Comparing Lenses

 

Sometimes, I compare my lenses taking the same subject with different glass. Why? Actually, I do not know. Maybe I want to convince myself that the investment was worth it. Maybe also, because I like to travel light, but not too restricted. Is it really worth to take the prime with me? Or could I get through the day with just my zoom? Anyway, this yields something to write about here.

It is also a guessing game for you. Would you be able to spot the difference? For a start, the picture above is the Nikon Z 105mm MC, one of my best lenses. The image is sharp where it is focused. But it has also shallow DOF. For a smooth background, I need f/4 at least which is my best compromise. Especially for portraits f/4 is most efficient.

This is the Nikon Z 50mm f/1.8 at f/4. Of course, the view is different. But you can take a Meike ring for the 50mm and focus closer.

The difference to the 105mm is surprisingly small. The focus is also not the same, so you cannot really compare the images. That is real life! Photography is often a hit and miss, and the technique matters more than the lens.

How about a cheaper lens, like the Nikon Z 28mm f/2.8? That is not an S-line lens. What can you do with it?

As you see, you get a different look. The single flowers are now a bush of flowers. There is still a single one in the center which is surprisingly sharp, even at 100%. Wide angle lenses also magnify closer objects. So, the one in the middle stands out. The picture is still at f/4. I would consider it a very decent shot of the scene.

Here, we have another story. We see the flexible Nikon Z 24-200mm at 105mm. The aperture is now f/6.3. The image is clearly less sharp and crispy than the 105mm, maybe also due to less care in focusing. The background is still smooth enough to be pleasant. For most purposes, the picture is perfectly okay.

Finally, a second one from the 24-200, this time at 35mm and f4.8. It is the best focal length of that lens, and it shows. I would consider the shot a rival to the 28mm image above. But the latter offers f/2.8 and is much lighter and smaller.

What have we learned? Well, there are differences. The most important one is the weight and price. The lenses also offer options which are not shown here, like wider apertures or closer macros. For ordinary shots, I consider all Nikon Z lenses good enough. Just use them well!

If we acknowledged that all Nikon Z lenses are better in every aspect than the G lenses of a generation before and that photographers took great pictures with these lenses, we should get a bit less concerned about the sharpness of our lenses. They are all good enough for most situations, well corrected for chromatic and other issues with excellent coating to prevent flares, and sharp in the center even wide open.

To put it another way, your images don't necessarily improve with a better lens. You need to know what you want to achieve and what you need for the task. This is more important than anything else.