It is capable of tack sharp images on my 16 MP D5100.

My photos are much more limited by my ability than that lens.

Rockwell shows comparisions on his website. Someone would have to show equivalent work to provide meaningful input. Otherwise we have just unjustified assertions.

Here is another review backed by data:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15/

BTW I agree with their complaints about the rotating front end making a petal hood useless. I ended up buying an expanding round rubber hood for less than $8. I have to fold it back only at the widest angle. I don't use the widest angle on it any more anyway because I now have a (MUCH more epxensive) 10-24 for that.

The 16-85 can be had used for $450. It's well built and will last a long time. The optics are very good and the extra 2mm on the wide end is a big plus. The 18-55 is a very cheap lens with a plastic mount that you have to be oh so carefull with. I had one for 2 weeks and sold it. Cheers. I take Rockwells reviews with a grain of salt.

You know, I thought all was lost 3 years ago and set all aside for 5-8 years while I used a Sony H9 P&S 15x lens for fun. Kinda got out of it. The Sony was amazing. It did not have the quality of the Kodachromes of course, but oh well . . .

Then I found out about adapters to use my Zeiss glass on a Canon 5D. Holy shit! Since it was all manual anyway, this was perfect. So I bit. At that time the Mk2 was in huge demand because of the movie mode brilliance, so I bought one on ebay that came with a Zeiss 180 prime!! Ya baby.

I had to learn all over again. Sensor sizes, ISO, white balance - the whole gamut.

I loved the result - amazing - I was BACK again! Luving it. Zeis rocks..

But in the mix I discover that my Tamron 17mm SPO ultra wide was awful. Dreadful. To tell the truth, the Tamron is a piece of crap and worthy of a paper weight in the underground storage vaults of radioactive waste. Sensor vs film? Dunno.

Zeiss is incredible. What is the best? Hard to choose since all are world class, but if you use boketh, MTF and CA as a deciding factor- in descending order: 60/2.8 1:1 macro, 50/1.4, 180/2.8, 28-85/3.3 (my favorite for convenience), 70-210/3.5 (for convenience), 85/1.4, 300/4, 28/2.8.

The 28 has a so-so boketh which might have more to do with the Canon sensor - don't know. The 28 on the zoom is better than the 28 prime.

The 70-210 is pretty nice but Zeiss in Germany told me that the 80-200/4 is actually optically better than the legacy lens. But the boketh in the 70-210 is as fine as anything ever made - butter.

What makes these so nice is the color rendition, the creamy smooth out of focus aspects, the incredible sharpness esp the macro (world class). It is almost surreal.

So to answer your question, have I been able to get the look of the Contax system? With so much being done today in post, you can get almost any look you want. But there is something that I cannot explain that sets my prints apart from others work on canikon systems. Maybe I am biased. But others tell me that they can see something.

What makes this so beautiful is that I use these optics on my movie camera (Sony FS100). The result. Stunning! It may be that extra 5% that makes an unknown difference. I don't know.

Would I go to 3rd party glass? Only in a few rare cases. I covet the Voigtlander 15/4.5 and beg to get one any day now. And maybe a Zeiss 21/2 (stupidly expensive).

I sure like the built in auto focus features and IS on newer optics and these don't have it, so I have to be extra careful when shooting. That is where the Sony A99 kicks in - not even released yet!!. Any regrets? Nope.

I would like to try these on a Sony A99 and see what happens - the sensors are different and it might affect the image - who knows.

Cheers,
Take 5