To Zeiss or not to Zeiss

[glacierpete]

The rendering is different. Japanese glass like Canon, Nikon, Fuji (medium format) has more emphasis on contrast. Minolta glass is the exception they go more the German route of rendering like Zeiss, Leitz, Rodenstock, Schneider etc.

The third paragraph describes it very well.
http://www.16-9.net/sony_in_2008.html

 

[paratom]

I would go nikon AF.

I havent shot Zeiss on my Nikon, but I use some Leica and Zeiss glass on my M8 and dont find that the Nikon 85/1.4 lacks anything compared to my Leica 75/2.5 or the Leica 75/1.4.

What I can say is that I focus more accurate with AF (at least if some motion is happening which is often the case if you photograph kids and people.
Just my experience/opinion.
Regards, Tom

 

[stdon]

Sorry to say but it's all a matter of what look your prefer. I tried the Zeiss and frankly found the rendering to MY eye fairly ugly while much preferring my Nkkor version. I also much prefer my Voigtlander 58 f1.4 SLII to the Zeiss counterparts. I surely wouldn't buy a Zeiss for just the name. Cosina makes both and if you are one to hold any thing by the WTF graphs (I don't) The Voigtlanders are right there at a much more reality driven price point.

--
Don

 

[FrithjofA]

The basic thing I wanted to tell is:

• Zeiss ZF lenses are in no way better than great AI lenses.

AI(s) Nikkors 2/28mm, 1,4/50mm, 1,4/85mm, 2.5/105mm are stellar lenses.
Maybe you can get some scientficly better results, but you don't see
any diffeserence in your picture.

Personal experience? Did you compare the Zeiss lenses with the Nikkors?

• Maybe ZF 2.8/25mm and 3.5/18mm are a little better than the old SI

Nikkor equivalents, but it's definetly not worth the money.

Already the AF-S 14-24 blows away the old primes, and you see clearly how even a newer AF 2.8/20mm falls off. The Zeiss 3.5/18mm is pari with the Nikkor Zoom, as far as I can tell.

• I am German, I am an engineer, I like German engineering, but Zeiss

ZF lenses have nothing in common with that. Zeiss ZF lenses are made
by Cosina and Zeiss only sells the label to them.

There is a misconception that only German labor ensure quality. Lens quality depends on the design. Zeiss relys on its reputation of producing on the best optics in the world: Zeiss makes most of its money designing optics for the semiconductor chip industry. Cosina can build excellent lenses: as for any lens manufacturer its all a question of the price.

Your arguing in favor of Nikon contradicts you point.

It is the same as
the Leica lenses on the panasonic Lumix cameras - they just make
money from the label. Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad, made by
Yashica for Contax are something totally different.

I recomment to get a Zeiss less first, test it and then judge, not judge first without and knowledge of the lenses, please!

• For the money you have to spent on a Zeiss ZF 2/100mm you get e.g.

the AI(s) Nikkors 2/28mm, 1,4/50mm, 1,4/85mm, 2.5/105mm and a 4/105
micro in great condition.

Once you take on of the Zeiss ZF in your hand, you will realize there are as good even better in the building quality that the old Contax Zeiss lenses "Made in West Germany". I know what I am talking about: i own 3 Zeiss lenses for the Contax IIIa range finder and 3 Zeiss lenses for the Contax/Yashica lens mount! The ZF lenses are full metal lenses, not such wimsical plasic constructions, and the focus ring can be turned extremly smoothly, smoother than my old German Zeiss lenses.

I have not handles such high quality lenses for a long time.

I extensivly hat the change to play around with the ZF 2/50mm Macro and the 2/100 mm. Even though, I did not have my tripod, I could see that the 2/100mm has in IQ which blows you away. It has a chispness and contrast already wide open at f2 which non of my Nikon show. The bokeh is even better than my 70-200VR.

Originally I wanted to buy the AF-S 105VR but after seeing these performances, I most likely will buy the 2/100mm now.

Frithjof

 

[markus71]

Hi,

I used the Zeiss 25/2.8 and 50/2 Macro for some time, and compared the 25 directly with the 24/2.8 AIS.

I won't participate in the discussion which is better or not. Both companies make great lenses, and depending on the parameter you're looking on, there might be a slight advantage to one side or the other. In practice, it doesn't matter.

But the Zeiss lenses have a different characteristic, as some people already pointed out in this thread. And this does matter in practice, and it can be clearly seen also without a calibrated monitor.

I can't explain the difference in words because I am not an optical engineer, but the Zeiss delievers another color and contrast scheme than Nikon or also Voigtlander. For me, the Zeiss characteristic of the two lenses I had is simply "bold", in terms of contrast and colors. From looking at samples but without personal experience, I guess the modern Nikon zooms give a similar rendering. I was impressed at the first glance, but then I decided that I prefer more "dimmed" results, as I found at old AIS Nikkors (e.g. the 105/2.5, the 55/3.5 Micro), or also at the Voigtlander 20/3.5 or 58/1.4.

Summarizing, it is not about sharpness, it is about rendering. Zeiss lenses give a different look, and you have to decide if you want this look or not.

Markus
--
http://www.flickr.com/prime-shots

 

[glacierpete]

Are you referring to the new Voigtlander SLII 20/3.5 Aspheric Color Skopar? How do you like it?

 

[Kwanying]

Zeiss's ZF build is alot better than nikon's AI-s build...... I got 50 f1.4 ais, 108 f1.8 ais after i tried the ZF len i sold my 50mm ais and bought the ZF. Sold my 85 1.4D and bought the ZF 85 1.4. For now I'm saving for the 100 f2 ZF not to say 100 F2 is way better than 105 2.8 + 1.8 ais, 105 DC, or the 105 VR AFS. Best before you buy anything is you try it out with with your camera and go back home then open it in your pc.

If you can live with manual focus ZF is very worth it. The color, 3d feels, build, contrast, and detail in the shadows is something that got me into Zeiss.

 

[crew]

I went through several wides before deciding upon the Zeiss 18mm and Zeiss 25mm.

The Zeiss 18mm was far superior to the Nikkors 18mm f2.8, 18mm f3.5, and both 20mm f2.8 AIS and D-AF models. I had the 14-24mm for a short while and found the Zeiss to be relatively equal to that lens at 18mm.

I found the Zeiss 25mm to be far better then the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 and equal to the Nikon 14-24mm and 24-70mm at 25mm.

I travel and shoot more in the realm of "street photography" and prefer smaller & lighter lenses that not only draw less attention, but are easier to get around with.

My other lenses are the Voigtlander 40mm f2, Nikon 85mm f1.4 AIS MF and the Nikon 180mm f2.8 ED AIS MF. As you can tell, all of my lenses are MF and I use D700s.

 

[markus71]

Yes, I had the complete range with 20, 40 and 58, but eventually sold the 40 because this FL is more or less useless for me.

Here is a discussion of the 20: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=31308917

And here are some shots: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prime-shots/tags/20mm35/

Markus

 

[lp2dp]

Are you referring to the new Voigtlander SLII 20/3.5 Aspheric Color
Skopar? How do you like it?

There is a set of testshots of the CV 20/3.5 on my Flickr account mentioned below.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucdeschepper/