them fell far short of expectations when tested on this higher MP body.

What intrigues me is time and again I keep reading references to the notion that a few lenses (some of which would be categorized as mid range average to above average), now appear to show improved performance on the D800 vs. a D700 or D3 or similar full frame 12MP body. What sort of mechanism would account for this or theory put forth as a credible explanation is something I'm waiting for.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Dave it could actually come down to sensor pitch. But I agree its a tough one to figure out as we are seeing some lenses as not so great in performance actually do really well on the new D series 800's
 

D&A

Well-known member
Dave it could actually come down to sensor pitch. But I agree its a tough one to figure out as we are seeing some lenses as not so great in performance actually do really well on the new D series 800's
Agreed...and maybe just like in the past when people might sing the praises of a lens's performance on the D700/D3s but quickly had to note that it didn't live up to expectations on a D3x...so too will specific clarification or disclaimers be needed for noting lens performance (both good/bad/improved or not improved) when used on a D800....not unlike the situation with regards to using certain Medium Format lenses on backs with ever growing higher pixel counts.

With that said, this anomoly or observation of average lenses performing better on a 36MP D800 vs their use on a 12MP D3s has me stumped. I'm sure though if true, a logical explanation will be forthcoming.

Two lenses (among some others) that I keep hearing and reading about improved performance on the D800, is most notably with the Nikon the 24-120 f4 VR and to a somewhat lesser extent, the Nikon 28-300 f3.5-5.6 G lens. Some know I am not the biggest fan of the 24-120 f4 VR when samples were tested on a D700/D3s...but just looking at what I observed here from those kind enough to post their images from this lens mounted onto a D800/D800E, it certainly looks promising and a lens I wouldn't necessarily dismiss as a walk around lens (when used on the D800).

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

tashley

Subscriber Member
I posted a question on DPR to see if anyone had actual experience of both the Zeiss 25 F2 and the Nikon 24 F1.4 on the D800. I got the following useful opinion, the only one I have found anywhere from someone who has tried both:

"I've had both lenses until last week. After trying them on the D800, I kept the 24/1.4G and sold the ZF 25/2. Well they are both excellent, but the one weakness of the 25/2 has been weak corners, especially at distance, even when stopped down. It was tolerable on the D700 but on the D800 I just didn't like it. The 24/1.4G is still superb on 36MP. It does have a flaw which is lateral CA, it has much more of that than the Zeiss which is very clean. But lateral CA is very easy to remove in post, unlike soft corners."
 

kuau

Workshop Member
So then based on that assumption the Nikon 24/1.4G is the way to go..
Now I have to decide whether to take delivery on a D800 or keep waiting for my D800/E order to come through amazon.
Reading all of Lloyd's info on the D800-D800/E my take away is of course get the /E version, yet with good sharpening in post, the D800 comes very close to the /E.
Can anyone else confirm this?

Glen, in regards to the zeiss 35/2, is it your opinion that it does do well on the D800, besides CA?

Steven
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
So then based on that assumption the Nikon 24/1.4G is the way to go..
Now I have to decide whether to take delivery on a D800 or keep waiting for my D800/E order to come through amazon.
Reading all of Lloyd's info on the D800-D800/E my take away is of course get the /E version, yet with good sharpening in post, the D800 comes very close to the /E.
Can anyone else confirm this?

Glen, in regards to the zeiss 35/2, is it your opinion that it does do well on the D800, besides CA?

Steven
Steve I will shoot it again to see if I notice any change from the D3X . I use the 35/2 as a street shooting alternative ...so my primary values are handling and size (assuming all of the alternatives have excellent overall IQ) . In street shooting I would shoot at F5.6 which is not much of a test for these lenses ..they will all appear well corrected and have great sharpness. The 35/2 is a high contrast ,very sharp formula ...so if you want a somewhat bitting sharpness ..its excellent . The normal complaints are that the bokeh is somewhat clinical .

I think the 35/1.4G nikon lenses is better all around because of the AF and integration with the camera features . But its more expensive and has a different character .

lloyd just tested the 24/1.4G on the D800 and its more impressive than I remember ...I need to give it another shot .
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Jack

I found the 50 to have lower contrast and weaker color than the newer 85/35/24. Maybe you are correcting this in post . I am sensitive to the color depth in the blue channel . The zeiss and the newer G lenses have stronger blues ..which of course is more visible around the ocean.

