Carl Zeiss lenses: Reviews by Photozone

Started Apr 8, 2007 | Discussions
OP amarkin Regular Member • Posts: 372
Re: I thought that you were going to give it a rest...

I did not make a statement. I asked him a question.

He's been shouting in this thread and several times made personal remarks.

I think he needs be aware that it's better to have a friendly discussion with right or wrong opinions rather than flaming arguments.

lowfreq wrote:
ddk takes fine pictures -- it's his style.. you are making a
subjective statements about what is right and wrong in
photography...

amarkin wrote:
I was going to but then I read your comments and looked at your
pictures, and decided not too.People who can't photograph often are
the loudest and think expensive equipment will make them taking
better pictures.

Are you one of those?

ddk wrote:
don't worry about Zeiss lenses they're not for you. You already
know it all!

david

Pssssst, its Zeiss ZF and not ZT.

amarkin wrote:

If these lenses are as good as you say they are, why do
professional photographers
use Nikkors and Canon lenses? Probably, there are people out who
use these lenses and can actually photograph. The majority,
however, are enthusiasts. Leica makes quality lenses, however,
their famous lenses are made for rangefinders.

I've just looked at pbase where amateurs are putting their photos.
There aren't many pictures captured on ZT.
I could not find great images captured on modern ZT lenses or any
lenses produced by Cosina.

-- hide signature --

Nikons: D50, N80. Nikkors: 20-35 f/2.8 AFD, 50mm f/1.4 AFD, 85mm f/1.8 AFD

Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: Carl Zeiss lenses: Reviews by Photozone

I'm very new to the 105VR but used to own a zeiss 85f1.4 in contax mount....the 105VR has that flavor. I have a couple of Nikkors in that range 85f1.4 135f2dc and the 105vr has more contrast and deeper color than the other two....don't know yet if this is a good thing for portraiture though. Mine doesn't show much ca with d200 as some users complain about.

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Digital IV Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS 60D +40 more
Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: it's the other way around.

I use the ais 85f1.4 and cannot consistently MF this lens on a tripod using the D200. I wouldn't trust my MF skills at a wedding...on my f4 no problem.
Boris
--
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/
http://www.pbase.com/borysd

 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Digital IV Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS 60D +40 more
lowfreq Contributing Member • Posts: 743
Re: Carl Zeiss lenses: Reviews by Photozone

Very nice pictures Boris.. it's obvious you know how to use that lens.. and yes it's a good thing to have more contrast and colour in a lens because it means there's more luminance data captured in the RAW file from which a jpeg engine can use. If the contrast and colour is weak, there's alot of manipulating work to be done in PP just to get the colours to look right.

I didn't even know about the 105/2.8 vr. Looks like an interesting lens.

HansV Contributing Member • Posts: 792
Re: Carl Zeiss lenses: Reviews by Photozone

amarkin wrote:

CA on 50mm f/1.4 suprised me. Of all companies, one would think
Carl Zeiss could have produced a better 50mm lens.

Did you notice exaggerated CA with your Zeiss ZF 1.4/50?

The copy I used last week surprised me too: almost no CA visible.

Full shot:

Upper left corner crop:

The crop was from a straight jpeg conversion from RAW, no adjustments made, no USM.

Most opinions on the Internet are based on wrong data or misinterpretation of correct data. I wouldn't base my purchases on it.

-- hide signature --
 HansV's gear list:HansV's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D750
FrithjofA Contributing Member • Posts: 982
Re: bizzare reading skills

amarkin wrote:

If these lenses are as good as you say they are, why do
professional photographers
use Nikkors and Canon lenses?

because they are good lenses, too.

Professionals have always been using Zeiss lenses. But professional fotographers also use Vogelländer and Schneider-Kreuznach lenses. Rodenstock lenses are most popular amongs professionals since they are considered the best for view cameras (remember Nikon and Canon lenses are only for small format cameras and not usable on a sinar view camera which you need for architecture and product photography!) Canon or Nikon cameras and lenses are not of much use here, in particular with a digital body since they do not offer wide angle tilt/shitf lenses at the moment. (Kiev will offer some for Nikon pretty soon based on a Zeiss lens set for hasselblad.)

