Oh So Tempted by Zeiss 2/35 ZF.2

<p>As per title. I have only tried out the Nikon 24-70 and 14-24 which have excellent image quality. The size and weight, especially of the 24-70 did put me off a little. On the other hand I'm blown away by the images from Zeiss lenses that I've seen online. As I'm sure you all know Zeiss are manual focus lenses, this coupled with the fact that Nikkor make some pretty decent glass is making me second guess my decision to buy a 2/35 ZF.2 lens for my D700.<br>

So far I've only used a Nikon 50 1.8G and it's a great lens, it's just that lately I've wanted something a bit wider. With that said, is there anyone else here that has gone ahead and bought a Zeiss 2/35 ZF.2 instead of any Nikon lens that covers 35mm and regretted it? Also, would it be more advisable to buy the 1.4/35 ZF.2 instead? I find the 2.8/21 ZF.2 very appealing as well.... I know.</p>

<p>Also, how important is it to get a focus screen installed in your D700 to use manual focus?</p>

<p>Thanks for any help with this. It's time to buy my next lens and I'm a little unsure as I'm looking at a third party lens. The only thing I know for sure is that I want something wider than 50mm. Because of this, I've considered a virtual myriad of glass. The Nikon 35/1.4, 24/1.4, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and the 16-35/f4VR. Zeiss wise, I've considered the lenses above 2/35, 1.4/35, 2.8/21 and more recently all other ZF.2 primes wider than 50mm such as the two 25mm and the 28mm.</p>

<p>What I shoot is really a mixed bag. I do low light cityscapes, day & low light, hand held Street-esque stuff. So the large aperture does come into it to a degree. Above all what I'm after is image quality, hence considering the ZF.2 series. That's not to say that Nikon doesn't have IQ, it's just that Zeiss seems to have something else, a certain character & a different kind of contrast & depth.</p>

<p>I know I'm asking a lot and throwing a lot of options out there but this is kind of where I'm at decision wise.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I manually focus with a D200 and lesser lenses, don't sweat it. For the Zeiss price, however, the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G gives noticeably superior optical performance, an extra stop of light, and autofocus for not much more money, considering what you get. The also-manual lens Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is as good a performer as they come, for about 1/3 the price of the Zeiss. Or, you could just buy a manual focus Nikon which gives about the same performance: 35mm f/1.4 AiS for about $600 or 35mm f/2 AiS for about $200-$250. The Zeiss is good, but I don't think it has commensurate pricing.</p>

<p>What Ariel said tho I find manual focusing a fast wide angle kinda tough, say, for quick candids. </p>

<p>I was oh so very tempted by the Zeiss 35mm f/2.... I think optically you will not find a better 35mm lens easily. I ended up buying the AiS 35mm f/1.4 for a lot less money (like half of what the Zeiss costs new). If you want a different character, this Nikkor sure does have it (lots of it, maybe too much of it).<br>

If I'd be buying now, the Samyang would probably end up high on the lists. Tests are very favourable, as is the price. At the other end of the spectrum, the AF-S 35 f/1.4G sure delivers too. And despite all that, I can understand the attraction of the Zeiss lenses still... see if you can rent them, and then make up your mind. It's a lot of money for its specific character.</p>

<p>I use this (and other) manual focus lenses on a D300, it's not always ideal (at f/1.4) but certainly doable.</p>

<p>Some <em>very personal</em> thoughts:</p>

<ul>

<li><em>"... Zeiss seems to have something else, a certain character & a different kind of contrast & depth."</em> I think it is called <em>autosuggestion</em>. Reality is what it is. Contrast and depth are not magical concepts.</li>

<li>Manual focus lenses at such price, <em>-with a recently designed 35/1.4G available to be used on a D700 or superior Nikon-</em>, seem to me a not-so-good idea. It is cool, maybe, but no so practical. </li>

<li>I`d get a split-image screen to focus MF lenses under dim light. Otherwise, focus accuracy matter of luck to me.</li>

<li>If you haven`t tasted a MF lens yet, I`d get a cheaper MF Nikkor (f2 or even f2.8 version) before the big expense.</li>

<li>Why not a 45P? Chipped and minimal, it is certainly a special lens (not so wide, I know).</li>

<li>About the 35/1.4AiS... what Wouter says. If you want "character", it has <em>loads</em> of it!</li>

</ul>

<p>Just to clarify, I don't want a manual focus lens. I would much rather have the convenience of auto focus. I did mention Nikon lenses so don't get hung up on the idea that your suggestions have to be manual focus. It's just that the Zeiss, with it's magical image quality, happen to be manual focus.<br>

I've only tried manually focusing with my 50 1.8G, I admit that on moving subjects it was a lost cause, for static subjects it was fine, although it took me a few goes for one or two shots. The arrows and dots in camera can be very touchy sometimes. That is of course, if it's not all in my head as well.<br>

With everything being as expensive as it is, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Sigma 30mm, unless I have convinced myself that it's better than it really is as well?</p>

<p>I'm a happy user of 35/2 ZF.2 Distagon for a couple of years already. On D700 it is a great lens for indoor shooting, especially concerts involving a mess of different light sources and colors. This lens is very easy to focus manually in comparison with AI-S glass - and I have about 10 AI-S lenses on my shelves to compare with. While I love my MF and AF Nikkors, I do really consider that is not autosuggestion about the quality of Zeiss glass. I have various lenses for portraiture and I tested even more... 70-200/2.8, Nikon 85/1.4 D, Sigma 85/1.4 D, Nikon 135/2 DC, Nikon 105/2.5 AI-S, Nikon 105/2.8 VR micro... all being great lenses... but I put my hand on fire than no one render the human skin so beautifully like Zeiss 100/2 MakroPlannar does. Of course you need a model with beautiful skin to make the difference :)</p>

<p>Back to 35... for the situations when I need AF I bought an inexpensive 35/2 AF-D and I am happy with it.</p>

<p>I must confess that I love fast primes and I had a serious NAS attack with the 35/1.4 last year. I went in a shop with my D700 and I tested the trio from Nikon, Zeiss and Samyang. IMHO after this test I found that Zeiss is too heavy for my taste, Samyang looks like a dog :) and Nikon is quite slow in AF. IQ wise, to my surprise, coming at home I must confess that without to look into Exif I was unable to tell which picture was shot with which lens. Of course that it was an unscientific test and in the real life there are situations when each lens will show its character, making a difference. And yes, the IQ is really great and one day I must go for Nikon 35/1.4 G especially if D800 will make obsolete my 35/2 D.</p>

<p>As for the OP. if I'd be in your shoes, for the type of applications you have I'll look for the new Zeiss 25/2 ZF.2 I'll be very tempted to buy that lens but I already have Nikon 24/1.4.</p>

 

<p>I think you'll find the Sigma 30mm is a DX lens.</p>

<p>Oh, well there ya go. :)</p>

<p>The physical mechanisms to focus lenses are similar with regard to MF and AF. They both use helicoid threads to move glass back and forth <em><strong>but,</strong></em> in effect, the gearing ratios are a world apart.</p>

<p>Some AF lenses go from 'end to end' ie min focus>infinity in less than a 45 degrees of rotation of the focus collar. Making small changes is quite tricky.</p>

<p>Most MF lenses have at least 180 - 270 degrees. My 55mm 2.8 AIS Nikkor Macro has way over 340!</p>

<p>This translates as slower but more precise focusing. This is, in no way, a fault of AF lenses, they're just built that way to allow a motor to do it's job quickly and efficiently.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I haven't shot this Zeiss, but Zeiss lenses are really heavy--the build quality will be the first thing you notice. I found that you can easily use the in camera focus aids (Canon shooting) but you have to get used to how they work. On mine, if you focused from close in towards infinity, the aids were perfect, the other way infinity in, they were off and the image OOF.</p>

