Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon Vs Nikon lens.

Tehben Dean said:
How do Zeiss ZF/ZE fit in the mix?
Click to expand...
They have their own look indeed… I only have the comparison to Nikon, not to Canon. Zeiss has kind of a colder picture (more on the blueish side, color temp-wise), while Nikon has more of a warm picture (more red/yellow)… Also Zeiss looks sharper out of the box imo - I think that's actually what people are referring to with their "washed out" statements; I don't think it's washed out - but it's warmer and looks a tad softer (maybe that's more the feeling that comes from cold vs. warm).

Not scientific tests - just mere impression (before post / cc), and I don't have a comparison to Canon…
 
Evin Grant said:
Another reason for the Canon-cetricity is the dominance of the 5DMII in low budget shooting. Many people moving up to a Scarlet will have some investment in Canon glass because of this. However I think a pretty good majority of Red One owners who used still lenses invested in manual Nikkors or Nikon mount Zeiss ZFs. Going forward the electronic control of the EF and eventually Nikon G lenses will offer some really great advantages for low budget filmakers, especially once the Redmote Pro become available and a real production level of focus control is realized.

Also I've heard speculation from a few sources that the Nikon AF system has 50%-75% more "zones" than Canon, if this is true it may also account for some of the difficulty in creating lens profiles for an electronic mount. However it should theoretically give greater precision and smoothness to focus pulls.
Click to expand...

Evin:

Wouldn't the zones only be a body function? I.e once the body uses the zones to determine focus distance it just moves the lens focus there, and zones are irrelevant to the lens itself?

Ps may be able to loan you an Optitek for a few days.
 
I don't think so Mike, the zones (maybe steps are a better word), the steps are a factor for the lens's ability to map it's focus range, that should apply to an electronic follow focus too. The more steps the more precisely the focus can map. I'm not talking about the AF zones in the camera. I'll take you up on that mount :)

The ZFs are good lenses, just the same design as the Contax Zeiss lenses from the 80s &90s. Like all other makes of lenses there are gems and dogs. Most perform well but the faster lenses are not as sharp wide open as the latest G Nikkors or the Leicas. This is why the CP.2s limit the 1.4 lenses to 2.1.
I'm a big fan of the 28mm f2 zeiss though, this is the same floating element design as the Standard speed and very close tot the Ultra Prime. The 20mm 2.8 is another winner along with the 2 macros.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Kilgroe said:
+1 and have to agree.

Have to disagree with Demetri's comment above regarding Nikon glass making washed-out images. However, I do feel that Canon DSLR's push more contrasty and vibrant images, both in RAW and in onboard processed TIFF/JPEG formats.

The new Nikon D800 and D4 cameras look great on paper, I will see what happens when I get my hands on them, but they look to be the best offerings Nikon has had in a long time.

Generally speaking, I feel that since the tide has shifted to digital systems, Canon has made the superior cameras and Nikon has maintained their edge with lenses. And as great as the D4 and D800 look, who knows how they will compare to the next round of Canon offerings...

In film/video circles, Canon has gathered a large following due to the 5DmkII, 7D, etc.. Nikon has been playing catch-up in the video DSLR segment ever since. The D7000 and D5100 last year finally got them there and now the D800/D4 look great. How well they perform and how long they will be king of the hill in terms of specs remains to be seen. Canon has a knack for releasing new products on a whim, just to stay ahead... I smell a 5DmkIII coming real soon.
Click to expand...

But what does a 5D MkIII do to the likes of Canon's own D300 if the 5D video is built to better the D4? Will Canon focus more on cameras dedicated to motion, and keep the DSLR around the current quality level? Or will Nikon dissuade them from that idea? The D300 seems like a pretty expensive and short lived stopgap.
It would be a wise move if Nikon were to offer its glass in cinema style lens constructions.



On another note, the Nikon Sendai plant is gearing up to produce 30,000 D800's, and 5,000 D4's per month. Remarkable when one considers recent events.
 
Andrew Huse said:
Vingetting on the Zeiss ZE/ZFs is awful. They all average around ~2.5 EV at f/2 and at f/2.8 which is just unacceptable
Click to expand...

Yeah Im curious what this means too. I confess, I'm a bit of a Zeiss fan (I own almost 20), but still. The Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is considered by many to be the best wide angle still prime design ever made. I wouldn't be surprised if if vignetted wide open on a FF sensor on say a 5D. But are you saying on the RED it vignettes? On a cropped sensor?

All of the Zeiss designs are full frame. I don't understand how you'd see them vignette on a 1.6 crop, unless as Mark suggests you are shooting at 5K 2:1.

But maybe I'm just defending my lens collection, like an overprotective father. But still, I'm confused.

But hey, we're talking about still lenses here. I guess none of them are going to be perfect.

But I've been shooting in my Contax Zeiss prime set for over a year and never had a DP complain yet. Instead, they all ask me what Contax is, as all they've ever heard is ZF/ZE and CP2.
 
From what I've seen some of the Zeiss lenses vingette at Full Frame pretty badly, but shooting on a 1.6 crop most likely crops out the vingette. I have no idea what it looks like on 5K; maybe someone can upload some samples... The worst offender is the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 ZE/ZF. Wide open that lens produces a +3 EV vingette. Just looking at the test shot I would say it would show up in 5K:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/506-zeiss18f35eosff?start=1
 
For some of us, a primary motivator to go Nikon is the amazing 14-24 2.8 "Crystal Ball" zoom.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520635-USA/Nikon_2163_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_14_24mm.html
It is sharper than most primes. In fact, it may be too sharp for close portraits or fashion work without softening. It will give you amazing architecture and landscape stuff if you can deal with the huge bubble-shaped front element. (Screw-in filters will not fit, and matte boxes will be a challenge, and it does flare.)

Focus optics offers a "Cinevised" version, with PL mount, focus marks and gears that does accept filters.

http://www.focusoptics.com/newruby.htm
 
Last edited:
Carter Cammack said:
For some of us, the primary motivator to go Nikon is the amazing 12-24 2.8 "Crystal Ball" zoom. It is sharper than most primes. In fact, it may be too sharp for close portraits or fashion work without softening. It will give you amazing architecture and landscape stuff if you can deal with the huge bubble-shaped front element. (Screw-in filters will not fit, and matte boxes will be a challenge.)
..
Click to expand...

The Nikon 14-24 you mean? Yes that lens is phenomenal. From the tests I've seen it is as good if not sharper than many primes out there. Absolutely essential glass.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/447-nikkor_afs_1424_28_ff?start=1
 
Carter Cammack said:
For some of us, the primary motivator to go Nikon is the amazing 12-24 2.8 "Crystal Ball" zoom. It is sharper than most primes. In fact, it may be too sharp for close portraits or fashion work without softening. It will give you amazing architecture and landscape stuff if you can deal with the huge bubble-shaped front element. (Screw-in filters will not fit, and matte boxes will be a challenge.)
..
Click to expand...

I think you're referring to the 14-24mm f/2.8, not the 12-24 f/4 which is also quite good, but yeah , the 14-24mm is just amazing.

edit: oops, Andrew beat me to it..lol
 
Wow. Corrected before I could fix the links and the obvious typo again. You guys are ON.
 
There are quite a number of a excellent lenses out there that just lack the charisma that other lenses enjoy, for some reason; like the Nikkor 12-24 f/4G we just mentioned, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP, Sigma 100-300mm f/4. BTW, I've noticed a lot of folks seen to gravitate more towards Sigma as a third party alternative, but I always turn to Tamron, which btw sold more than Nikon last year in Japan. I like their glass better than Sigma.
 
Since we have no real date on the Nikon mount from RED, I may go PL and get the Ruby. Best of both worlds.
 
Nick Morrison said:
... The Zeiss 21mm 2.8 is considered by many to be the best wide angle still prime design ever made. I wouldn't be surprised if if vignetted wide open on a FF sensor on say a 5D. ...
Click to expand...

You are correct. It is. My CY Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon does not vignette on my 5DII. I have used it many times wide open with no such issue. And, I have also personally printed 40 x 60 fine-art giclees shot wide open with that lens and there is no vignetting present. However, there is the characteristic waveform or "gull-wing" distortion. The waveform or gull-wing distortion is inherent in the lens. For still photography, it is easily fixed with one mouse click in PT Lens or Bibble. For cine or video applications, I have never seen the distortion.

As to the Nikon 14-24, there is a reason why Focus Optics chose the lens as the basis for its "Ruby." It is a killer lens. Until recently, you could not use a screw-in filter with the lens. Fotodiox has just announced a new filter adapter system that allows 145mm screw-in filters to be used. The only problem is that there really aren't any quality 145mm screw-filters, other than the ones that Fotodiox apparently had made to be used with its system ... the quality of which remains to be seen (literally). See the results of my quick and dirty mattebox test with the 14-24 and a Vocas 325 here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...w-for-adding-filters-to-the-Nikon-14-24/page2


___________________________________

SO # 6931 “Betty Page” Canon AL Package
“… preparing to ‘whip’ the competition …”

Zeiss Lenses:

CY 21/2.8
ZF 28/2.0
CY 35-70/3.4
CY 50/1.4
ZF100/2.0

Nikon Lenses:

G 14-24/2.8
G 24-70/2.8
D ED 80-200/2.8

Tokina Lenses:

11-16/2.8
 
Andrew Huse said:
From what I've seen some of the Zeiss lenses vingette at Full Frame pretty badly, but shooting on a 1.6 crop most likely crops out the vingette. I have no idea what it looks like on 5K; maybe someone can upload some samples... The worst offender is the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 ZE/ZF. Wide open that lens produces a +3 EV vingette. Just looking at the test shot I would say it would show up in 5K:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/506-zeiss18f35eosff?start=1
Click to expand...

Yeah the 18 and 25 are known in the still world as being Zeiss's biggest duds, prime wise. That's true in the Contax line as well (the designs are extremely similar).

However to quote Timur Civan (who I've never met, but love his musings on lenses), sometimes a lenses flaws can reveal its character. I know that "technically" the Zeiss 18 and 25 are the worst of the lot, but then what I find most interesting is that these two lenses are also some of the most defended and enjoyed by zeiss fans. Both the 18 and 25 have lots of fans, I think because they have character.

As someone mentioned about the infamous Nikon 14-24, sometimes you can be too sharp.

I'll leave it that.

Besides, the Contax 18 is the last prime I need to get, I don't want to feel too bad about it before I buy it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top