backayonder
Senior Member
I am sure they will be very nice but I would have preferred Sigma first.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
ZEISS FOR Z MOUNT
- Thread starter nikpharm
- Start date
Initially, I was very excited that Zeiss is back, but after seeing the lenses they are likely to introduce, my enthusiasm went to lukewarm levels.
Few reasons why:
First, I'm not a particular fan of Otus rendering - while the lenses are still technically superb resolution-wise by modern standards, OOF areas are not my cup of tea. My personal preference is towards more artistic and smooth rendering, this is why buying a clinically sharp lens that I would put some of these "Black Mist" / "Hollywood Black Magic" filters doesn't make much sense, considering this will not address the out-of-focus smoothness.
Second, I do believe that the Nikkor S 85/1.2 is a masterpiece of a portrait lens that is cut above what Canon, Sony, or even Plena have to offer in this regard. Sure, considering the number of people shooting Sony tells me that there is a vast pool of potential buyers to go for the "punch" that a Otus lens would have, but I hope that this will not turn against Zeiss and make them give up the Photo market once again, this time forever. In this regard, something like a 100 f/1.4 would have had the better prospects on Z mount.
Keeping the wishful thinking line of thought - I would also have preferred a wider angle lens, instead of the 85 - maybe 25, 28 mm.
Hopefully, we will see some Milvus lenses as well. I personally prefer the more "analog", cinematic look some of these had, which is why I still keep my 1.4/35 and not too interested in replacing it with Nikkor S 35/1.2. Infact, I would have been more interested in an updated, more affordable fixed-lens compact camera with 35/2 lens, that doesn't run on Android, like ZX1 did.
Last, hope Zeiss made the chip report it as a Z lens. I'm still holding to my beloved Z7 II and shooting portraits with the Voigtlaender 35/2 is just not as fun as with Z8 - no face recognition with dynamic AF point placement.
Let's see what Zeiss people have for us. Hopefully, their new lenses sell well so that we see another line, along Otus.
Few reasons why:
First, I'm not a particular fan of Otus rendering - while the lenses are still technically superb resolution-wise by modern standards, OOF areas are not my cup of tea. My personal preference is towards more artistic and smooth rendering, this is why buying a clinically sharp lens that I would put some of these "Black Mist" / "Hollywood Black Magic" filters doesn't make much sense, considering this will not address the out-of-focus smoothness.
Second, I do believe that the Nikkor S 85/1.2 is a masterpiece of a portrait lens that is cut above what Canon, Sony, or even Plena have to offer in this regard. Sure, considering the number of people shooting Sony tells me that there is a vast pool of potential buyers to go for the "punch" that a Otus lens would have, but I hope that this will not turn against Zeiss and make them give up the Photo market once again, this time forever. In this regard, something like a 100 f/1.4 would have had the better prospects on Z mount.
Keeping the wishful thinking line of thought - I would also have preferred a wider angle lens, instead of the 85 - maybe 25, 28 mm.
Hopefully, we will see some Milvus lenses as well. I personally prefer the more "analog", cinematic look some of these had, which is why I still keep my 1.4/35 and not too interested in replacing it with Nikkor S 35/1.2. Infact, I would have been more interested in an updated, more affordable fixed-lens compact camera with 35/2 lens, that doesn't run on Android, like ZX1 did.
Last, hope Zeiss made the chip report it as a Z lens. I'm still holding to my beloved Z7 II and shooting portraits with the Voigtlaender 35/2 is just not as fun as with Z8 - no face recognition with dynamic AF point placement.
Let's see what Zeiss people have for us. Hopefully, their new lenses sell well so that we see another line, along Otus.
bokesan
Senior Member
Wrong on my part: I meant to write like an F-mount lens without distance information, i.e. AI-P or non-CPU.
I can't imagine Thom actually writing that. Do you have a link?
Native Z lenses support 5 axis stabilization: in addition to pitch, roll, and yaw (by tilting and rotating the sensor), they also can shift the sensor (x and y). That's needed when focusing closer, and that's why distance information from the lens is necessary to enable it. The Voigtländer Z-mount lenses don't supply that.
- Chris
anotherMike
Forum Pro
All good points. I have the 50/1.2S as well for when I need less vignetting, better bokeh, world class OOF transitions, but it's just too big to travel with in a very tight backpack for landscape use, and for general landscape use, the 50 apo is about as good as it gets (the 50/1.2S is about as good with slightly different rendering).
Not a link, because the quote is from Thom's Z6II book, but here's an image of the text:
pluton
Senior Member
Zeiss could use some improvement in the very wide lenses over the Milvus era designs. Currently, my Z 14-24/2.8 surpasses both my Milvus 18mm and the 2 Milvus 15mm's I tried for flat field of focus. The now-ancient Zeiss "classic" 21mm is still acceptable optically, as is the classic 25/2....but the FTZ adapter throws things off when using any of the F-mount lenses.
bokesan
Senior Member
In that section, Thom only talks about the FTZ adapter. And apparently, I am wrong because even CPU lenses that transmit distance information (AF-D, AF_S) get only 3 axes when used on the FTZ. Native Z lenses get 5-axis stabilization - that's why we'd like the new Otus lenses to be really native:Not a link, because the quote is from Thom's Z6II book, but here's an image of the text:
https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/na/NSG_article?articleNo=000044758&configured=1&lang=en_SG
Last edited:
I asked it to know the opinion of Z-mount users, not for my use.
Paddler213
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,204
- Reaction score
- 1,975
What do you mean by that? I haven't noticed anything being "off" when using the adapter.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
Hi! It's been a while since we've seen you post! Welcome back.
I've been under the weather a bit, so haven't had the time to really expound on this, but your comments about Otus rendering and punch and so forth are actually something I've been discussing (via PM) with Andrew Yew from these forums, and a lot of this came also from some things seen in the cine world, as well as my ongoing considerations of what makes good image quality is not always "the highest MTF50" in a test chart win.
Some day I'll hopefully get back to you on this, but I absolutely believe you are on to something here. It's a difference between, say, "natural" and "impressive" if that makes sense.
I've been under the weather a bit, so haven't had the time to really expound on this, but your comments about Otus rendering and punch and so forth are actually something I've been discussing (via PM) with Andrew Yew from these forums, and a lot of this came also from some things seen in the cine world, as well as my ongoing considerations of what makes good image quality is not always "the highest MTF50" in a test chart win.
Some day I'll hopefully get back to you on this, but I absolutely believe you are on to something here. It's a difference between, say, "natural" and "impressive" if that makes sense.
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
Looks to me like all the images are of the E-mount versions, they all have the same sized mount on them at any rate and look the same as the leaked image on an E-mount camera.
My guess would be the Z and RF mount versions will stay more of the same thickness along the length of the lens, or at least not get slimmer after the aperture ring but it does mean they'll be smaller than these images make them look.
DominikT
Forum Enthusiast
Would have liked to see Zeiss come out with a few z mount Loxia f2 prime, with a price to rival the Nikon 1.4 glass. But having an aperture ring to pair perfectly with the Zf body.
I bet it would sell like hotcakes, it’s the one thing I hear from almost every Zf user, ‘no aperture ring on Nikon lenses.’
--
Fuji X-Pro2
Fuji 23mm 1.4 WR LM
Fuji 35mm 2.0 WR
Zuiko OM 50mm f1.4
Zuiko OM 28mm f2
I bet it would sell like hotcakes, it’s the one thing I hear from almost every Zf user, ‘no aperture ring on Nikon lenses.’
--
Fuji X-Pro2
Fuji 23mm 1.4 WR LM
Fuji 35mm 2.0 WR
Zuiko OM 50mm f1.4
Zuiko OM 28mm f2
Last edited:
Nebido
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,508
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,405
A Loxia series for MILC would certainly not be in the same price range as the 1.4 non-S primes from Nikon.
This is not the Zeiss area of expertise and would not make economic sense in competition with the mass of Chinese and other third-party suppliers in this price segment.
Zeiss stands for very high quality, often class leading manual focus lenses that have their price, that's where their expertise and market niche lies in terms of photo optics, not the budget segment that Chinese suppliers can serve much more effectively at a fraction of the cost.
Even if Zeiss were to aim for such a price segment, this would only be possible with products where neither the optical construction nor the rest of the optical know-how comes from Zeiss, what would then remain would be a Tamron with the Zeiss label, for example.
If you are looking in this price range, you have a large selection of third-party providers in the Z-mount that can handle it perfectly.
Especially in the manual focus area and for this and there for high-priced, extremely high-quality MF lenses, the Zeiss brand stands apart from Tamron AF license stories.
This is not the Zeiss area of expertise and would not make economic sense in competition with the mass of Chinese and other third-party suppliers in this price segment.
Zeiss stands for very high quality, often class leading manual focus lenses that have their price, that's where their expertise and market niche lies in terms of photo optics, not the budget segment that Chinese suppliers can serve much more effectively at a fraction of the cost.
Even if Zeiss were to aim for such a price segment, this would only be possible with products where neither the optical construction nor the rest of the optical know-how comes from Zeiss, what would then remain would be a Tamron with the Zeiss label, for example.
If you are looking in this price range, you have a large selection of third-party providers in the Z-mount that can handle it perfectly.
Especially in the manual focus area and for this and there for high-priced, extremely high-quality MF lenses, the Zeiss brand stands apart from Tamron AF license stories.
Nice, huge fan of 85mm and huge fan of Zeiss, and huge of true manual focus lens, currently own a 85 1.2S, 85 1.8S, Zeiss Loxia 85 and Milvus 85 1.4, also waiting for the rumor E-mount Viltrox 85 Lab 1.2 to be announced, I will trade my 85 1.8S + Milvus for the new Z mount Zeiss any day, becasue I hardly use the 85 1.8S and no longer shoot with DSLR so good quality true manual focus Z mount is better than a F mount with adapter for landscape. but then I will give up the capability to adapt it on my Sony platform if I trade my F mount for a Z mount. hope I don't ended up with both E mount and Z mount.
Last edited:
Som Prasad
Leading Member
Manual Focus, sorry no go, better to get a 85mm f1.4 F Mount Nikon if the budget or weight carrying capacity does not extend to the Nikon Z 85 f1.2.
I still use my F Mount 105mm f 1.4 E with FTZII, for portraits, gives me everything I want.
I still use my F Mount 105mm f 1.4 E with FTZII, for portraits, gives me everything I want.
DominikT
Forum Enthusiast
The Loxia line was never very sharp to begin with, if you look at test charts they can’t compete with modern Mirrorless lenses. However they did have some nice character to them. Also we already have Voigtlander making very good lenses for the Z mount. So the Loxia could be just a bit better value. And perhaps offer some other focal lengths.
most of the cheap Chinese brands could have come out with a few nice primes for the Zf with proper aperture rings. But it’s not been the case. Except for the Viltrox 85mm prime. I’m not seeing any decent lenses. In fact Voigtlander is pretty much the only 3rd party lens manufacturer making fantastic lenses for the Zf system.
Terrible Photographer
Senior Member
Considering how good the Nikon f/1.2's are... I just don't think running these is going to be meaningfully better, if at all.
Only reason I could see one of these chosen over the Z mount version is for the manual focus gearing (because video, but at that point one would be running cine lenses anyway) or because there is something very specific required for some sort of scientific use, like ultra long-term timelapses where gravity might affect focusing.
Nebido
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,508
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 3,405
Ultimately, this is an absolute niche product, and if you don't see the justification for it, then it's probably because you're not willing to change your perspective.
