Z6 or Z7 -- or both ???

[Jack]

Voigtlander 58?

Warm, but not it I'll give you a *HUGE* hint -- a lot of folks aren't even aware this lens exists, because it was improved and replaced in 1962 after just 2 years on the market. But I understand the current Voigtlander version is a copy of the mid-60's Topcon 58 lens, which in turn was a copy of this lens' 1960 SLR debut

 

[Jack]

Okay, here you go. Note ALL of these are SOOC as-shot jpegs, resized in PS to 1200 px for web view. (I know these are not artistic, but chosen as a quick way to show off how the lenses perform at PoF and background rendering at people portrait distances.)

First image is a lens I've mentioned above, the LensBaby 35 "Burnside." I have the vignette set to 3, and aperture at f4. This lens is a petzval design, but it surprised me that it was so sharp -- and in fact too sharp for my liking. It also rendered a bit cooler than my native Nikon glass, so in addition, this lens has a Tiffen ½ gold diffusion filter over it, which IMO quite pleasantly smooths the sharpness and warms it up just enough:

Next is another modern 60mm petzval design, also surprisingly sharp, also at f4:

Final lens is the mystery 58. I'm going to show you a wide open capture, then an f2, where I think it sings sweetest -- but there is a rather significant clue as to what this lens is showing in these two images as you compare them :

And here it is at f2.8 -- note contrast and sharpness has come up, and background is still relatively pleasant:

But now here's the mystery 58 at f4 to be fair to the old petzval designs above -- you can see just how well contrast and sharpness has improved. But then the ugly -- while the foreground bokeh remains very pleasing, the formerly pleasant background bokeh has pretty much evaporated with the smaller aperture :

End of day, I like the way the modern petzval renders, and the fact it fits the family with the 35 better, I will likely not keep the 58. But I can see it would be a sweet portrait lens, especially for older people at f1.4 and 2 and even 2.8 if you want a bit more sharpness and contrast. If anybody else want's it, send me a PM -- it's a $200 lens in very good condition optically, but needs a focus ring re-lube if you're going to shoot regularly with it. Oh, it is in native Nikon F mount (OTOH, as an admitted gear whore, it is only a $200 lens... So maybe I'll just tuck it away in the cabinet dry focus ring and all as a just in case I want it portrait lens -- decisions, decisions! )

Feedback welcome!

 

[Jan Brittenson]

If you hadn't mentioned Japanese, I would have guessed it's a Helios 44-2...

 

[Jack]

If you hadn't mentioned Japanese, I would have guessed it's a Helios 44-2...

What's interesting, is that of all the people I can think of that might figure this one out fastest, my money was evenly split between you and Dave! Well Bob too, but I won't let him play :ROTFL:

 

[KeithL]

Jack, you certainly chose the harshest of light to conduct your testing!

 

[KeithL]

I'm a coward, preferring to test in the kind of light I prefer shooting in

The following is an unscientific test, same subject shot at different times but in similar light. All handheld.

35 S f1.8

50 Zeiss C Sonnar ZM f2

50 S f1.8

85 S f1.8

My conclusions. The Nikon 35 S bokeh is rather harsh, but to be fair I wouldn't normally shoot with this lens for the OOF qualities. The 50 Zeiss has good bokeh but the significant fall off in sharpness away from the centre is dramatic and limiting. The Nikon 50 S bokeh is very good with great central sharpness. The Nikon 85 S bokeh is wonderful, again with great central sharpness.

As I've said, unscientific, but take from it what you will.

 

[KeithL]

I should add that the Zeiss C Sonnar ZM on the Z7 is comparatively soft centrally.

 

[Jack]

Keith, I chose harsh light specifically to see how specular highlights will render — I shoot a fair amount of my fun travel images at night.

But as respects the Z family of lenses, I absolutely do appreciate the fact they all render so well and so similarly -- not easy to do. I liked this about the Sigma Art series of lenses too. But the current top end contemporary lenses are all so well corrected that their drawing while pleasant is at the same time, somewhat unremarkable -- I'll call it "excellent vanilla" And I do absolutely appreciate the superb AF and AE performance they offer. If I still shot commercially, I would own every f1.8 Z prime currently marketed and be on the short list for the 28!

But for what I personally want to achieve now, I am looking for a few distinct characteristics that no modern lens design has anymore; swirly oof backgrounds being one of them, and soft, smooth speculars being another...

 

[jdphoto]

Technically, the S lenses are great. Especially the 50mm 1.8S. However, depending on the distance to the OOF areas, the 85mm 1.8 S just didn't look great for portraits, imo. As mentioned before, character is more important than sharpness for my style. Pixel peepers would love it. I'd be very curious about 1.2 Z lenses, but look how long it took to get a decent, native portrait lens. I guess the FTZ and F lenses are the alternative if one wants faster lenses for portraits. Landscape shooters should be pleased with the Z's though.

 

[KeithL]

I guess we all have our own ideas about what constitutes character and what appeals to us in terms of bokeh. Personally I like to start with smooth transitions and unfussy specular highlights. I find many 'character' lenses to be too harsh, too repetitive in their rendering. If anything I prefer to start with Jack's 'vanilla' and if more or less character is needed then to add or subtract it in post, a much more controllable process. A few examples below.

Nikon 50 S f1.8, out of camera.

Nikon 50 S f1.8, with work - character - added in post.

Nikon 50 S f1.8, again, with work - character - added in post.

This process gets me to where I want to be, in control, but admittedly it is ultimately more time consuming.

 

[jdphoto]

Of course it's all based on personal opinion. Nikon S lenses look fantastic on paper and the 50mm 1.8 S is probably the best all purpose lens I've ever used...period. The two card slot has been debated endlessly, but for my work it is a consideration and it's the primary reason I'm considering switching cameras. For general purpose work, the Z is hard to beat in terms of functionality, ergonomics and the widest/shortest flange, but matching Sony and Canon with 1.4 or 1.2 native lenses with two cards and there would be minimal competition as I simply love the Nikon interface and colors.

 

[Dustbak]

I guess we all have our own ideas about what constitutes character and what appeals to us in terms of bokeh. Personally I like to start with smooth transitions and unfussy specular highlights. I find many 'character' lenses to be too harsh, too repetitive in their rendering. If anything I prefer to start with Jack's 'vanilla' and if more or less character is needed then to add or subtract it in post, a much more controllable process. A few examples below.


This process gets me to where I want to be, in control, but admittedly it is ultimately more time consuming.

I agree. Having said that. The 50S delivers an amazing file to start with (as does the 85). I have not used my 35 a lot sofar so cannot say much about it.

The kit zoom is fantastic too though I have been caught by surprise with it several times. I normally set auto-iso to max out at appr. 3200 (call me old-fashioned but the thought of ISO3200 just makes me shiver). No problem shooting with the primes but I found out that the screen (for some reason which might be user related) shows an image that is correctly lit but the eventual file is underexposed due to the ISO limitation. No problem with the 1.8 in this area.

 

[Jack]

All good comments. Re ZS lenses, the 50 is on my short list, I do like the way it renders --in fact like the way ALL the ZS lenses render-- and will probably end up with it simply as my goto walkaround/street lens. (Note I say "ZS" lenses, because there were earlier plain old "S" lenses -- and my mystery lens happens to be one of them!) The bigger issue for me is choosing between the 50 and 35 -- in my world, I would absolutely prefer a fast 42mm prime over either :ROTFL:

Keith, while I understand your preference for adding effects in post, in all of my attempts to do it I never got the results I really wanted, and why I chose some rather specific art glass for that purpose. For me it's not just resolution fall-off, vignetting, aberration swirl and bokeh, but how all of those interplay in the final character. I know all of that mostly falls to a "blind" eye to the majority of end viewers, but I know the real thing when I see it, and I like it.

 

[jdphoto]

Character is indeed something that can be added, but always preferable to start with a good image first. The b/w pics are the 50mm 1.8S. The couple is SOOC with the 85mm 1.8S and rather dull, imo. The other with the 105mm 1.4 FTZ.

 

[Jack]

JD,

The B&W's are lovely, especially the little girl, and of course so is the 105/1.4 capture -- stunning actually, but that lens is a relative beast. I see what you mean about the 85S -- kind of "meh." Renders about like the 50, but the added distance disconnects you a bit from the subjects. I would leave it and take the 105 all the time if I owned both -- and in my case it makes a strong argument for the 105/1.4 over the 85S.

 

[jdphoto]

Jack, the 85mm 1.8 S is a great lens in terms of resolution and AF, but as you astutely noted, the extra distance does indeed factor in the overall rendering. Tighter portraits might do a wee bit better with the Z 85mm S, but the extra reach and shallower DOF of the 1.4 compresses so nicely for this purpose. You really can't go wrong with any of the Z lenses at these price points. Some have compared the 50mm 1.8S to the Otus!

 

[pegelli]

Indeed the 105/1.4 photo has a lot more "sparkle" than the 85/1.8. I only wonder for this comparison if it's the lens or the light, which was much more favourable in the 105 mm shot.

 

[KeithL]

Obviously comparisons between different lenses when shooting different subjects and different light are at the very best suboptimal.

 

[jdphoto]

Obviously comparisons between different lenses when shooting different subjects and different light are at the very best suboptimal.

Obviously.
However, these images (Summer couple/105mm @1.4 & Winter couple 85mm S @1.8) were shot under a similar cloudy overcast as the previous pic I posted, using the exact same lighting set up, so not so "different" at all. As Jack mentioned, the distance to the subjects can be an important factor, so the couple standing in front of the bridge works better because it's a tighter crop, but with more DOF and being edited for the client. Another important factor is that shooting couples at 1.4 is very tricky as they both need to be on the same plane, but shooting at 1.8 gives you more DOF, but the 105mm 1.4 still looks nicer at 1.8 SOOC, imo. My intent is to not debate which is better because that's all very subjective and personal and both these lenses are fantastic.

 

[Jack]

Just wanted to update this thread... I've had the Z7 about 3 weeks now, and am settling in with it. The newest FW update was a pretty significant improvement for an already pretty exceptional camera. The cam already feels like an old friend, and I've become (surprisingly) comfortable with the EVF. I am actually quite happy now that the Z6 I originally ordered arrived bricked... If it hadn't been, I would probably be shooting in ignorant bliss, totally unaware of how satisfied I'd be with a Z7! A second Z7 body is on my short list.

Yes, I am still a gear whore. :ROTFL: