Zeiss ZF lens

Waltitia Hollman

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
253
Reaction score
0
Location
Randallstown, MD, US
I was wondering how many, if any, have tried out the Zeiss lens made for Nikon mounts? They seem reasonably priced after conversion, all are primes (1.4-2.8 ranges), of course Zeiss, and lastly manual focus (which is to be expected). There's a little tidbit on the web page listed regarding certain funtions working with the D200 and pro D2 series.

http://www.zeiss.com/photo

I'm seriously considering purchasing the 50 1.4 .... just curious as to opinions on the ZF series. Anyone?
--
Infinity is forever.
 
Forget it. I don't think its IQ is superior than the Nikon original one for what you will pay for.
 
Waltitia

I understand your interest in the ZF series as I too share a new found love for this nicely constructed lens series. I recently purchased the 25mm f2.8 instead of getting the nikkor 17-55mm - nothing wrong with the nikkor mind you, in fact, I found the zoom quite a treat (I prefer my primes). I just wanted to try out this much-talked about and maligned lens to see for myself how it handles in real life - rather than what someone has to pass on about someone else's opinion obtained probably in a forum.

I got to shoot with the 85mm as well as the 50mm but went with the wider lens - my widest currently excluding the nikkor 10.5 fish is the Sigma 30mm f1.4, a lens I use a great deal and enjoy tremendously.

Anyway, about the Zeiss ...... first impressions were WOW! None of my fast nikkors feel or look (clearly a personal and subjective matter) like the ZF, not even close. The build of the 200mm f.2 comes the closest but even then not quite.

Next, my attachment to AF lenses became apparent. This is not a lens you carry around for casual Sunday shots of the kids and a walkabout the neighbourhood, the lack of AF requiring you to think about and prepare yourself before depressing the shutter. Convenience scores a ZERO, making it a lousy choice depending on your intended usage.

Thirdly, when you get used to manual focusing, you will delight in the super glide quality of the focusing ring. Quite the opposite was the zoom ring on the 17-55mm nikkor.

Fourth point is the precision of the markings when focusing at infinity. It is spot on - zero slippage.

Fifth, you get to reacquaint yourself with setting the aperture on the lens. That took some getting use to I have to say. I forgot quite often when shooting, dialling on the D2X to change aperture. Neither a good nor a bad thing. Simply an observation.

I must say I got to practise shooting using hyperfocal distance and thinking like they did in days past when that was the only option. I must say, I am extremely excited about rediscovering photography as an art again with this lens. The past two years have been for me a whirl of indiscriminate and excessive use of the shutter button. So I am pleased to "settle down" in my photography. A lot more thinking and planning the shot now, in an unhurried manner.

So am I about to discard all my nikkor AF and AFS, VR lenses? I think not. I think the ZF has limited appeal for general use, that gap far better filled by the existing array of great nikkor lenses in circulation. But for those willing to part with the extra dollars, the ZF can allow for the appreciation of a fine piece of optic, albeit in a somewhat narrower set of circumstances - where picture taking is a joy in itself rather than a scientific comparison of sharpness, bokeh and aperture size. Is it better than a nikkor? Will it do things the nikkor is incapable of? Hmmmm, a Toyota can be as comfortable as (some would say more than) a Ferrari and achieve the same task of getting me from point A to point B for less money - doesn't mean I will always want to take the Toyota.

And all this writing would be incomplete without showing you some imagery. Here's to rediscovering the art again in picture taking. I hope you enjoy your ZF 50mm f1.4 - do share your images here please!





David
 
Not really impressed by your pictures, to tell ya the truth.

If you want info on the zeiss lenses, ask julia borg, since she owns a really hugh collection of these lenses and can tell you exactly wich are the best in their lineup.

The thing she told me about the 50 1.4 is that it flares slightly less then the nikkor. That's it. For some shots crucial for most not really.
 
the 21mm wideangle seems to be a legend. Best 20mm in the field, even better then leica, it seems.
 
Not really impressed by your pictures, to tell ya the truth.
Me either (sorry!).

Also, there are similar focal length AIS Nikkor lenses with great build and manual focusing that perform just as well.

Take my favorite, the AIS 28/2--it's slightly less sharp in the center at f/2.8 (though still very sharp), more sharp at the edges, has similar solid build quality and handling, has much less vignetting at f/2.8 and slightly less CA as well--all for about $200 on the used market. Another bonus--it opens to f/2 when you need it to.

I'm not a big fan of photozone reviews myself, but you can compare their take on these lenses here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_28_2_ais/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/zeiss_zf_25_28/index.htm

Greg
 
you should try out the lens before making assumptions about what it can or cannot do.
Not really impressed by your pictures, to tell ya the truth.
Me either (sorry!).

Also, there are similar focal length AIS Nikkor lenses with great
build and manual focusing that perform just as well.

Take my favorite, the AIS 28/2--it's slightly less sharp in the
center at f/2.8 (though still very sharp), more sharp at the edges,
has similar solid build quality and handling, has much less
vignetting at f/2.8 and slightly less CA as well--all for about
$200 on the used market. Another bonus--it opens to f/2 when you
need it to.

I'm not a big fan of photozone reviews myself, but you can compare
their take on these lenses here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_28_2_ais/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/zeiss_zf_25_28/index.htm

Greg
 
I'll get right on it--or not. From the images I've seen from those shooting it, there isn't much point.

Not that there is anything wrong with your studio images, or the stuff you posted on 3/7--just that I don't think they'd look any different if they were taken with a Nikkor 28/2 or 28/2.8.

My point in regard to it (Zeiss freaks aside) is that their are cheaper alternatives that perform just as well, maybe even better--nothing more.

Feel free to have your own opinion on the matter, that's the point of these Internet forums in the first place.

Greg
 
Now that I'm a little bit more experienced with photography, I know for a fact that my 17-55dx cannot produce the same kind of pictures my ZF28 can do. I don't know about the Nikkor 28/2 or 2.8.

And I also know for a fact that the Nikkor 85/1.4 and Zeiss 85/1.4 produce very different pictures -- though they are very similar.

You are trying to say that a BMW is the same as a Nissan.
I'll get right on it--or not. From the images I've seen from those
shooting it, there isn't much point.

Not that there is anything wrong with your studio images, or the
stuff you posted on 3/7--just that I don't think they'd look any
different if they were taken with a Nikkor 28/2 or 28/2.8.

My point in regard to it (Zeiss freaks aside) is that their are
cheaper alternatives that perform just as well, maybe even
better--nothing more.

Feel free to have your own opinion on the matter, that's the point
of these Internet forums in the first place.

Greg
 
Why don't you try first the new Nikon primes that 'll anounced soon?
 
That's right--I'm just thinking about build quality, sharpness, handling, CA and vignetting--I forgot about the special other category of lens testing "zeiss magic". I'm sure the ZF25 scores high in "Zeiss magic", you got me.

I shot the ZF50 and it was nice, but I just didn't feel the magic. I don't think I'd have to shoot the ZF25 to know that I'd miss out on the magic again.

Relax killer, I'm just stating the facts about cost and what reviews have said about sharpness, build quality, CA and vignetting and such. Facts shouldn't bother you so much. Why get so defensive?

You have your opinion, I have mine. :P

Greg
 
who's getting defensive?

the zeiss magic - the microcontrast - comes from fact that zeiss lens have high MFT numbers.. this matters when you are printing big..
That's right--I'm just thinking about build quality, sharpness,
handling, CA and vignetting--I forgot about the special other
category of lens testing "zeiss magic". I'm sure the ZF25 scores
high in "Zeiss magic", you got me.

I shot the ZF50 and it was nice, but I just didn't feel the magic.
I don't think I'd have to shoot the ZF25 to know that I'd miss out
on the magic again.

Relax killer, I'm just stating the facts about cost and what
reviews have said about sharpness, build quality, CA and vignetting
and such. Facts shouldn't bother you so much. Why get so
defensive?

You have your opinion, I have mine. :P

Greg
 
Okay, let's use the photozone MTF numbers for both lenses:

At f/2.8, the ZF 25 resolves 3.6% better at the center, and 3.3% worse at the edges than my cheap old AIS 28/2.

Now I see your point . . . or not ;)

No sense in arguing with me, I guess--I just don't see the magic.

Greg
 
You should probably ignore reviews and most users on these forums.

Buying a lens without the chance to try it out is "blind" and no matter how many reviews you read, you don't know what to believe and your personal experience may be very different indeed.

If you're trying to justify price/performance like most people think they are, you may find it's a ridiculously slippery slope that does nothing but turn you into a cranky equipment collector that doesn't give a damn about his/her craft.

If you're serious about photography, or if you care about having a good time, it's totally up to you to make a decision on what equipment you purchase.

Me? I like the old 50mm AIS Nikkor lenses, but the 50/1.4ZF was a very nice lens overall and quite pleasant to use. That said, I'd prefer the 40/2 Ultron, which is a tad smaller and just as well-made.
--
Robert.
Idealism is precious.
 
i'll get out my 60 times magnifier.lol.

The case is that zeiss renders the image slightly different then nikon does, some like the rendition that zeiss does a bit better and are preparred to spend more money for it.
 
I always like your take on things Robert. Very well said.
You should probably ignore reviews and most users on these forums.

Buying a lens without the chance to try it out is "blind" and no
matter how many reviews you read, you don't know what to believe
and your personal experience may be very different indeed.

If you're trying to justify price/performance like most people
think they are, you may find it's a ridiculously slippery slope
that does nothing but turn you into a cranky equipment collector
that doesn't give a damn about his/her craft.

If you're serious about photography, or if you care about having a
good time, it's totally up to you to make a decision on what
equipment you purchase.

Me? I like the old 50mm AIS Nikkor lenses, but the 50/1.4ZF was a
very nice lens overall and quite pleasant to use. That said, I'd
prefer the 40/2 Ultron, which is a tad smaller and just as
well-made.
--
Robert.
Idealism is precious.
 
The Zeiss ZF lenses are somewhat of a problem for me because there hasn't yet to this point been any reliable subjective reviews from the usual corps of subjective reviewers, and there may never be -- guys like Thom Hogan, Bjorn Rorslett, Ron Reznick and Michael Weber haven't said a peep about the Zeiss glass. Thing is - I don't put a lot of faith in MTF only tests and certainly would never base a lens purchase off the results in photozone.de, so if the subjective reviewers whom I tend to trust (since they have a good track record) and the MTF test sites aren't my thing, I don't have a lot of options since there really haven't been THAT many people here in the forums who have used the Zeiss ZF lenses and made coherent, sensible comparisons to the Nikkors.

So that means, as Robert says in his repy above, that you have to buy blind.

Buying blind tends to be a) risky - because you really aren't sure of what you get and b) might induce lens self defense syndrome if you spend the money and then a group of other folks feel that perhaps that wasn't the best lens for the task. It's likely better if you could try or rent one but I don't know if that's possible. I'd add that Zeiss seems to have certain design parameters they feel are much more important than others, and this does make them perform well on test charts, but this may not always equate to the best performance in ALL areas of image quality in real life. So I think an understanding of the various aspects of image quality married to your own personal thoughts on what aspects of IQ are important to you have to be included in your decision.

A few cautionary notes: I don't believe just because the name Zeiss is on the lens means it's automatically and instantly superior to anything Nikon (or Canon, or Pentax, etc) makes. There are, unfortunately, some Zeiss zealots in the forums who truly feel Zeiss is the best, period, and I think in this modern day and age of manufacturing, computers, and so forth, it's a bit unreasonable to proclaim one true and sole perfect lens maker. If we think about things a bit, I would tend to argue that Cosina in Japan, who makes Zeiss lenses from Zeiss designs, really is no better and likely not quite as adept as Nikon in terms of overall lens manufacturing capability. Note that this doesn't mean that everything that comes out of Nikons factory is perfect either - but I would place a reasonable wager that a lens that Nikon does really well (any of their legends) is NOT going to be beaten by a Cosina made Zeiss. Nikon didn't get to where they are by being bad at what they do, and let's not forget they were an optical commpany first.

However, being that nobody has an exclusive right to perfect lenses and that there are weaknesses in Nikons current lens lineup from an image quality point of view, obviously the Zeiss ZF lenses in some cases are quite possibly worth a serious look at an option. Note that this is excluding the very valid point of having to work more seriously and thoughtfully with totally manual focus gear - if that's something you value over AF, absolutely - but in this discussion I am talking image quality only, not artistic preferences, build preferences, etc.

So at the end of the day a Zeiss ZF 50 might be worth a look - in my view the Nikon 50's are just okay - nothing special, and the characteristics of the Zeiss 50 might be something different that you like. Personally the Zeiss 25 interests me more than the others - and I'd like to see some more tests of it. The Zeiss 35 seems, at least in the admittedly few samples I have seen, to have FAR too much CA in the real world at apertures I shoot at (F/8 or so) for me to consider it seriously - and I would augment this opinion by saying I think Zeiss often tries too hard to achieve maximum resolution at the expense of other image quality properties that I also value. The Zeiss 85/1.4 is the lens I think is the least worthy of consideration and doesn't interest me at all. I do think the current Nikon offerings are better, period, but I will also admit that the Zeiss 85/1.4 seems to have an entirely different character, the yin to the Nikkors yang, so to speak, and for some this might be construed as better when it's possibly just different. Most comparisons I've seen by folks who are not Zeiss zealots have come away saying the Zeiss 85 is the weakest of their lot, and on the other hand, even some of us who are not all that excited about the Zeiss ZF series still seem to be interested the most in the 25mm, and a lot of folks seem agnostic on the 50.

Me - I'd like to check out the 25 some day, and I'll always look at whatever they come out with to see if it's in a range where they might have something that works for me. Heck, if I used the 50mm length more (I really don't), I'd probably check out the 50. But I'm not going to rush off to buy a ZF lens just because of the name on the barrel. I do have a problem that some others have mentioned in their replies that so far I have not really seen any posted images that really sway me to thinking Zeiss has some unbelievable magic going on. Contrary to that, even through cruddy web jpegs, I have seen images through the years from legendary Nikon lenses like the 85/1.4, 105/2 DC and 200/2 AFS VR that made me stop in my tracks. Not really a fair way to look at it - there simply aren't enough folks using/showing/reviewing ZF lenses for me to get a really good feel, so at this point, outside of that 25, I'm a bit underwhelmed so far. (I woudl tend to think if the lenses WERE really super special and all blew away the Nikkors we'd see some of the known subjective reviewers talking about them too)

-m
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top