[C_Jones]

Thanks

You're welcome.

[timb64]

[WPRESTO]

A lot of scenics for the 16~85

[timb64]

85mm

[apete]

All, these are great photos. Congratulations! I love watching this thread.... but on the other hand it looks like you are pushing me to buy this lens ... and If you keep on posting I will need to reorganize my 2016 budget

[timb64]

All, these are great photos. Congratulations! I love watching this thread.... but on the other hand it looks like you are pushing me to buy this lens ... and If you keep on posting I will need to reorganize my 2016 budget

Apete,if you have the slightest inclination and can reorganize your budget I can strongly recommend it.I bought it back in August last year and I enjoy using it so much I probably post too many pictures on here as a result!

[WPRESTO]

At the posted scales and resolution limitations, I can see no differences whatever in the lower three images however hard I work at convincing myself there are some.

[Nicolas06]

At the posted scales and resolution limitations, I can see no differences whatever in the lower three images however hard I work at convincing myself there are some.

+1 To me I don't see any difference in theses pictures except framing and cloud that moved.

The real key point here is none of the picture are really that interresting. Lot of mess, no strong subject. A guy with a 18-55 kit lens but a strong subject will always win against even the most expensive lens but un-interresting subject/compo. Even more so on a landscape that can be taken at f/8.

I don't think the Zeiss are not great but I don't think there bad 35 and 85mm primes anyway that will not have outstanding micro constrast and sharpness closed down. and well at 35mm it is difficult to find a zoom that would not perform well neither. Choose a macro lens and you would have outstanding micro constrast and sharpness for quite low price in the focal range.

I would think of lenses like the Zeiss for the bokeh, focus transitions... Not even sure they would beat much cheaper primes on flare resistance.

[WPRESTO]

Criticism of the images is perhaps too harsh. Theses are tests, not fine art. However, at the scale and resolution of images posted on line, at least to my eye, there are no differences of IQ detectable within this set. What you might see in 11X14 prints is something else, but it might depend on how closely you viewed the image. Pixel peeping is, to some degree, an affliction rather than a way to evaluate lenses. And I suffer that disease.

[Nicolas06]

Criticism of the images is perhaps too harsh. Theses are tests, not fine art. However, at the scale and resolution of images posted on line, at least to my eye, there are no differences of IQ detectable within this set. What you might see in 11X14 prints is something else, but it might depend on how closely you viewed the image. Pixel peeping is, to some degree, an affliction rather than a way to evaluate lenses. And I suffer that disease.

Sure I understand that and it is not a criticism against the photographer. This is just that well we focus too much on technical aspects and we speak of it and show example that can't possibility give any hint of what being discussed. At that size and lighting conditions, a smartphone would already provide great results.

It is like driving a ferari in a city with traffic jam and discuss on the wonderfull accelerations you managed in that city. The most visible difference will be the lesser comfort and all the attention you would get rather than the wonderful driving experience.

[Rondec]

Sure I understand that and it is not a criticism against the photographer. This is just that well we focus too much on technical aspects and we speak of it and show example that can't possibility give any hint of what being discussed. At that size and lighting conditions, a smartphone would already provide great results.

It is like driving a ferari in a city with traffic jam and discuss on the wonderfull accelerations you managed in that city. The most visible difference will be the lesser comfort and all the attention you would get rather than the wonderful driving experience.

I think when you "test" lenses, you often end up with photos like these. There are plenty of other photos within this thread that are really nice. These ones give ideas of the rendering, contrast and sharpness of these different lenses and that is useful. Obviously it isn't just those factors that will decide whether or a photo merits re-viewing, but I do like it when folks shoot the same image with different lenses -- even if the scene isn't the most amazing one. So often, with really nice photos what you see is more a reflection on the skill of the photographer than the lens used and it is harder to evaluate glass in those situations.

[Nicolas06]

I think when you "test" lenses, you often end up with photos like these. There are plenty of other photos within this thread that are really nice. These ones give ideas of the rendering, contrast and sharpness of these different lenses and that is useful. Obviously it isn't just those factors that will decide whether or a photo merits re-viewing, but I do like it when folks shoot the same image with different lenses -- even if the scene isn't the most amazing one. So often, with really nice photos what you see is more a reflection on the skill of the photographer than the lens used and it is harder to evaluate glass in those situations.

Would be interresting then in theses examples to add a compact camera or even a good smartphone like an iphone6S and see how different our fancy DSLR look like on a landscape, 1024 pixel wide, iso 100.

I mean I would agree on bokeh, a quite high iso picture, something that would show different color rendering, so you would see actually something.

Here I can't see anything different. The poster say there is, but if we can't see it, well it could have posted no picture expect if his point was more really to show there nothing really relevant. But to say that, I think I would need a 100% crop or at least a picture in high enough resolution like 8MP.

[WPRESTO]

Considering the price differential, AF as opposed to MF, and the vastly greater versatility of the 16~85, the choice is a no-brainer unless you seriously need a high speed optic or you're a brand-snob..

[timb64]

An attempt at something a bit more "industrial"

[Nicolas06]

I agree. I didn't have time yesterday to post extreme crops. In the RAW files, up very close, you can clearly see the Zeiss lenses out resolving the Pentax. What I was shooting for was showing how nicely the 16-85 keeps up with the Zeiss lenses on detailed landscapes, but afterwards I thought the lack of difference in photos didn't really say much. Here's a couple of extreme crops that show a bit more. Unfortunately the zoom wasn't exactly in the same position as the Zeiss, but the Pentax crop is still close to an edge (upper left, about 1/6 the way over) while matching the same area found the Zeiss crop at the upper left corner.

Zeiss 85 crop:



Pentax 16-85 crop:

From my understanding we are past 100% but we clearly see a difference.

2 things would be lovely to know then:

- At what printing/screen size does it become visible and so detrimental to picture quality?
- What the center is like on that 16-85 ? Meaning could it be cropped to get compensate a somewhat short focal length?