Ken Rockwell says Zeiss ZF lenses are no better than Nikkors?

[chip j]

The smell is gone.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

If you can't make excellent images with Nikon lenses, you have a different set of problems.

My sentiments exactly. Over the last 45 years or so I've acquired a plethora of Nikon, Canon, Leica, Pentax, Zeiss, Minolta, etc., lenses and I have wonderful photos from all of them. I'm sure they have their minor differences in contrast, bokeh, etc., but the lenses of one brand aren't going to make or break the success of an image as compared to another brand.

As my signature notes...

 

[Angarian]

Yes I imagined it would still be visible on high resolution 35mm films. Good to know. However, a 36+ megapixel DSLR will still out-resolve even the sharpest film in 35mm by a considerable margin, and are quite merciless in revealing optical flaws (or flaws in technique for that matter).

Your comment indicates that you have never done detailed resolution tests of film and digital by yourself. Otherwise you would have realised and got the test result that 36 MP sensors have a Nyquist resolution limit of about 100 lp/mm. That is their absolut physical limit. It is impossible to get higher resolution than that.
But film does not have a Nyquist resolution limit at all! There are lots of films which surpass a resolution of 100 lp/mm. All you need is just a little bit of object contrast (1:2 to 1:4 range; about one to two stops difference).
Films like Provia 100F, Provia 400X, both Velvias, Ektachrome E100G, Delta 100, Acros 100, T-Max 100, Portra 160, Fuji C200 and Superia 400 just to name a few all have significantly higher resolution at this object contrast than all 36 MP sensors.
And highest-resolution films like Adox CMS 20 II are a league of its own, no digital sensor even comes close to it. With good lenses you can reach the diffraction limit of the lens with this film, e.g. 240 Lp/mm at f5.6. Impossible to get with digital!
I've done such tests by myself, so I know quite well about the results.
I was inspired by two photography experts who have done very detailed and intensive scientific tests concerning that topic: Henning Serger and Tim Parkin. H. Serger has published his test results in the PhotoKlassik print magazine some years ago, and in some international forums (also here on photrio). Tim Parkin has published his results on his onlandscape magazine:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
And the results of H. Serger can for example be found here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/
From my test results I can completely confirm the results of Tim Parkin and H. Serger. They have both done excellent work.

 

[GLS]

Your comment indicates that you have never done detailed resolution tests of film and digital by yourself. Otherwise you would have realised and got the test result that 36 MP sensors have a Nyquist resolution limit of about 100 lp/mm. That is their absolut physical limit. It is impossible to get higher resolution than that.
But film does not have a Nyquist resolution limit at all! There are lots of films which surpass a resolution of 100 lp/mm. All you need is just a little bit of object contrast (1:2 to 1:4 range; about one to two stops difference).
Films like Provia 100F, Provia 400X, both Velvias, Ektachrome E100G, Delta 100, Acros 100, T-Max 100, Portra 160, Fuji C200 and Superia 400 just to name a few all have significantly higher resolution at this object contrast than all 36 MP sensors.
And highest-resolution films like Adox CMS 20 II are a league of its own, no digital sensor even comes close to it. With good lenses you can reach the diffraction limit of the lens with this film, e.g. 240 Lp/mm at f5.6. Impossible to get with digital!
I've done such tests by myself, so I know quite well about the results.
I was inspired by two photography experts who have done very detailed and intensive scientific tests concerning that topic: Henning Serger and Tim Parkin. H. Serger has published his test results in the PhotoKlassik print magazine some years ago, and in some international forums (also here on photrio). Tim Parkin has published his results on his onlandscape magazine:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
And the results of H. Serger can for example be found here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/
From my test results I can completely confirm the results of Tim Parkin and H. Serger. They have both done excellent work.

I am aware of that Tim Parkin link and have read the article before. However, I don't regard that comparison as particularly valid to this discussion as he is not comparing the results of the D800E to 35mm film, but rather to results from 6x7 and 4x5.

I have also read through that RPX 25 thread before. I think the crux of the problem with these lp/mm comparisons is they depend on the object contrast, as is mentioned in that thread; with that in mind I suppose I should not have used the term "out-resolve". However, at the end of the day I will believe what my eyes tell me in terms of what is perceptually sharper, and in this regard I have never once seen an example from any 35mm film which approaches what comes out of my D810.

Anyway, we can always agree to disagree.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Ken Rockwell is one of those people who if he says something that confirms your already held bias, he's a genius, and if you fundamentally disagree with him, he's got his head so far up his ass that when he sneezes, he farts.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

It's often easy to see when Ken Rockwell is being an entertainer with his hyperbole. Sometimes you just laugh - and I suspect he's having fun and hoping you'll laugh.

However, his site and the work he's put into it has many areas of merit. For example, his Nikon Lens Compatibility Chart and his coverage of older lenses and film cameras. Also, he's done numerous tests, such as of many 50mm lenses, many types of teles and zooms, where he photographs a landscape and shows the centeral part and edge part of the images from these lenses. It allows you to see real-life optical performance.

 

[wyofilm]

Ken Rockwell is being an entertainer with his hyperbole

He is entertaining (and provides useful info of which I benefit). He probably has no fewer than 10 'best camera ever' on his site - or so I imagine. If his site went away tomorrow for whatever reason, I would lament the loss.

 

[film_man]

I'll give Ken on thing, the stuff he actually tests it is useful as he does look at specs and little details nobody else does. For example, check out the photos of how much a lens intrudes into a Leica viewfinder. But the opinion pieces...

 

[Huss]

It's been my experience that Nikkors capture the "smell" of the world rather than "pretty it up" like Zeiss & Leica.

My Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8 is the smelliest lens I've ever used. Much more stink than any of my Nikkor glass, let alone the aromatic effluence of my Leitz or Zeiss glass.

 

[N4646W]

If I recall, some time back in the fifties or sixties, Zeiss got the glass material for their lenses from Nikon, as it was of a better quality. I assume this has been sorted out by now. Also each manufacturer has their own method of grinding, coating, ect. so, in general how do you compare their lenses or any other to another. What you use the lens for and what satisfies you with the final image is what counts.

 

[AgX]

Features not covered in resolution tests:

-) bokeh
-) minumum focusing distance
-) position and grip of focus/aperture ring
-) damping
-) pitch of the helicoid
-) orientation of the helicoid
-) weight
-) readability of figures
etc.

-) turning of filter ring whilst focusing

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Features not covered in resolution tests:
...
-) position and grip of focus/aperture ring
....
-) damping
...
-) readability of figures
...

Good points. This is mostly subjective, but to me the best feel and best grip I've ever encountered are on the Pentax Super Takumar lenses of the 1970's: the knurled focus and aperture rings provided just the right amount of damping and assurance of control.

As for readability, there are many nicely designed lens markings. If I had to pick just one, I'd give highest credit to Hasselblad CF lenses.

 

[GLS]

As for readability, there are many nicely designed lens markings. If I had to pick just one, I'd give highest credit to Hasselblad CF lenses.

Until they get rubbed off that is

 

[guangong]

Several years ago I was at the Thornwood, NY headquarters of Zeiss microscope division and was told that although some camera lenses are manufactured in Japan, a Zeiss representative is on site to assure quality control.
As with automobiles, camera lenses can be made anywhere. Quality control accounts for much of the difference. A non photographic example of need for high quality control: U S lost tv and electronics manufacturing when the adopted Harvard Business School recommendation to eliminate need for quality control. The Harvard idea was that the customer would return defective item for exchange.

 

[Angarian]

I am aware of that Tim Parkin link and have read the article before. However, I don't regard that comparison as particularly valid to this discussion as he is not comparing the results of the D800E to 35mm film, but rather to results from 6x7 and 4x5.

From his tests it is easy to derive that the resolution of 35mm - as not limited by Nyquist frequency as digital sensors - is also higher than the D800. As explained above, I have also done direct comparison tests with the D800, D810 and the best 35mm films and with object contrasts above 1:3 film outresolves these digital sensors. There have also been tests by Zeiss in the past (published in their "Camera Lens News") with even higher values for film (probably due to a bit higher object contrast they used).

I have also read through that RPX 25 thread before. I think the crux of the problem with these lp/mm comparisons is they depend on the object contrast, as is mentioned in that thread; with that in mind I suppose I should not have used the term "out-resolve".

Resolution is always dependent on object contrast. No matter whether film or digital is used. As you have lots of different object contrast levels in each shot (due to all the different details) the resolution even differs a lot in every shot you take.

 

[Angarian]

Several years ago I was at the Thornwood, NY headquarters of Zeiss microscope division and was told that although some camera lenses are manufactured in Japan, a Zeiss representative is on site to assure quality control.

That is right. Both in former times when Yashica / Contax made some of the Zeiss lenses, as now with Cosina making most Zeiss 35mm lenses, there is a complete Zeiss quality control team in the Japanese factory to guarantee best QC to Zeiss standards.