Zeiss ZF or Nikkor AF

Should I go for a Nikkor 50 mm f:1.4 AFD or should I go for a Zeiss ZF 50 mm

f:1.4.

 

I love razorsharp pictures and I like to avoid flash. I plan to mount my new

50 mm on my F5 and my D200. I have a Nikkor 28-70 mm 2,8. The 50 mm is meant

to be a light weight alternative when I do not intend to carry the heavy zoom.

 

I do not care much about autofocus so my question goes on the optical quality

and general handling. Has anybody tried the Zeiss and has anybody tested these

to standard lenses against each other? If so please state your findings.

 

Allan

I wouldn't think that the Zeiss could be that much better than the Nikon. I would find one to

test, but don't waste your money before you know it's going to be worth it. And I would bet

the 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor will beat the Zeiss in a resolution test.

 

Dave

Ken Rockwell is alway biased towards nikon but you get to see some sample pitures here

 

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/sharpness.htm

 

Hardly any differences on d200 from those pictures other than nikon 1.4D is exposing slightly more and slightly different colour renditions.

 

He misses out 50mm 1.8 earliest ais version which has longer barrel and focuses down to .45m. Some say this is possibly the sharpest 50mm from nikon.

I have both of these lenses, and am planning to sell the Nikon.

 

Both are very sharp. Unless you always use a tripod, you probably won't see a difference in optical quality. I personally like the color rendition of the Zeiss better, but this is strictly an unscientific subjective opinion. I haven't done any detailed comparisons.

 

As for general handling, the Zeiss is the clear winner. Its handling is so far superior to the Nikon that there's no comparison.

 

However, there is a big price difference. Unless you really, really need f1.4, you might consider getting a used Nikon 50mm/f1.8 AIS. The optical quality is just as good (in fact, I've seen a bunch of Internet review saying it's better than the Nikon 50mm/f1.4), and the general handling is as good as the Zeiss. Plus it's much cheaper, and also lighter.

I must say that I dislike Ken Rockwell's review over all. I don't care how big he might be. Look at Nikon 28-70mm AFS, the guy did not even use the lens and write a review. C'om...

 

I am not be able to tell you about ZF 50 f1.4, because i don't hv one. Do you know with ZF price you can actually get a Mint Nikon 50 1.2 Noct! That lens was 1000+ back then. A lot of light fall at 1.2, gets better way up. At f1.2 i say it is pin point sharpness. How do they look, here are my pic (no photoshop what so ever, just nikon coolscan.)(all shot f1.2, i think. No slower than 1.4 for sure):

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4918103

http://www.photo.net/photo/4918102

http://www.photo.net/photo/4918152

http://www.photo.net/photo/4918104

 

to me, color came out very nice in door no flash would you say? Do you need ZF? For me will be faster aperture all the way. I used to have 50 1.4 AiS. I don't remember it is any less than the 50 Noct. I only sold it because I wanna full metal 45mm Pancake. Perhaps you can put 45mm in your consideraction. It has saturated color. 45mm P Sample pic no PS:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4918088

http://www.photo.net/photo/5002911

http://www.photo.net/photo/5002909

http://www.photo.net/photo/5002907

Given you 'do not care much about autofocus' have you considered the 50/1.4 AI or AIS in the interest of 1) what most would consider to be better handling (vs. AF version) and 2) cost? The optical formula is identical to that of the AF and AF-D versions. I have several 50's and find the 1.4 AI/AIS to be very capable based on several qualities. I've no experience nor am I familiar with the Zeiss performance. At first blush it strikes me as having a certain cache due to the name and price. Whether or not the cache is sufficiently warranted based on performance...? Most significantly is your intended purpose; large and well-done prints?

 

Your budget and low-light intentions might warrant consideration of the Nikkor 50/1.2 (AI/AIS). Being a specialty lens you'd want to familiarize yourself with its' strengths and weaknesses before purchasing...most prominent of which may be the so-so performance at greater distances. Quite pleasing at near-to-mid distances. Often times I'll reach for the 1.4 (9 oz) or 1.8 (8 oz) vs. the 1.2 (13 oz) esp when weight is critical...and often is for what I do.

