NIKKOR AGAINST ZEISS - A QUICK TEST

[marek_fogiel]

I've bought the Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZF and Zeiss Planar 85/1.4 ZF - since I

also have the NIKKOR 35/2 AF-D and NIKKOR 85/1.8 AF-D, I took them all out

today for a quick duel in the sun. This is not a scientific test, and I've

only done one shot at each aperture tested, without doing the focus

bracketing, etc, so it is just a first impression FWIW to the benefit of who

might be considering these lenses.

 

The test has been done on a Fuji S3 PRO, so it is a cropped sensor, and

therefore relates only to the reduced circle performance. I have taken 12mp

wide DR jpegs (which I have subsequently reduced to 6MP) with auto WB to avoid

the post processing trouble, so the quality of the images is not the best

possible, still some things are evident right away.

 

I have taken a shot of a somewhat wide exposure range,and I will only show 2

shots from each lens - at f2,8 and at f5,6, as these are likely going to be

quite frequently used apertures - I've tried them at f11 too, but there is not

much more to be seen there. The 100% crops will be taken towards the top edge

of the frame, so it will be neither the center nor the extreme corner - a

compromise to have a quick glimpse into things.

 

So, first the general scene to show you the setting. this one is from the

NIKKOR 35/2 at f 5.6.<div></div>

[marek_fogiel]

This is a crop from a 100% blow up - NIKKOR 35/2 at f 2.8<div></div>

[marek_fogiel]

ZEISS DISTAGON 35/2 at f 2.8<div></div>

[marek_fogiel]

NIKKOR 35/2 at f 5.6<div></div>

[marek_fogiel]

DISTAGON 35/2 at f 5.6<div></div>

[marek_fogiel]

I have been quite surprized to see how well the NIKKOR performs against the DISTAGON. At f2.8 both lenses are very similar, and it even looks as if the contrast of the NIKKOR is slightly higher. At f 5.6 DISTAGON pulls out the turbo boost, and the resolution is visibly better, however at f 11 (not shown here) the performance gap closes again between the two lenses due to diffraction. My quick take is, that until someone needs to use a 35mm prime on a full frame Nikon camera (let's hope it will come this year...) the performance difference is not all that big here, and in the convenience race the NIKKOR wins with its autofocus and smaller bulk and weight, not to mention the price...

 

Let's see now if the 85mm 1.8 NIKKOR can hold it's own against the PLANAR - this focal length is one of my favourites for portraiture, and I have been quite satisfied with this Nikon lens so far...

 

Here we go, the NIKKOR 85/1.8 at f 2.8<div></div>

[frank uhlig]

From the images, I wonder what would have happened if you had not overexposed? AND: where did you put the focus? At infinity or hyperfocal distance? This makes a huge difference. If you used hyperfocal, the images would deliberately be soft at infinity.

 

So this test needs a bit of explanation. Yet to come, I hope.

[steve_levine]

On my monitor, these shots look like a cola bottle was used for a lens?? I hope the lenses produce better images than this?

[marek_fogiel]

ZEISS PLANAR ZF 85/1.4 at f 2.8

[marek_fogiel]

NIKKOR 85/1.8 f 5.6<div></div>

[marek_fogiel]

PLANAR 85/1.4 f 5.6<div></div>

[marek_fogiel]

In this case, I do not have any doubts which lens stands out - the NIKKOR is plain soft and less contrasty at both apertures, we are in a completely different league here - maybe the NIKKOR 85/1.4 can take up the challenge better, but I do not own this lens.

 

As to the question of exposure and focus on the 35 mm shots - they were both focused at infinity and the exposure has been for the center of the image - I usually shoot raw and keep 1/2 stop overexposure on my S3 - this way you nail the histogram to the right of the range, and you adjust in ACR - this time with the jpegs I admit the result is not very inspiring, but this was just to see a quick difference between the two lenses.

 

To who might be interested to see how the PLANAR draws at full aperture, I have made an extra shot at f 1.4, which although a little soft, to my eye is roughly par in resolution to the NIKKOR at f 5.6

[marek_fogiel]

And just to wrap up, a quick look at the PLANAR's bokeh at f 1.4. I have been very much impressed by this lens, all the more so because I have taken lot's of very nice pictures with the 85/1.8 NIKKOR, and this 85/1.8 compares very favourably against most of my other prime Nikon glass. I am sure this test is not a scientific verdict of any sort, but I just wanted to know how things pan out in normal shooting conditions - to tell you the truth, even if this PLANAR has received some beating from one respectable tester on the web, to my eyes, this is the sharpest and most overwhelming 35mm lens that I've ever had.

[stan_belyaev]

I bought distagon 35ZF only because I had a very good experience with Contax lenses. My comparison of Distagon 35 vs Planar 35 showed that the lenses were essentially equal except for CAs that Distagon produces when it is opened. Actually I fel that Planar was slightly better.

