Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 75 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 51 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 762 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 180 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
All the above is only the lens comparisons. How about the DxOMark sensor rating comparisons? Anyone want to defend the relatively poor performance of the M9 sensors? KR gave it rave reviews in 2011. Yes, the M9 offers the "rangefinder form factor" but so do many others with higher sensor rankings. So how can an M9's be worth over three times more money? Anyone shooting with one and contesting the DxOMark sensor ranking?
I am suggesting Leica and Zeiss "glory days" are long past. It is good they are coming out with new lenses specifically designed for high megapixel sensor. Those new lenses look to be "knock your socks off" in sharpness and may put Zeiss on top in DxOMark lens testing.
D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
The quality of lenses like Leica and Zeiss lies in the overall quality of the product, and the type of images that can be produced through them. That is something no test chart or DXO mark can ever measure.
SquamishPhoto: You seem to think your opinions are some sort of cosmic truth which should never be challenged and once expressed all debate should stop. To me truth is better found in science rather than in emotion. The DxOMark tests of sensors and lenses are observing something quite striking about Leica and Zeiss which is worthy of discussion as to just what it means. It reminds me of religions. All sorts of people are equally sincere in believing their particular beliefs are the one true belief system and disagreement is not welcomed. I do use my own experience as a guide for what I do and for the opinions I hold; that is why I enjoy playing with so much different equipment. I read people's opinions and enjoy testing them out for myself to see if I agree or disagree. I would take your suggestion and rent a Zeiss 100mm f2 to see if I can detect any significant difference in image quality between that Zeiss and my Nikkor 105 f2 DC or my Nikkor 85mm f1.8G but the Zeiss is manual focus and the poor state of my eyes really precludes manual focus work anymore. I fear I wouldn't be "blown out of the water" like you are because I wouldn't get it in good focus. At least if all three lenses were AF that variation would be taken out of the equation.
Why did I get the D800? I didn't care about its score on DxO. I gave up on Canon (even though the silent shooting on the MK III blows the D800 out of the water for quietness) because of noise banding at low ISO. I couldn't live with it. I looked at a D800 in Gray's of Westminster and was blown away by its performance. Combined with the 14 - 24, I was enthralled by what I saw. It wasn't DxO's figures that made me even look at it, more curiosity. It was expensive curiosity bearing in mind I had L glass from 14 - 300 a mixture of primes and zoom, mainly zooms. The 24 - 70 L I is pretty much identical to the equivalent Nikkor even down to the way the lens works - going out on the wide end and the hood is identical. It even has the mild CA and distortion at 24 - 27mm in exactly the same way as the Canon.
People are moving away from actually trying things out, and more towards point scoring, and I don't see that as a positive thing. It's like owning a Maserati and just leaving it in the garage. It might look good and be fantastic on paper, but how good is it really? Pixel peeping is another thing that unsettles me. It's like going into the Louvre and looking at Da Vinci's paint strokes a hair's breadth away from the canvas. Art is meant to be viewed from an optimal distance and the current trend for point scoring is in danger of leading to Photography Top Trumps. The end result will be manufacturers moving to looking at what would win a top trumps competition rather than making the best camera from a photographer's view. It wasn't the 36mp that sold me the D800, but the dynamic range.
I had the Zeiss 35 f/2 in Canon guise, and sold it as it won't work on a Nikon. I have it now in Nikon guiise as the 35f/2 .ZF2. It's a fantastic lens that is very sharp. But it's not just about the sharpness, but about the tonal contrast and colour. These are always great on a Zeiss lens. No they aren't cheap, and yes they are manual focus. They are, however really well built and the zoom movement is as smooth as silk.
Just sayin'
D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
The bottom line here is the great resolution of the D800 and which lenses will do the most to best exploit that 36mp sensor's resolution. I think that is a valid thing to explore. What is the sharpest normal lens, the sharpest portrait lens, the sharpest zoom, and the sharpest telephoto? That is what the DxOMark articles are judging (or attempting to judge if you feel DxOMark tests are inaccurate or incomplete). For those who don't care, just don't read the DxOMark articles or tests. It's like which car is fastest around the Nurburgring track. Knowing those numbers or buying those cars won't make me a great driver. Yet, how fast a car can go around "the ring" does pit cars against the same criteria and does provide some relative ranking of them. I wouldn't say "ring times" are invalid to discuss even though it is correct to say they are irrelevant to my skill in driving and I will select a vehicle based upon many factors and not just "ring times."
You picked the D800 for its impressive dynamic range. That is not a rejection of DxOMark scoring because dynamic range is one of the things they score. Some people pick the D3s or the D4 because of their high ISO ability which once again is one of the things DxOMark scores. DxOMark is measuring (or trying to measure if you think it is inaccurate) sensor characteristics which are important to many people. So looking at which lenses yield the highest score in DxOMark testing is worthy of discussion and not intended to be the be all and end all of anyone's lens choices.
The left focus issue has apparently been corrected per your post. P 292 explains the times when a "Focus Beep" is active. You night want to check your settings.
The issue of "green tint in the viewfinder is probably not one you will get Nikon excited about. This is primarily a personal preference and most folks do not rely on this for color correction. It simply is unreliable unless in studio conditions. The issue of white balance is really a final production issue and easily adjusted in post processing.
I would doubt seriously Nikon will give you a new camera. If the images are fairly consistent and of good quality, this is usually what we want. There are so many variables in shooting photo images the camera is unable to account for many of these.
However, you are certainly allowed to discuss this with the selling dealer. Sometimes they will make things the way you want.
Sad thing is, if you actually knew what you were talking about, then you would understand that the problem with their scoring is that they do not create an even playing field for lenses, but have done away with it in the weighting of the scoring. That is what you don't understand. The D800 has been out for over a year now, and now they are actually doing tests with it - if that doesn't strike you odd, I'm not sure what would. They know their tests have crossed an accuracy threshold.
Two of your issues could have been fixed by just reading the manual. There are nuances moving to pro bodies and some things work differently. The green tint on the screen - I have it as well but as I always use a custom WB with an ExpoDisc I never worry about it. I do wish they would just send out an optional firmware update that would move the color back to neutral for those who want it.
The more issues I read of the D600/D800 the more I see it is just the lack of experience and reading the manuals of the cameras by people who are more use to the consumer modes rather than having to set many things up themselves.
I read the manual, partly. But what is not in the manual - and what Nikon failed to put in: The differences for the upgraders. If you're used to user settings, it's absolutely hard to understand that the benches for camera and advanced settings are different. The user settings of D600, 7000, 7100 could be actively saved on your decision. The benches just keep the last state. The next changings will destroy these settings. I had put some settings together at D7000, so I always had two safe starting points. The D800, you always need to check up - no safe starting points at all.
You can't ask a manual questions.
And since you own pro bodies, you've just not the experience of switching from "consumer grade" to "professional grade" bodies. I'm pretty sure, the manual doesn't tell you "AF assist light only works when Af spot is centerred". Nikon has a lot potential of improving their manuals: In loads of things which are widespread knowledge they hide the interesting points.
Have you ever counted the various individual configuration settings, the camera settings and whatever settings? How can one keep all this stuff in memory? How can one keep an overview over 4 different benches for each camera and individual settings?
We users could give the manual a better read, buit a) it's written in a way that really makes you want go to bed and b) some things have to be learnt, not read. Some things are explained in chapters where nobody would guess them, others get unusual names.
Finally I asked NIkon about how to save the settings in D800. The guy from the professional customer support was nice and immediately answering - but helpless: "I don't know how it is with consumer cams..." I'm not sure if he was arrogant or just honest, But it was a helpful information which wasn't in the manual.
AF-assist illumination is only available when both of the following conditions are met:
1 AF-S is selected for autofocus mode.
2 Auto-area AF is chosen for AF-area mode, or an option other than auto-area AF is chosen and the center focus point is selected.
Seems very clear to me. Take a deep breath; it's not rocket science. You don't have to use all the settings if you don't want to. You don't need to think about how many combinations and permutations of the settings are possible; That's just irrelevant. I think you're making things way more complicated than it really is.
The D800 manual is what it is: a manufacturer's manual. If you want or need more of a "step-by-step" guide then there are plenty of books in the market you can choose from.