Solving the 50 choice is on my list .
Pffewww.... finally I see someone else that is noticing the same. I often go out with only the 35 and the 50 in my bag (I prefer the bag as small as possible when that is possible). Everytime I am surprised on the difference in color rendering and contrast between the 35 and 50. Nice to hear I am not the only one seeing this.
So as not to hijack, for further discussion on this topic I have initiated a new thread with some f1.4 lens comparisons here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/37153-d800-f1-4-lens-comparison-images.html#post415686
 

gustavo

New member
does anyone know where to find the zeiss 21 2.8ZF2 in stock?
Ive decided to buy it, but now it is out of stock in any store I know.
 

Landscapelover

Senior Subscriber Member
I went to New Orleans few weeks ago and spent almost every night on the Bourbon ST listening to Jazz music. Two lenses I used almost all the time were 24 and 50mm f/1.4 G. The AF of 24mm is very fast but 50mm is much slower. Both of them were very fun to use.
I only used f/1.4 with variable ISO but mainly 1600 with handholding and no flash. Optic quality and AF impressed me. I think I will sell the 24-70mm and buy 35mm f/1.4 G.
The print with my Epson 4900 was very beautiful.
Pramote

24mm, f/1.4G, ISO 1600, f/1.4, 1/40 sec
 

Jérôme.E

Member
Hi Guys

Thank's for all good infos here.
Is anybody here get a zeiss 35 1,4 (or 35 f/2) to test with d800 (E)? Even if the 35 Nik G seems good, i'd like to see some "tests" to compare with.
I'd prefer to stay with zeiss to keep uniformity for my personal work (100 Macro, 21) and keep all the nikon (zooms, pc-e & some primes) mostly for pro work.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
In general the Zeiss glass usually does a couple things diffrent . One is contrast usually a little more and mostly warmer tones, also with contrast you will see a little saturation boost. So yes they will render diffrent out of the can. Resolving power some are great at it and some are not better than some of the good Nikons . Also you may see a little less aberrations in the glass. This is in general are they the magic bullet is the question. In the older days I would probably say yes here since I was a nut case on this. Today what I'm seeing out of these new G lenses I would come back to depends on the lenses in question. The Gs are very very good now. The Zeiss 21 will stand above the rest but after that it's a lens per lens basis. Not like the old days. I guess I'm saying here I would not get so hung up on having Zeiss glass. I'm giving Nikon a lot of credit here which coming from me is rare especcially from years past.
 

D&A

Well-known member
In general the Zeiss glass usually does a couple things diffrent . One is contrast usually a little more and mostly warmer tones, also with contrast you will see a little saturation boost. So yes they will render diffrent out of the can. Resolving power some are great at it and some are not better than some of the good Nikons . Also you may see a little less aberrations in the glass. This is in general are they the magic bullet is the question. In the older days I would probably say yes here since I was a nut case on this. Today what I'm seeing out of these new G lenses I would come back to depends on the lenses in question. The Gs are very very good now. The Zeiss 21 will stand above the rest but after that it's a lens per lens basis. Not like the old days. I guess I'm saying here I would not get so hung up on having Zeiss glass. I'm giving Nikon a lot of credit here which coming from me is rare especcially from years past.
Could not have been said or explained better Guy! I agree, it really is on a case by case basis, not only what body the lenses will be used on (which can make a distinct difference) but also you intended use of a particular lens. Closer-up portrait? Landscape? Reportage? General All-rounder? This too would determine which lens in a particular focal length might best be suited for the job. Addtionally, it's not only the resolution and sharpness across the frame but as Guy pointed out, the "look" of each lens too.

Regarding the 35mm focal length on the D800...I cannot speak specifically to their use on that body , but have used and tested both the Zeiss 35mm f2 and Nikon 35mm f1.4 on a D700/D3s and commented earlier in post in this thread, a few posts above, about these two exceptional lenses. For distant landscape use, I personally would select the Zeiss, especially for its sharpness across the frame and ability to reolve details ...but for other types of photography, I would most definitely consider the Nikon, not only for it's speed, but it's "look" and at times prsents a slightly more delicate and appealing image for certain subjects, yet also has good central resolution which picks up steam as you stop down. The Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is a beast in terms of physical size and I've only heard exceptionally good things about it, but cannot personally comment since I haven't shot with it.

Hmmm, the choice between the Zeiss and Nikon is maybe a lot like ordering a hamburger...I'd really like both fries and onion rings, but know I can only have one....LOL!

Dave (D&A)
 
Top