People say thay Planar 35 was the weakest Contax lens. I'm not sure about that... In my experience it is a first-class lens.

Your images just confirmed my feeling that ZF is not much better than other lenses (nikon specifically). For practical purposes (handheld photography) the difference between the lenses is insignificant, especially when they are used with low resolution sensors/films and the images are subsequently processed in image editors.

Personaly i'm a little bit disappointed by CAs that ZF lenses produce. I'll try to avoid using my Distagon @ f2, f2.8.

Will I buy other ZF lenses? I'm not sure, although I'm expecting to receive several rolls of velvia and kodachrome from the lab. Hopefully, the slide will come out ok in terms of color and sharpness.

For practical purposes Nikon lenses might be more convenient - 3D matrix, CPU, autofocus, size, price, warranty....

[User_502260]

The test shots with the 85mm lenses look like there were tree branches in the way in the foreground. All of those shots look bad regardless of the f/stop used. I would like to see a test without the tree branches and including my old 35mm f/2 pre-AI Nikkor and my 85/2 AI Nikkor. After that I would make one more test comparing photos taken with my 50mm f/2.8 MC Zenzanon (Bronica ETR) which cost $100 and with my 150mm f/3.5 Zenzanon MC which also cost about $100. I realize that the Zenzanon lenses aren't meant to be used on a digital camera but I have to wonder, when printed images are actually made, whether the cost of these Zeiss lenses is really warranted.

[marek_fogiel]

I realize you might not be impressed much with the images, but these are rather small crops of a 6mp jpeg image which beyond the basic processing has not been adjusted or sharpened. I can assure you that I have some 13x19 prints made of photos taken with these two Nikkor lenses, which are comparing very favourably against my MF prints from Hasselblad & Zeiss glass. I will do some real testing down the road, and possibly will bring better comparisons. BTW I have also bought the ZF DISTAGON 25/2.8 which should arrive on monday - I will really be curious how it is going to compare against my NIKKOR 24/2.8 AF-D, which notoriously is not a stellar performer.

[vivek iyer]

"BTW I have also bought the ZF DISTAGON 25/2.8 which should arrive on monday"

 

Marek, I am very interested to know how this performs at close ranges.

The minimum focus distance of this lens is quite impressive. TIA.

[gary_watson]

I'll happily take the contrarian position here and ask what, aside from bragging rights, you're trying to establish? Most of these shots are just plain unsuitable if their purpose was to showcase the differences between these lenses.They look like inept surveillance shots.About the only things tested here are our patience and your credibility.

[stan_belyaev]

I found this thread to be somewhat informative.

Remember that no one has forced you to read this thread.

[tom_jenner1]

Marek, I appreciate the effort you put forth but there's no way one can draw a rational conclusion based off these shots you posted.

[mark_goldsmith1]

Marek, did you /could you use a tripod for these test images. I would also like to see whether its often priased resolution capability is worthwhile to invest. (particulary the 35/2)

[harvey_edelstein1]

Vivek, do you also have the ZM 25mm version, if so could you compare them? I think the Biogon vs. Distagon in the focal length would answer which design is optimal for wide angle lenses. I am agnostic about shooting SLR or RF, I would pick the lens first and the camera second.

[marek_fogiel]

It looks like I have left many of you wanting for a higher quality work - well I have been

looking through the web for opinions about these lenses before purchasing, and there

were few, and most of them incomplete.

 

So I take the lesson, that the photo.net public is more demanding in terms of what it

wants to see on quick comparison shots... but my point here is the following: the quality

difference between the 35/2 Distagon and 35/2 Nikkor is not of a quantum leap, the

difference between the 85/1.4 Planar and 85/1.8 Nikkor is abyssal...

 

I have seen that some ZF lenses reviews, including that of the 35mm are expected on the

Photozone site, so this could be an objective reference point for the MTF afficionados.

[vivek iyer]

Harvey, No, i do not have the ZM Biogon 25mm, though it is on my wish list. I have spent a lot of cash on lenses of this focal length for RF.

 

The W-Nikkor C 2.5cm f/3.5 cost a lot of cash. Fabulous rectilinear lens with no detectable distortion but has a large drop in brightness from the center towards the corners (I was aware of this).

 

The ZF lens can close focus to very small distances. The ZM lens is incapable of doing that. In addition, the ZM lens being a rangefinder lens is useless for close-ups.

[harvey_edelstein1]

I have the zm 25mm biogon my needs for close focus also done with slr. I have a 90mm macro lens for my Pentax LX, and the interchangeable magnifier finders right angle and 90 degree for the LX.

 

One thing Vivek I heard that the version of the ZF 25mm Distagon is a completely new design vs. the C/Y mount version that was a poor performer. Have you compared the lens diagrams of these two lenses? I was wondering how Zeiss changed the new lens in its modern design. By this I mean was it just more compensating elements, or sophisticated glass like LD, ED or ASPH, also how many blades in the Iris?