Bland, do you think all DxOMark testing of all lenses and of all sensors are no more than "an out house full to its rafters?" Is there any scientific and numerical testing of lenses and sensors you feel has any validity? What about the detailed test results on DPReview (they have moved to using DxOMark)? What about the detailed test results on Imaging Resource (they have such a pretty 3-D colored graphic of sharpness which lets you scroll through f stops and mm)? It that pretty 3-D graphic all "crap" too? Do you just ignore all the "science" and "laboratory testing" and rely solely on what looks good to your eye?
The subject was finding the sharpest lenses on a D800. To my mind that is a valid inquiry. Shouldn't sharpness be scientifically measurable in the images produced by each lens? I would think so. If not, why can it not be done with validity? Sure it doesn't take into account aspects not measured such as color rendition but the subject under consideration was not which lens has the best color rendition on a D800 nor which lenses have the best build quality. I would think at least the sharpness ratings of different lenses on the same sensor would be a scientifically valid comparison.
Your antagonistic attitude is hardly hidden in your statements and yet we know that you don't speak from any immediate personal experience, so its kind of hard to take you seriously when you spout of with things like this:
"How strange for fantastic "knock your socks off" lenses which are "the best in the world." You would expect at least one of these super duper fantastic lenses worth twice as much as the others to at least score equal in sharpness."
The derision is palpable and undeserved since you admit yourself that you'd be useless with the lenses since you're terrible with MF. Its a shame, one of the most satisfying aspects of operating a Zeiss is the dampened focus and the immense throw it has allowing one to focus with perfect accuracy.
So, in this case more than almost any it does in fact matter more what looks good to the eye rather than what you're willing to call scientific testing. Just because it takes place in a lab doesn't make it science. I think this truth is obvious to most of us, but I get the feeling that its completely lost on you.
D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
"Unverified testing numbers from a single entity" - absolutely true - which is why I asked if anyone had seen any other comparative testing to either validate or falsify the DoXMark rankings. Science must be repeatable by different researchers or it is not science. No one has been able to come forward with any other comparative ranking from any type of testing protocol. Perhaps there are none. Also, Imaging Resources great 3-D graphic may equally be open to the charge of inaccuracy if they do not produce results which can be consistently validated.
"Shooting long enough to know there are many other variables" - absolutely true. In fact, I have been shooting long enough to know that sharpness is not even a very important variable in producing a stunning photo. I even go back to the pre-digital days of using diffusion filters on top of lenses for better portraits!
No "immediate personal experience" with Zeiss lenses. Absolutely true. Unfortunately, these DxOMark rankings don't make me think anything substantial would be gained by spending the money for one. My suspicion is that your portraits would be just as good (at least to most eyes) if they were taken with the Nikkor 105 f2 DC or the new Nikkor 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 lenses since most are shot at about f2. It is interesting to me that you have made a comparison (with the 85mm f1.4G I believe?) and found the Zeiss better in your opinion because other reviewers have claimed the new 85mm f1.4G has stunning bokeh. Your personal experience and judgment counts as a plus one for Zeiss. I don't discount it; but I also don't ignore the possibility that someone else may have a contrary judgment.
Yes my eyesight is a shame and a constant sadness to me since I like photography and would love to be able to perform manual focus.
TTJ has made one good observation about the accuracy of DxOMark lens testing in the past (but not in this thead) which bears repeating. If they accurately tested just the lens it wouldn't produce different numeric results on different bodies: the lens would always be the same no matter what body it was on. So the DxOMark system is actually testing a sensor/lens combination when it puts a number on a lens. However, in this case all lenses were tested on the same D800 body so the sensor variable should be out of the equation and direct comparisons should be able to be made between the various lenses tested.
One final item from my original observations: notice how no one has defended the M9 sensor? Am I correct Leica has fallen behind even entry level Nikon and Cannon sensors and yet is charging a premium for an inferior sensor?
Reading to help you: (I highly suggest both of these as they do a very good job showing what the numbers do not show.)
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/02/seeing-the-numbers
http://www.outbackphoto.net/news/2013/2/26/seeing-numbers-part-ii-with-real-world-images.html
This is a very good point - DXo does not give out the details of how it scores lenses so it is not repeatable. Their lack of transparency is what most point too, especially now with their Leica sensor tests. For a few years now, I have been watching Popular photography magazine who uses DXo's software never be able to replicate the same scores as DXo - many times it has been over a 20% difference in raw numbers which should be easily visible, but also outside the parameters of normal variance between units. Other review sites that use DXo also exhibit this phenomenon of rarely having results match.