<p>The Zeiss lenses are probably the best when compared head to head with the MFG lenses, or a draw at worst and the 35 is one of their best. Of course, that doesn't mean you will see the difference or that the differences will be critical to how you work. But photography is also a psychological game and having complete faith in your equipment can be a game changer.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>I have used several manual focus lenses on Nikon D300, D700, D7000. On D700, I used an adapted Leica Elmarit 35mm f2.8. Manual focus was not a problem for landscape-style photos. Learn to use the green dot. The following observation may be of interest. Comparing the Nikon 200f4 AIS and Voigtlander 180f4 ApoLanthar, I found my focus better with the Voigtlander. I suspect that sharpness and smooth bokeh at widest aperture may affect ease of manual focus.</p>

<p>I don't think anyone mentioned the 40mm f/2 Cosina-Voigtlander. OK it's not very wide, but it is a bit wider than the 45P that was suggested above, and it is supposed to be very high in quality. It's also chipped, a good thing for digital shooters. The 40mm focal length is also a very good walkaround general purpose lens.</p>

<p>I didn't see a lot of support for the 35/2 AIs Nikkor. It was mentioned, but not with any enthusiasm. It's a good lens, though!</p>

<p>"I've only tried manually focusing with my 50 1.8G, I admit that on moving subjects it was a lost cause,"<br>

Makes you wonder how we ever used to manage this! Seriously it's not that difficult once you get a few basis techniques, and 35mm is a fairly forgiving focal length unless used wide open. Try prefocussing and using a bit more DOF. Manual focus is not a reason not to buy a lens.</p>

<p>Tony: the way most of us used to do it involved focusing screens that did a lot more to help us. In the manual focus days, a typical focus screen had a split-image in the middle, surrounded by a ring of microprisms, and outside that a screen that diffused the light quite a bit, so when something was out of focus, it <em>looked </em>out of focus.</p>

<p>Most modern finder screens have precisely none of that. No split image or microprisms at all, and a screen with minimal diffusion. That gives a substantially brighter view, but doesn't show focusing or depth of field very accurately at all. That's not to say that manual focusing is impossible, just that most current cameras do a lot less to help out than manual focus cameras usually did.</p>

<p>Save yourself a bundle of cash and get the Samyang 35mm f/1.4. The Samyang beats the Zeiss on distortion, vignetting, CA and resistance to flare. There's nothing to choose between them in resolution either on an aperture-for-aperture basis, except, of course that the Samyang has an entire stop extra in hand for low light or getting a really shallow D-o-F.</p>

<p>Downside: The Samyang is bigger and heavier than the Zeiss, but balances quite well on a D700. Mechanical quality of the Samyang feels solid, and generally a lot better than most AF lenses. The handling is smooth and comfortable, and it doesn't feel like you've grabbed hold of a metal-worker's file by the wrong end! This might be a consideration if you're ever working on a cold day without gloves.</p>

<p>The only other manual focus competition to the Zeiss or Samyang readily available is the Ai-S Nikkor 35mm f/2. Above f/5.6 its corners lag behind the Samyang and Zeiss, but the little Nikkor is a lot more compact and lightweight though.</p>

<p>The supplied focus screen in the D700 is more than good enough for manual focusing BTW.</p>

<p>But new cameras have arrows that tell you which direction to focus, along with an AF confirmation lamp, so it's not as bleak as you make it. Also, my D200 doesn't have the arrows, plus it has a smaller viewfinder, and I still manage.<br>

The 35mm f/2 AiS that I mentioned before is being a little undersold here. It was in every wedding photographer's kit back in the day, but it probably does pretty poorly with flare and ghosting, due to its lack of modern coatings and being an 8-element lens (the new 35mm f/2 AF-D is 6 elements, the 35mm f/1.4 Ai is 9 but is multicoated, and the 35mm f/1.4G is 10). The Voigtlander is another great choice as mentioned. Really, it's up to you in the end, but as has already been said, if you always wanted the Zeiss, and you're still going to be thinking about the Zeiss even after you buy a different lens, then just get it over with and pick up the Zeiss so that you can move forward unencumbered.</p>

<p>If you can focus this lens properly it may be worth a try. Can you live with 20% of your images in focus? Can you stand taking whole bunch of action pictures and later finding all of them are slightly out of focus? I can't, I use autofocus lenses for 98% my handheld, action photography - 2% being manual focus fisheye lens.</p>

