Nikkor Z DX 16-50/2.8 VR

[Airy]

Another comparison, still at FL = 50mm and f/2.8. The slight difference in framing (the Zeiss pic is narrower) is likely the consequence of my moving back and forth. This time the luminosity of the pics is about equal, but the settings happened to be different: Zeiss: 100 ISO and 1/200s; Nikkor: 110 ISO and 1/160s. So yes, the transmission of the zoom lens is less: no surprise.
Other than that, both pics are very similar. The Zeiss bokeh is slightly smoother.
Sharpness-wise, the original shots (before resampling) show that the Zeiss clearly has a better micro-contrast.

[Airy]

Here are the screenshots of the 100% pic details (in the focus plane). Of course the Nikkor pic may have fallen victim to a slight focus inaccuracy (e.g. photographer moving between the focus setting at half-trigger and the full trigger), so the experiment should be repeated with a tripod.

[Airy]

This one at 16mm and f/5.6.

[Airy]

and some details. Fore some reason, they appear blurry (enlarged by more than 100% : 1 pixel from the detail is streched over 4 pixels on screen in NG). Dunno what happened.

[Airy]

Still 16mm, but f/8. Despite a probable onset of diffraction, the pic is full of details.

[Airy]

... so for travel, you may take this one, the 12-28, and maybe some stabilized macro lens serving as a tele (FL 90 to 105)... in my short experience with the Zfc, the smaller size, mass and inertia of the camera induce some more camera shake (compared to the massive Zf + grip), so I'd typically use a speed = 1/(2 * FL) on static subjects (where I'd use 1/FL with the Zf). Given the fact that the Zfc will use shorter FLs for achieving the same framing, that's a 1/2 stop difference.

[Airy]

Update - short distance (about 60 cm) test at 50mm.

Compared with my reference 50mm, the Zeiss Milvus 50/2:

- I confirm the shorter FL of the zoom at that distance
- with both lenses at f/2.8:
  - the zoom is darker by about 1/6 stop
  - center resolution (examined at 100% and 200% ratio) is *very slightly* in favour of the Zeiss (maybe the higher magnification contributes to this)
  - the Zeiss has a markedly shallower DOF; this is not due to field curvature as the difference is visible on both "sides" (closer and more distant)
  - Zeiss red color is slightly more saturated
  - on further stopping down, color and DOF are still different, but that's all.

I must admit that the zoom performs extremely well - in the center at least.

And that's it.

[richardHaw]

this is a pretty good lens, im surprised by it myself

[Gerhard2006]

... so for travel, you may take this one, the 12-28, and maybe some stabilized macro lens serving as a tele (FL 90 to 105)... in my short experience with the Zfc, the smaller size, mass and inertia of the camera induce some more camera shake (compared to the massive Zf + grip), so I'd typically use a speed = 1/(2 * FL) on static subjects (where I'd use 1/FL with the Zf). Given the fact that the Zfc will use shorter FLs for achieving the same framing, that's a 1/2 stop difference.

This reminds me of my film days when I could shoot my old Nikkormatt EL at a quarter of a second handheld. Then I bought an FE and I couldn’t hand hold it at a 30th of a second cause it was so light. Having a heavy camera makes it much easier to get a good shot like having a heavy gun which absorbs the recoil.  Thanks for your sharing all your insights on this lens. Regards, Gerry.