kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I use the Piccure+ plugin, which noticeably improves the apparent sharpness and microcontrast of even mediocre lenses.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You can get a general feel by looking at lens ratings at DxOMark.com and others ratings but keep in mind that the things that they are looking at may not be the same things you find important. In most cases you will not see what they are measuring unless you pixel-peep.

I use both Leica and Zeiss f/2 to f/2.8 manual focus lenses with my A7 II (24 MP) and mostly Nikon f/1.8 G with my D610, except for a 35 mm 35 MM Tamron. At f/8 or f/11 they are all as good as I need them to be for landscapes and general photography. I also have a Nikon autofocus zoom that works very well since corner sharpness is not a requirement.

Unless you are planning to use a resolution greater than 24 MP, you probably don't need to break the bank.

tusketwedge Loc: Nova Scotia Canada

out of the top 10 lens made there are 3 in the 50 range ,leica apo-summicron-m 50mm f/2 asph ,Leica summilux-m 50mm f/1.4 asph and the sigma 50mm f/1.4 dg hsm a. This info is one the Swedish site Objestvtest.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Probably worth looking into but Google can't find "Objestvtest". Can you give us a link?

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am with Jim on this. It will be difficult to find an experienced photographer that will not praise the quality of Zeiss optics but does that quality justify the money asked for those lenses? That is for you to decide.
I have an old (1974) Nikon 50mm f1.4 S lens that I had converted to AI so that I could use it with my digital bodies. To begin with it is a single coated lens although the rear optical element is blue while the rest of the glass is amber. I get gorgeous images from this lens with a sharpness and clarity that amazes me. Obviously, I do not need a Zeiss lens in that range. I also have a 1967 Nikon 105mm f2.5, also single coating that renders images that I could compare to any other lens in that range.
More modern lenses like my 12-24 f4 AFS is sharp enough for me and the sharpness and clarity of my old 80-200 f4.5 and the 70-300 VR are more than enough for my needs. I am not saying these lenses are better than Zeiss lenses but their sharpness and quality are more than enough for me.
Zeiss and Leica lenses for Japanese cameras are made in Japan and they have AF. Although they are supposed to be built under strict manufacturers' standards they are not like those lenses made by Carl Zeiss in Germany.
Finally, a lens or a camera are only tools. Sharpness will depend more on your techniques than in the quality of the lens. Modern lenses, irrespective of the manufacturer are very sharp for my standards.

cdayton

Nice Dino's are selling at auction for $400K or so - wouldn't have been a bad investment a few years ago although they are, in fact, ugly.

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

There are Zeiss lenses and then there are lenses which are made in Japan under Zeiss license. The Sonys, while often excellent lenses, are NOT the same as the Zeiss lenses made in Germany by Zeiss. Until you use a ZEISS made lens, you may have difficulty understanding this.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Simply stated, yes, Zeiss lenses are worth the money.
--Bob

braying mule

Hi: I am a new registrant, but an old guy Some of you may remember a photographer nicknamed "mumbles", aka Ansel Adams. Mr Adams always started at the end, the paper print, then worked his way back to the lens. Paper has not and probably cannot keep pace with improvements to lens formulae. So, start with your final product and work back to the equipment necessary to produce that product. Previsualizing, with a mind toward your final use requires planning, BUT, it may save enough money to actually GET TO where great photos are waiting for you personal touch.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

I use several CZ lenses with my Nikon cameras. I can't really speak to the technical stuff (why are they better?) but in my experience, the CZ lenses are sharper, render better color contrast and give a beautiful bokeh. Pricey, but worth it.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

The questions I would pose are:1)do you have an unlimited budget; 2)will you get optimum results with the digital and film cameras you own, or do you need to upgrade these too? 3) do you use the care in setting up and taking photographs to reap the benefit of better performing lenses?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

If you really want to obsess over sharpness, move to a larger format. That may mean using film.

Full frame lenses are better than medium and large format lenses at the same enlargement but not at the same print size.

For example, a full frame image enlarged 8x makes about an 8x12 print. A 4x5 negative needs only a 2x enlargement to make an 8x10 and even a modest large format lens is going to look sharper.

At 8x enlargement the 4x5 can easily make a 32x40 image.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I can agree with Scotty on this one. Some years ago, I purchased a 4x5. Over the next 6 months, or so, I used that camera exclusively. Then I picked up my Nikon F / 50mm and shot some photos. I was initially appalled with the quality of an 8x10 print I made from one of the negatives. Could not using a camera over a period of time cause it to degrade? Nonsense.

Anyone to whom I showed the print said it looked quite sharp and could see nothing wrong with it. It was simply the amount of magnification of the 35mm negative vs. the 4x5 negative that caused the issue. Was I relieved. Yes, I still use both of those cameras, along with several others acquired along the way.
--Bob

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I am going the other way, to old triplets and Tessar designs and anastigmats and the occasional double anastigmat. They are not sharp nor contrasty, but they have a quality of rendering that modern lenses cannot touch. They are certainly not good for everything, but for some subjects, in their sweet spot, they are great.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Do yourself a favor and stick with the OEM lenses made for your camera body. If you have a Nikon D610, buy lenses by Nikkor for that body that will automatically auto focus and do things like allow you to adjust the f/stop with the camera, not having to turn a ring. I'm sure Nikkor glass is great glass and you would not be able to discern the IQ between Zeiss and Nikkor.