3 March 2008 Compare and Contrast
Here we have two pictures of Zoe taken with two very different lenses. The first is taken with theNikon 50 f/1.2, a several decades old design that is still a great performer. Using it feels like playing Abbey Road on vinyl with a tube amp. Notice that though it’s still very sharp, it plays down contrast in her skin. At this stage in her development, about three months ago at 6 months old, Zoe was also still a very placid baby. Mellow like the lens.
Here we have a shot taken today with the Zeiss ZF 100 f/2, a cutting-edge macro lens that just came out last year. It’s still fully mechanical, like the old Nikon, but only because they disdain to spend any money on new-fangled auto-focus gadgetry that could be spent instead on beautiful pure glass and solid black metal (or, more likely licensing issues with Nikon). This lens is like listening to Steve Reich’s Music for 18 Musicians on 8-foot tall electrostatic speakers (what, you haven’t?). Although the lighting is different so it’s hard to compare, notice how it has a much more neutral, clinical feel to it. It also has much more contrast, bringing each little hair and crinkle of skin into sharp relief. This lens is much more fitting to Zoe now, who although still sweet is revealing herself to be a feisty, strong-willed little girl. I call this her “I vill crush you!” pose.
(If you’ve read through this pretentious, geeky post you might as well click to enlarge to actually see what I’m taking about!)
3 comments in “Compare and Contrast”
March 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
strong now wait 10 years love the zeiss
March 4th, 2008 at 12:59 am
I thought the nikon 105 macro was the best until now. I just looked up the Zeiss 100/2 and it looks great. What makes the zeiss so much better than nikon’s macros? And how come I never see you posting macro shots! :p
March 4th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Well, the Nikon is nice by all accounts, but it is a very different lens. First of all it has vibration reduciton and an electronic motor inside, both of which, while offering their own benefits, take resources away from what really makes the image: glass!
From what I’ve read it also has even more contrast and punchy colors, while the Zeiss is much more neutral.
I kind of like the feel of the Zeiss,knowing it’s all metal and glass, nothing to break or go on the fritz. It’s an object fetish, I know. Still, someone will be using my Zeiss several decades from now, and it will still be worth nearly as much as what I bought it for for a long time. Neither can be said of the Nikon.