I can see a few reasons, of course depending on the level at which the new Zeiss lenses perform.
For me, they also serve very different application scenarios. I wouldn't want to photograph an event with a Zeiss Otus 50/1.4, just as I wouldn't want to lug a Z 50/1.2 S around with me for long periods of time apart from special shoots.
But I don't see the Zeiss Otus lenses as direct competition to the Nikkor f/1.2 lenses. Ultimately, Zeiss serves a small niche here, primarily for lovers of optically and mechanically extremely high-quality manual focus lenses.
The deliberate omission of AF alone only appeals to a small group of potential customers who have a preference for high-quality MF lenses.
The Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 is in a different weight class than the Z 50/1.2 S, we are talking about almost 500g less weight and dimensions very comparable to a Z 85/1.8 S.
Or with a Sony 50/1.4 GM, 4mm thinner than this, but 4mm longer.
To get an idea of what dimensions we are talking about here.
So absolutely not comparable to a monster like the Z 50/1.2 S.
If Zeiss/Cosina manage to deliver at the highest level within the f/1.4 range, not only in the area of corrections that you would expect from an apochromat, but also in terms of bokeh and OOF rendering, then this is a highly attractive lens.
The Zeiss 85/1.4 does not really offer any weight advantages, as it is much closer to the Z 85/1.2 S weight.
But this is also aimed at buyers who consciously prefer MF and also attach particular importance to all-metal construction with the highest craftsmanship, build like a tank for decades of use.
The potential customers for a Zeiss Otus mirrorless lens are therefore usually consciously looking for the slower working speed and the ultimate low light precision and tactile experience of a high-quality manual focus lens.
I can see a few reasons, of course depending on the level at which the new Zeiss lenses perform.
For me, they also serve very different application scenarios. I wouldn't want to photograph an event with a Zeiss Otus 50/1.4, just as I wouldn't want to lug a Z 50/1.2 S around with me for long periods of time apart from special shoots.
But I don't see the Zeiss Otus lenses as direct competition to the Nikkor f/1.2 lenses. Ultimately, Zeiss serves a small niche here, primarily for lovers of optically and mechanically extremely high-quality manual focus lenses.
The deliberate omission of AF alone only appeals to a small group of potential customers who have a preference for high-quality MF lenses.
The Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 is in a different weight class than the Z 50/1.2 S, we are talking about almost 500g less weight and dimensions very comparable to a Z 85/1.8 S.
Or with a Sony 50/1.4 GM, 4mm thinner than this, but 4mm longer.
To get an idea of what dimensions we are talking about here.
So absolutely not comparable to a monster like the Z 50/1.2 S.
If Zeiss/Cosina manage to deliver at the highest level within the f/1.4 range, not only in the area of corrections that you would expect from an apochromat, but also in terms of bokeh and OOF rendering, then this is a highly attractive lens.
The Zeiss 85/1.4 does not really offer any weight advantages, as it is much closer to the Z 85/1.2 S weight.
But this is also aimed at buyers who consciously prefer MF and also attach particular importance to all-metal construction with the highest craftsmanship, build like a tank for decades of use.
The potential customers for a Zeiss Otus mirrorless lens are therefore usually consciously looking for the slower working speed and the ultimate low light precision and tactile experience of a high-quality manual focus lens.
Last edited:
pluton
Senior Member
Sorry, I was thinking "the FTZ throws the balance and handling off, and reduces compactness" and self-edited too aggressively! IMO, the longer length of the Z body plus FTZ plus lens allows for slightly steadier handheld shooting, due to the increased distance from body to where the left hand supports the lens.
I've observed no imaging issues with FTZ, FTZII, or Novoflex FTZ, except of course the inferior internal light baffling of the FTZII vs. FTZ. I actually added self-adhesive black flocking material to the innards of my 2 FTZII adapters, which seems to have quelled the FTZII tendency to bounce bright light sources from out of frame to in-frame.
--
-Keith B-
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum