My 50mm dilemma: D800

<p>Hi folks, </p>

<p>Been using my D800 on shoots all weekend, love it, great for low light, action, PJ, corporate, advertising, etc.<br>

So for several years now I have been using a combo of either the 50mm 1.4G or 60mm 2.8 D Micro. Both lenses are stellar, the 50 I have a brilliant version coming in close to my 35 1.4G wide open. But in using this new camera, I am wondering if I might be upping my game in replacing either the 60mm with the new IF/ED/AS-S version or selling both and getting the Zeiss 50mm F/2 Makro Planar.<br>

What I mostly use the 50 for is, well, everything, including some close ups that I might otherwise use the slower 60 for. The idea of using the 50 Zeiss for both advertising, editorial, food and even low light work has me wondering as I can always use an extension tube in order to match the 60's 1:1. The downside being of course the loss of one stop and it being MF only.<br>

Is the 50/2 Zeiss really *that* good?</p>

<p>How is manual focusing on the D800?</p>

<p>The 50/2 ZF should be the best fifty available on the Nikon mount. I havent' got one since I'm reasonably happy with the 50/1.4 AF-S, which is sharp to the corners, and also have the 45 PC-E and 60 AF-S Micro which are both excellent and offer more features than the Zeiss 50/2. </p>

<p>If you believe Photozone's objective tests, by f/2.0 your 50mm f/1.4 g has comparable sharpness with much less vignetting compared to the Zeiss macro. Optically, I don't think you're going to see any benefits of giving up your current lens for a normal lens with a relatively slow max aperture and no autofocus. Turn your Nikon lens to MF, and see how well you're able to keep up during "low light, action, PJ, corporate, advertising, etc." I'd guess that you won't be happy with the Zeiss. It also "only" focuses down to 1:2.</p>

<p>As far as replacing your 60mm with the AF-S version, you'll get the SWM autofocus, if that's important to you and nanocoating, if that's important to you. You lose a little of the manual focus feeling, as it will feel about the same as manually focusing your 50mm AF-S. Plus, the new 60mm is internal focus completely, which means that the lens stays the same size. This is good because it stays more sealed, but it's bad because that means that it changes focal length as you focus closer, so you have a bit less working distance for the same magnification. Optics-wise, from what I gather, you'll see no real advantage choosing one over the other. It's the ancillary features that will make the difference.</p>

<p>My only issue with the 50G is the mediocre bokeh....which can appear very nervous in photos. The Zeiss is a bit better....but I want Nikon to do a nice 50 f1.2 G and concentrate on the character of the lens. </p>

<p>I`m still on the fence on the D800. </p>

 

Thanks guys, the other reason I am looking at the Zeiss is smooth focus pulls for video, I have a 50mm 1.8 E that is great

optically and pulls nice, even though the ring is dinky.

 

Still thinking it over...

<p>Daniel<br>

If you are serious about shooting video and a smooth focus pull then you really should be thinking about something like this<br>

<a href="http://store.zacuto.com/Z-Focus-with-Zipgears.html">http://store.zacuto.com/Z-Focus-with-Zipgears.html</a></p>

<p>Only a Zeiss 50mm/f2 makro can cure ZAS, for a little while. :-)</p>

<p>Does DSLR video recording <strong>really need</strong> to be focused manually??? I`m surprised. If so, all my acquisition syndromes about recent cameras will burst like a soap bubble...</p>

<p>Jose<br>

If you are just shooting video to make a video the answer could be no.<br>

If you are shooting video to emulate film style shooting the answer could very well be yes.<br>

Pulling focus and follow focus are two very demanding techniques that AF just does not do very well. In a focus pull the point of focus is changed from on subject to another on cue. Usually for dialog. Follow focus is used as an actor moves through a scene. To make the 1st AC job even tougher the camera may be moving also, like on a dolly or a crane.</p>

<p>So I expect the AF from DSLR cameras in video mode, to work -at least- like on "classic" consumer video cameras (e.g. Mini DV tape ones)... well, I`m not a film maker (yet). Thanks for the clarification.<br>

If photography seem a difficult art to me (Photography: not point-and-shooting, I mean), I cannot say what film making is... </p>

Jose, it's not all that hard, I have directed a few commercial shoots using an F mount adapter. The stuff can be as

complex or as garage workbench simple as you want it to be. There are plenty of brilliant documentaries out there where

the cameraman just had a simple Arriflex and a few primes to work with.

 

I think I am just going to rent the 50 Zeiss and see how it stacks up. If I like, I will swap my gear around...

<p>I have a peripheral question: what's the problem with f/2.8? I mean, okay, two stops from f/1.4. But when I think about it, I don't need to shoot any lens wider than f/2.0 (I'd be happy with f/2.8, too). Unless you simply mean that you want the VF brightness at f/1.4.</p>

<p>I'm sure it will stack up; while sharpness (at photozone D3X tests) appears only slightly better than 50/1.4 AF-S, the Zeiss 50/2 has less CA.</p>