D300 and Zeiss 28/2 ZF

Curious if anyone has tried this combination. I shot a few frames with the D300 and Nikkor 28/2.8 and

was not overly impressed with this lens.

Which 28/2.8 Nikkor did you use? The Ai-S version is superb. The AF is atrocious. The AF-D is somewhere in between - actually I quite like it, high contrast and high color saturation. Just isn't super sharp wide open.

 

The 28/2 ZF is really new. I haven't heard of anyone who has one yet.

Nikon sold over 40 million Nikkor lenses.

Try your lens with another camera. Try a different lens with your D300. Define what does impress you as chances are that Zeiss will not impress you either.

I do have the 25mm and 35mm Zeiss lenses and if I didn't have the 28/2 Nikkor, I would be lining up to order the 28/2 Zeiss. The Nikkor is smaller which makes it convenient in many cases. I think I prefer the 28/2.8 Ai-S of the 28mm Nikkors I've used.

 

The Zeiss lenses which I do have have minimal CA (virtually undetectable) and are very sharp wide open. The 25mm is a bit dark in the corners wide open on a 35mm body. Don't have a Nikkor 24mm to compare it with.

Ilkka,

 

It was the AF version. It was all that they had available in the store.

Jeff, if you can, try to get your hands on the 28/2.8 Ai-S. It's a super nice wide angle and a bargain. If you need the speed I am sure the Zeiss is nice though, but it's more expensive too!

The Nikon Ais 28mm f2.0 is a very good lens see the photozone.de test. Its hard to see why someone would would not get the Nikon at less than half the price to use.

I can think of several reasons. IMO the contrast and color saturation of my 28/2 Ai-S Nikkor are not has high as many of my AF lenses, including the 28/2.8 AF-D. I do like the 28/2 Nikkor and use it often, mostly because it is fast and handles really well.

 

The Zeiss is available new (with 2-year warranty), while the Nikkor is not. When new, the prices was just as high as the Zeiss is now, even higher in some countries. It can take some searching to find a mint 28/2 Ai-S Nikkor in some parts of the world, for example I wasn't able to find one in Finland. I finally bought one on a trip to London.

 

Of course if you can find the Nikkor at a low price, then it's a good choice. I wasn't so lucky.

The ZF lenses have bayonet hoods by the way, so they're a bit easier to use with filters.

Go here, see the two sample shots (a sales counter at a local shop).

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/shutterflower/sets/72157603529332176/

 

you will see that the Zeiss is visibly a better performer. Is it twice as good? Yes. I do believe that it's worth the 100% price increase over the Nikon option. You lose autofocus, but you gain optical performance, build quality, feel, and resale value...

 

oh, and people will respect you more if you own a Zeiss lens.

What I want to do, soon, is go out and shoot a good comparison of the Zeiss vs Nikon thing.

 

On a recent vacation, I took a D200 and the Nikon 35/2D. When I compare the images the D300 makes with the Zeiss lens, and those I made with the Nikon 35/2D, I have to say that much of the major difference seems to be the lens and not the sensor. It's sharper, but that could be the sensor...the area where Zeiss really blows the NIkon out of the water is color reproduction, microcontrast, and corner to corner performance on the DX sensor.

 

I'll concede that the AF is useful, and that focusing a manual lens on the D300 is not 100% accurate all the time because the sensor gives a range instead of a perfect in-focus point, but I am glad i bought the Zeiss instead of the Nikon.

George, thanks for the comparative images. Pretty convinving. I'm wondering if a Katzeye

screen would help with the focussing accuracy. Just not sure if they are available yet for

the D300. The results from the 35/2 lead me to expect similar or improved results with

the 28/2 given the legendary status of this lens.