I've just looked at pbase where amateurs are putting their photos.
There aren't many pictures captured on ZT.

here you go: who do you conjecture from amateurs puting pictures on pbase toi professionals who are busy making money with their pictures and not posting their pictures?

again: the ZF's are not for amateurs who at very first start to complain about lack of AF features. Once you understand the concept of hyperfocal distances, you realize that you do not need AF for landscape shoots. In fact many threads one less sharp lenses here are actually caused by use of AF in the first place. Also for closeup shots on a tripod, I always switch of AF. Its useless since it tends to focus on objects which I do not want to be in focus.

Its you choice. Simply stay away of the Zeiss lenses.

FrithjofA Contributing Member • Posts: 982
Re: Carl Zeiss lenses: Reviews by Photozone

amarkin wrote:

There are a lot of people who can afford expensive lenses. Only few
are buying
ZT for their Nikons.

thats true.. but not a usefull argument.

there are also a lot of people who cannot afford good Nikon lenses and buy third party once. Thats does not make a 70-200VR or 2/200mm a bad or useless lens. Such a statement of your saids that not many people are willing to afford them and has nothing to do with the lenses and their IQ!

Even though the optics is more important than the body and usuall lasts much longer. I am puzzled that so many people pay 1000-2000 Euros for a body and are not willing to pay the same price for a lens?? My oldest MF Zeiss lens is 45 years old and workling. How long do you believe a D50/D80/D200 will function?

Just make survey: how many people by a D200 and 300 Euro lens (some Tamron/Sigma/Tokina etc ) and how many people by a D50/D40 and AF-S 17-55DX or a 2.8/70-200mm? I bet, the last is a rather rare combination, while the first is is very common. From the price, its not much difference. That tells me a lot about the judgement of the majory of active amateurs which does not coincide with mine.

Frithjof

Boris
Boris Veteran Member • Posts: 9,257
Re: bizzare reading skills
 Boris's gear list:Boris's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Ricoh GR Digital IV Ricoh GR Ricoh GR II Canon EOS 60D +40 more
FrithjofA Contributing Member • Posts: 982
Re: Nikon arge format lenses.

Boris wrote:

Nikon also has a line of large format lenses.
Boris
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=search&ci=4718&Q=&O=NavBar

thanks Boris for pointing that out. The people I spoke to here in Germany, however still seem to prefer Rodenstock lenses. A bit more expensive (a factor of 2 I guess) than the Nikons

OP amarkin Regular Member • Posts: 372
I could not agree with you more

Digital cameras are updated every 6-12 months and loose their market value quickly. A lot quicker than quality optics.

Few examples:

28mm f/2.0 AIS cost around $450? 35mm F/1.4 AIS, 85mm F/1.4 AIS, 105mm f/2.5 AIS
all hold the market value well. You won't find cheap ones in good conditions.

Here's another example my 20-35mm AFD, in exc+ cost more than my D50. The D50 was purchased brand new last year; 20-35 was purchased not long ago in used conditions. It's priced $600 in EXC+ by KeH trader.

There are excellent 3rd party lenses but Nikkors holding their market value better.

ZT lenses, well, I might be inexperienced and have wrong opinion; I still think these lenses were designed for niche market and quality Nikkors are a better choice.

-- hide signature --

Nikons: D50, N80. Nikkors: 20-35 f/2.8 AFD, 50mm f/1.4 AFD, 85mm f/1.8 AFD

OP amarkin Regular Member • Posts: 372
Re: bizzare reading skills

Let's not mix MF formats. Okay? There were no discussions about other formats.

The likes of Mamiya, and optics made by German companies will be compared. We were discussing Nikkors and ZT lenses manufactured by Cosina. Compare your bananas with bananas.

As for what and who should use MF and AF. That's up to the market and pro to decide. Many of them seem to like their AF lenses.

By the way, MF also goes AF and digital. Hasn't Hasselblad already offered one?

-- hide signature --

Nikons: D50, N80. Nikkors: 20-35 f/2.8 AFD, 50mm f/1.4 AFD, 85mm f/1.8 AFD

ddk Veteran Member • Posts: 3,661
Psssst

Pssst, you're still mixing it up, its ZF and not ZT!

david

amarkin wrote:

I did not make a statement. I asked him a question.

He's been shouting in this thread and several times made personal
remarks.
I think he needs be aware that it's better to have a friendly
discussion with right or wrong opinions rather than flaming
arguments.

lowfreq wrote:
ddk takes fine pictures -- it's his style.. you are making a
subjective statements about what is right and wrong in
photography...

amarkin wrote:
I was going to but then I read your comments and looked at your
pictures, and decided not too.People who can't photograph often are
the loudest and think expensive equipment will make them taking
better pictures.