 

Aside: most lenses (arguably high-speed in particular? and with the exception of those that are truly optimized for max ap performance, e.g. a Noct / Noctilux) perform markedly better stopped-down one stop (even better at two, etc.) as it relates to sharpness and especially contrast. I've found this to be very apparent in the 85/1.4 AIS as it relates to contrast; f2 is a world of difference. I recall the AF version offering much-improved contrast at 1.4. Many people, myself included, rarely shoot an f1.4 lens at full-bore unless absolutely necessary, instead opting for f2 or thereabouts whereas f2.8 lenses are used wide-open frequently. Caveat: there are exceptions to what I've noted here as this is not teeth-bearing dogma.

By the way, 50 AFD is same formula as 50 AiS I think. It will be as good as 50 Noct AiS or perhaps better than Noct in Quality.

William, the Noct-Nikkor is a 58mm f1.2 and carries 10x or more the price of a 50/1.2. I would hope you weren't 'taken' by a 50/1.2 Noct?

"These lenses are almost identical in sharpness."

 

The 55mm Micro ~= 18-200 VR. Who knew?

>>>>>"These lenses are almost identical in sharpness."

 

The 55mm Micro ~= 18-200 VR. Who knew?<<<<<

 

Remember that nikon dslr are not FF so it's much less demanding as it only uses the center

part of FF lenses.

Lily W, I just thought the word "Noct" is meant for aperture that is 1.0-1.2 which rout from Leica 50mm 1.0.

 

Yes, 58mm f1.2 is hard to find and more price, mine is 50mm f1.2 AiS.

I hv never see in person a 58mm f1.2, I also hvn't see images produced by 58mm 1.2. With its market price, I will never go down to that route. Personally I doubt 58mm will be that much better than a 50mm 1.2, but that is my opinion....perhaps it is my sour grape thoughts. I just don't hv the money to test it out :P

 

I am very happy with my 50mm 1.2 AiS/ 50 1.4 AiS/ 45mm 2.8....i preferr manual lens better for handle. Lens quality is just one part of the question, the other is how you take the picture with a quality lens. Photography is so hard.....

Allan, the dpreview has a review on ZF 50mm f1.4 if you do a browse. To me, it seems like ZF might be a bit too creamy wide open and when close down, the lens did not bring enough Bokhen differnece.

 

I am not trying to talk you down on buying a ZF, but I would say spending smart. When Nikon lens isn't poor in quality, why spend much more extra? the money you save is another lens perhaps you need it.

 

Do a search, you will find it. See the result yourself. He has side by side with 1.4 AiS i think.

Allan, these MTF curves of the Planar 1.4/50 ZF indicate softness full open and excellent performance at f5.6

 

http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar_1-4_50_ZFen/$File/P1_4_50ZF_EN.pdf

 

Just what I have experienced myself.

 

You might check MTF curves for the forthcoming Macro-Planar 2/50 ZF as well.

Thank you everybody for many good point of views. I have read Ken Rockwell's review thoroughly and find it interesting even if he is too much Nikon Biased. What I find most interesting is: 1) the ZF is in general fully comparable to the Nikon, not much better, not much worse. 2) The ZF is produced by Cosina in Japan, it is not a German superbrand and the handling is comparable to Nikon, not like a super luxury lens.

 

So I really do not see the reason for putting extra money into having a Zeiss. Looking at Nikon I think I would go for a brand new 1,4 AFD, firstly because it is cheaper as new than a mint AIS in my country - I guess due to big volume production. And secondly because I will get more advanced metering when using it with my F5 and D200.

 

I have come to the understanding that when using AIS lenses, matrix metering is not possible and advanced metering with SB800 is also limited. I will then get the autofocus version and not the optimal handling - I prefer the distance ring on manual lenses, but you cannot get it all :-)

 

You all helped me sort this out. Thanks a lot. I was tempted at first by the famous Zeiss brand, but have landed on both feet again.

 

Allan

AI-S lenses can matrix meter on the F6, D200 and D2's, you just need to input the focal length and aperture data.

 

They don't ptovide focus distance info for flash metering though, this is the sole advantage of the otherwise lesser AF-D (I'm aware they share the same optical focmula, but I've yet to see an AF version that can match the performance of the AI/AI-S ones. I suspect this is a QC issue more than anything)