<p>Ariel, the Ai-S 35mm f/2 <em>is</em> multicoated. Along with every other Nikkor Ai and Ai-S lens produced since at least 1975. No, it doesn't have Nano-crystal coating, but then neither does the Zeiss or AF-D Nikkor.<br>

IME the 35mm f/2 is one of the more contrasty MF Nikkors and reasonably resistant to flare. If found <em>in good condition</em> (i.e. not overcleaned or otherwise abused) it can yield sparkling images, although it's best fitted with a hood since the front element isn't at all recessed.</p>

<p>Steve, do you want to learn to focus manually or not? Do you have the spare time and frustration tolerance to learn it "for your 35mm Zeiss"? Ok, if you do landscapes and seated portraits exclusively, it's easy. Much less so for street life, pets, children, sports etc. And yes, how much extra weight do you want to carry?<br>

The split prism screen helps in quite a few situations. In others (very dark, fine patterns) I go for the green ones. It's money very well spent, absolutely.</p>

 

<p>No, Steve already said he doesn't want manual focus. He does want the results he's seen from the Zeiss lens. Thus he has a conflict he hasn't been able to resolve yet: either give up AF or give up the quality he's expecting from the Zeiss. How to do this, since there is no AF Zeiss ZF 35mm for the Nikon. That's why he started this thread: for ideas to help resolve what seems an unresolvable conflict; a Gordian knot.</p>

<p>How do you solve a Gordian knot? You have to cut it. Steve: ask Yourself what you really, really, want. Not what everyone else thinks. And whatever it is, get it. </p>

 

<p>Buy the Zeiss and never look back.I am a little surprised that you get answers like Samyang is better ... It is definitely not!But of course everybody has its opinion.As for the Zeiss magic try it once and you will see that is ... true.</p>

<p>Steve I have a Nikon D3s for Sports and Wildlife and a Canon 5DII for hiking and landscapes. I too loved the Zeiss look and purchased the f2.8 21 and f2 35 Zeiss lenses for my 5DII. I still have both lenses. The f2.8 21 will give you exactly what you would expect, micro contrast, color, sharpness. Its a magical lens. The f2 35 not so much. The 35 is very very good but it is not a stand out. Its a great size weight and manual focus is not a big deal on such wide angles. If I shot landscapes with my Nikon I would probably get the 14-24 f2.8 since on paper it compares that well with the Zeiss. I used my 21 and 35 on most of my rocky mountain gallery at www.brianboland.net if you care to see them. Also if you google the 14-24 vs the 21 you will get a lot of hits as this is a question a lot of people are interested in. Hope this helps.</p>

<p>There's obviously no point in further presenting Zeiss fans with MTF figures, hard technical data or blind picture-versus-picture examples. Because it's well known that the guys at Cosina use the breath of dragons to smelt glass ingredients gathered from the foothills of Shangri-La. This glass is then ground in Elven foundries to be polished over millenia on the wings of fairies, lubricated by the tears of unicorns. The elements are coated using a secret distillation of philosopher's stone, sphinx blood and gorgon spittle. Each lens is lovingly assembled by gagged Sirens into perfectly machined barrels, of which only one in twenty-million meets the strict tolerance requirements, as measured by the smallest of Borrowers using Naniatechnology. Yes, those Cosina - sorry, Zeiss lenses really are magic!</p>

<p>As mentioned, MF-only lenses are generally much more precise, which makes them both slower to use, and more likely to be in focus. The shorter throw of an AF lens doesn't allow for much margin of error when manually focusing.</p>

<p>One of the largest benefits of the Zeiss lenses is that they generally 'breathe' less. By that I mean that as you focus a Zeiss lens, the magnification ratio does not change as much as other lenses. My experience is that most MF lenses breathe a little, and most AF lenses breathe a lot, although there are obviously a ton of exceptions. Either way, this is a very strong point for video, but not generally relevant for still photography.</p>

<p>However, building a lens like that is very expensive, and is probably not too important with your current setup. I would say that if you might do some video later, buy the Zeiss and start learning to use it now. If you don't see yourself getting into that, the AF Nikkor is more-or-less the same, minus objective differences, and gives you autofocus.</p>