Are you one of those?

ddk wrote:
don't worry about Zeiss lenses they're not for you. You already
know it all!

david

Pssssst, its Zeiss ZF and not ZT.

amarkin wrote:

If these lenses are as good as you say they are, why do
professional photographers
use Nikkors and Canon lenses? Probably, there are people out who
use these lenses and can actually photograph. The majority,
however, are enthusiasts. Leica makes quality lenses, however,
their famous lenses are made for rangefinders.

I've just looked at pbase where amateurs are putting their photos.
There aren't many pictures captured on ZT.
I could not find great images captured on modern ZT lenses or any
lenses produced by Cosina.

OP amarkin Regular Member • Posts: 372
I will rent 3 ZT lenses

I didn't expect the discussion to head in this direction. I think people have perception that I dislike or I want to bash ZT lenses. I don't.

For the sake of this discussion I will call the renting company in our town and ask if they have these lenses for renting. They may not have ZT lenses because they are new and are not in high demand. Anyway, I will try my luck.
Will shoot lots of pictures for a couple days if I get hold of the lenses.

I think it's good that other companies make lenses with Nikon's F mount as well as the bodies with can be used with Nikkor lenses.

I am not against ZT. I like my Nikkor lenses.

-- hide signature --

Nikons: D50, N80. Nikkors: 20-35 f/2.8 AFD, 50mm f/1.4 AFD, 85mm f/1.8 AFD

OP amarkin Regular Member • Posts: 372
Re: Psssst

Correcting typos - invaluable contribution to the discussion.

-- hide signature --

Nikons: D50, N80. Nikkors: 20-35 f/2.8 AFD, 50mm f/1.4 AFD, 85mm f/1.8 AFD

OP amarkin Regular Member • Posts: 372
Re: I will rent 3 ZT lenses

Oh yeah. ZF lenses. That's for those who have been offended.

-- hide signature --

Nikons: D50, N80. Nikkors: 20-35 f/2.8 AFD, 50mm f/1.4 AFD, 85mm f/1.8 AFD

Joon Lee Contributing Member • Posts: 521
Re: My two cents

I use the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 MF and enjoy pictures I get through them. It's different from the comparable Nikkor 50mm or even the Nikkor 85mm and I actually prefer it. I'm just not used to focusing manually after having used AF for so many years.

My advice: try it before you knock it.

Cheers,
CJ

HansV Contributing Member • Posts: 792
Good luck with the ZT lenses.

amarkin wrote:

I am not against ZT. I like my Nikkor lenses.

I'm not against Nikkor lenses. I like them very much. And I like my ZF lenses even more. I really don't know about ZT lenses: I never tried them, so I don't have an opinion about them.

-- hide signature --
 HansV's gear list:HansV's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D750
steve_wwww Forum Member • Posts: 54
Re: My two cents

I tried it and was not satisfied FOR MY purpose (portrait and nude). And not because it is a bad lens (it maybe even better than the Nikkor), but because its very difficult to focus and not as sharp as the Nikkor wide open. And finally, a 85 is a 130 or something like that with crop so not really so usefullfull for portrait with a digital camera (D200). Probably this lens is perfect with film.

It's a matter of taste, nothing more.

Today I got my Makro-Planar 50 and just made some shots. Even this lens is not so easy to focus for portrait, but from the few shots I made today it looks fine.

steve_wwww Forum Member • Posts: 54
Re: it's the other way around.

I second this ....... I cannot speak for the F4 (I have one, but never used it anymore since many years), but for the D200. In my opinion this lens is not usable for people pictures wide open. Of course, the Nikkor has the same problem, but is slightly better because of the AF. And when you have to stop down to use it, a cheaper lens will do it as well.

Fade Regular Member • Posts: 107
Re: Carl Zeiss lenses: Reviews by Photozone

photozone test is a lab test. Its 101percent correct but its dry.
Many time I like very detailed live tests. Like this:
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/#

btw one conclosuion(Zeiss ZF 25mm f2.8 v Nikon 24mm f2 AIS):

-If you're a Nikon shooter, the conclusion is irrefutable: as soon as it hits the shelves, run and get a ZF 25mm: it will be the sharpest and best corrected 24/25mm you've ever seen. End of story.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads