No, this simply isnt right, no offense but you've never shot Zeiss, its that apparent. The only lens that comes close to the micro-contrast of the Zeiss in Nikkor is the 35/1.4 ais. This isnt just opinion and I'm afraid you'll have a bit of an uphill battle on your hands.
Originally Posted by blockend
Its not Contax either, they are only for conversion to Canon mount and do not fit the Nikons.
To the OP, We get heaps of crap for it but the Zeiss are a micro-contrast lens, its just unheard of in Nikkors except the 35/1.4ais that I already mentioned. Some have suggested that the other Nikkor is the 200/2 but its not either and they are confusing its colour and it also lacks this level of contrast.
Just go look, you'll see it straight away and if you don't then throw out your monitor.
I had the 50/1.2. In comparison to the Zeiss its dull and flat. I bought it for the 1.2 but at everything else it was too soft. At 1.2 I hated the OOF or bokeh, the donuts in the specular highlights alone were driving me nuts. It doesnt have the colour or the contrast of any of the zeiss. Lovely to hold but I bought it for pictures and sold it the day after I took it into the city, was already too used to seeing the Zeiss.
Originally Posted by dreamingartemis
The only pic I got from it was this...
the others I deleted.
some more to bring you up to speed ...
MTF is measured as actual on Zeiss but with Canikon its predicted mtf. Also sometimes its necessary to do a units conversion on mtf charts to compare, Zeiss uses a measure that is more critical then Canikon and Canikon use a unit count that is more shall we say ...generous.
The lens cap is utter crap, its so bad you must buy a Nikon pinch cap the same day you buy the zeiss and put the Zeiss cap in the box for resale (that'll never happen).
The zf35/2 betters the Canon 35L
Biting sharp and at f2.
Floating front element for correction at mfd
Of the Zeiss the 35/2 is regarded as the best to focus, focus just pops in. 1.4 is a bit trickier for focus.
1.4 is a king of bokeh lens for the Zeiss, I'm not so much a bokeh tog. The f2 has a stunning bokeh as well.
Aperture ring works fine but its narrow and too close to the camera body. You dont notice it much but I wish they gave a bit more thought.
If anyone is buying just one Zeiss, its always the 35/2 that gets the consensus
All still performing well on the D800 where many of the Nikkors are falling away.
some more zf35/2 pics...
Thats it ...I'm all out (grin).
Wow....that is wow...:blink:
Originally Posted by oneANT
Originally Posted by oneANT
I've been hearing that a lot, but I'm not familiar with the term micro contrast......
Originally Posted by blockend
Well the interest in contrastsy shots for me started whe I fumbled up the hc110 dilution and got very contrastsy negs. After I fixed that problem, I then developed at the correct dilution and noticed everything felt flat, or boring. So I instead modified my process by 30%, it's not the sweet spot, sometimes it I over do it. I'm still trying to find the correct percentage.
I'm trying to find a way to produce consistent results but I see what you mean that it's the process rather than the lens itself.
Just on the point of this micro-contrast. It becomes apparent to many by a 3D effect where the edge definition and background contrast has a dramatic fall off. The 3D effect that can be seen in many images is discussed but what we see in nearly all our zeiss images is a depth, not the effect of dof but rather the perception of depth. With Nikkors an image is very flat regardless of dof and its funny when they might say that such a thing is not possible but have you ever looked at an image from the Nikkor 60?
We become hooked because of this affect and the 35/2 has it more than any other which if you think about it is as I describe, has nothing to do with the effect of dof as you might expect with say a telephoto lens because we are afterall discussing a wide.
awesome awesome lens, I dont care how much I might sound like exaggeration, you'll never be able to come back and tell me I was wrong.
I have shot the 35 and 85, Helen Keller could see the difference. They are that good.
Micro-contrast is another way to say "acutance" and contrast is generally a different thing, unless we want to debate words endlessly. Photographers don't confuse the two things. I personally dislike the word "micro-contrast" because it just leads to confusion. If it is acutance, be it called acutance instead of by another name. Will not smell differently, but it will be clearer.
Judging definition of a lens by an image less than 1 mp is not different than judging colour balance of a film comparing uncalibrated and not colour-managed scans. In both cases the exercise is moot.
In the first case, what is judged is the degree of "sharpening" of the image to make it appear sharp on screen (this is done by increasing acutance, by the way). In the other case, what is judged is just the random colour mistake of scanners - monitors plus the ability of the scanner operator.
Differences in lens qualities are subtle and need a much higher pixel resolution to be judged. Even in that case, a decent amount of digital sharpening improves the sharpness. Convolution-based sharpening also helps. Those interventions are necessary for a good rendition on a monitor, but insert an intermediate layer which contributes to prevent judging a lens through the web.
In one sentence: the only proper test of the sharpness of a lens is the light table and the loupe. If really a comparison must be made through the web, the maximum resolution obtained by the camera or scanner should be shown, but the result will be, in any case, mediated by the post-processing.
The general consensus is that very fine lenses, like Zeiss and Leica, do have higher acutance than high-quality lenses by the Japanese producers. "Very good" is good but it is not up to "Exceptional". Whether one needs "exceptional" is obviously debatable and I am sure somebody will add a comment saying that art has nothing to do with resolution (which would be true and obvious).
Overall contrast in my experience normally goes with number of lens elements: the higher the lens element count, the higher the "black point" (blacks less black) so less perceived contrast (coeteris paribus). A Tessar scheme is normally very contrasted. I like contrast. Overall contrast has nothing to do with acutance and micro-contrast should not be mentioned when talking contrast.
Overall contrast for me is the perceived distance between maximum black and maximum white. Maybe for other photographers "contrast" means something different, such as the diffusion of light from bright zones to shady zones ("flare", "blooming"). How do we define this: "local contrast", probably? Local contrast is certainly a metre of lens quality. I suppose it mostly depends from the lens coating and from the number of lenses, and the number of air-glass surfaces. It ultimately is linked to overall contrast as they both depend from how much refraction there is, and refraction depends from number of lens elements, number of air-glass surface, quality of coating, suppression of scattering light within the lens (black painting).
Overall contrast in a digital image can be and should be "optimized" by properly setting the "levels" of the image. It can also be pushed to obtain a "graphic" effect (as in this image posted by oneANT: http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...t/ANT_4996.jpg). If the shadows are violently pushed to pure black, and there is some very bright high lights, the effect is of great contrast. That same effect can be obtained with any lens, if you can properly use the "sliders".
Which again leads me to repeat that judging lens qualities by a 1mp digital image makes no sense.
My personal opinion is that a conversation is much more enjoyable if everybody avoids making comments about lens quality as if it was something scientifically debatable. No point in "challenging" another forum user in general, and certainly no point in "challenging" him on something which us purely subjective, adding some 1mp digital images as a "demonstration" of one's point ;)
Please let's not transform this into another religion war: Zeiss fanatics against Canonikon fanatics etc. Fanatism is bad for photography.
...enjoyable, what part of this are you suggesting that might be?
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
I'm offended, so make no error in my choice of language now.