You continually dismiss "human eye" results as if what many of us observe should be considered realm of arbitrary & ill-placed fanboy delusions. What MTF charts, and especially DXO does not take into any consideration is the design goals, characteristics, and unique use of lens elements that are used. There are very few lenses that are designed to be used to obtain maximum resolution. To dismiss this is like saying a Corvette and a F150 Pickup are in the same class of vehicles and should be considered for the same use.
Macros are the only lenses that have the distinction of being designed for highest possible resolution. Many are pointing to the Sigma 35mm 1.4 as one of the highest resolution lenses at the 35mm focal length. The well informed are also state that no other 35mm prime has been designed in this manner focusing more on bokeh/image isolation rather than resolution. This is also true with Zeiss lenses which on most technical charts do show a lower LW/PH but what good reviewers state, the tests do not measure their unique designs that increase micro contrast which adds to the sharpness to the eye as well as post production leeway in software. The testing software also does not show the other unique design that Zeiss uses to gardener mustache distortion which is masterfully deployed to help render the 3D effects that Zeiss is famously known for. Now other lenses (usually cheap consumer) have mustache distortion, but they were not designed that way to create a unique drawing of the image, but are left due to the complexity of fixing it.
The latter part of above, is the main reason why I believe DXO is dishonestly describing "what to use" for the D800 or any other system. They purposely sterilize the actual design goals of lenses and their characteristics, as well as smashing (on purpose by their weighting system) the scores of lenses to state what is better to use. Unfortunately persons like yourself, who do not take the time to search the internet for other views, take them as the authority of Digital camera tests, when actually the thing they do better than others is marketing, not testing.
I have been shooting 2 lenses a lot lately for personal goof off stuff on my D800 and D300 and amazed how well they work. 50mm 1.4 (1973) & 105mm f/2.5 (1972) are the two - and render images in a way new lenses just can't or don't do. On the D800, they look much, much better than the D300 - more than just the FX format change. DXo would surly rank these lower than dirt, but that doesn't mean they are not well suited to the D800 or any other body. Their tests are so narrowly focused on what they want to show that they actually show nothing.
As for the Leica sensor - create a new thread and not hijack the D800 one for a Leica test.
I am from India and one of my friend is come from US. So, I was thinking of getting a new lens from my D800 from US. Is it a good idea?!! I mean as Nikon lens don't have international warranty.
If yes, then how is AF-S NIKKOR24-120mm f/4G ED VR on D800? the 24-70mm f/2.8 is way out of my budget
Thank you.
A few things to say, from my experience. And, we are discussing lenses for the D800....seems to be within the purview of this thread.
While I enjoy reading some of the lens reviews, I am totally confused by what they say. It would seem that a lot of subjective data is interjected into the tests. As might be suggested in this thread, a totally objective testing of resolution requires an optical bench and very sophisticated sensor equipment. Interestingly enough, one must have a membership to an optical society to view many of the articles on the testing procedures. And the need for all this when we are viewing images subjectively is a topic of discussion.
Most of the lenses of professional grade will produce stunning results. The largest factor in the end result is the technique used to obtain the image.
As to the question of Zeiss, Leitz, Nikon, Canon, etc, being better than one another, well, for many of us, the results are so subjective it is difficult to assess. There is no question that the Zeiss lenses have a "feel" and it is very seductive. I tried one, and I think there was a problem with my example, but the feel was so nice. The weight of the Zeiss lenses is also very nice IMO. I may have to try another one sometime in spite of the fact the one I tried had some sort of a problem with focus. I seem to be able to focus the 24mm f/3.5 PC Nikkor accurately so , I should be able to manually focus the Zeiss glass.
Is there a difference in German vs. Japanese glass? This question has been asked for about fifty years. We argued about this in the 1960's At that time I think the idea was that the Nikon lenses were actually sharper in resolution, but the Leitz lenses had higher edge contrast and appeared crisper in the final print. But, with film, difficult to tell.
I think there may be many roads to the final destination and we are seeing these in this thread. Also, most of us find in the final analysis, we will use what makes us happy. It is indeed interesting how we tend to defend our choices, when it really is not necessary. Most of us can produce some very nice photos....in my case it is the old adage, "Even A Blind Pig Finds A Truffle Every Once In A While"....