Nikon D200 + Zeiss 2.8/25 Distagon

Will invest in first digicam and put my mind on a D200 with a prime 2.8/25

Zeiss Distagon. Has anybody made experience with this combination? Or would you

stick to the prime AF Nikon lenses? Thanks for your thoughts. Andre Bosmans

I have both the Distagon 25 ZF and Nikkor 24 AF-D, but use them on Fuji S3. The

difference is striking in favour of the Zeiss. You can find the MTF tests at photozone.de to

actually quantify this. The ZF though is about twice as big as the Nikkor, and obviously it

does not autofocus. I haven't tried the lens yet on a full frame, but there is a thread about

the 25 Distagon on the alternative systems forum at fred miranda. The conclusions are

that the border sharpness may be somewhat disappointing. However on a D200 cropped

frame this lens is fantastic. I think there is no point to look for a Nikon prime as an

alternative, I would rather consider it against a first rate f2.8 DX zoom like the 17-55 or

the full frame 17-35 f2.8, if a slight loss in max sharpness in favour of more flexibility and

autofocus could be your game, considering that the prices are pretty close for all three.

It might also be noted:

 

 

1. The Zeiss lens retails for $874, while the Nikkor retails for $310 (B&H prices).

 

 

2. The Zeiss lens does not pass subject distance information back to the camera, the D-lens technology being particularly helpful in on-camera flash metering.

The D info is obsolete technolgy (D-TTL compatible cameras, Nikon changed their flash system a few years ago). For the D200, you do not need D unless you need extra information that comes with the EXIF data.

 

The current i-TTL system will work with this ZF lens.

 

The ZF lens also will close focus better than the AF Nikkor.

"The D info is obsolete technolgy (D-TTL compatible cameras, Nikon changed their flash system a few years ago). For the D200, you do not need D unless you need extra information that comes with the EXIF data. ... The current i-TTL system will work with this ZF lens."

 

 

I just got off the phone with Nikon Digital Technical Support (NDTS) (800-NIKONUX), which reiterated that D information IS NOT obsolete. According to NDTS, subject distance information, passed from D-compatible lenses to the D200 body, IS calculated into i-TTL exposures for maximum accuracy.

 

 

"The ZF lens also will close focus better than the AF Nikkor."

 

 

This is an interesting statement, and I'd very much like to see someone with access to both lenses do A-B test shots at 1-3 feet to prove its validity. The Nikon AF-D lens has a Close Range Correction system (floating element), which optimizes close-up images.

 

 

Though other modern Zeiss Distagon wide angle lenses employ floating element designs for better close focus, incredibly, Zeiss apparently didn't build a floating element into the expensive ZF lens.

 

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/D_2.8_25ZF_EN/$File/D_2.8_25ZF_EN.pdf

 

 

And there's this quote from a recent 25mm ZF reviewer shooting a distortion chart close-up:

 

 

"I reshot the (chart) with the ZF several times, but couldn't get a sharp corner at any aperture below f16 at that range ? which is surprising, because the lens appears to have been designed with a 6cm minimum focus capability, but according to the Zeiss web site, no floating element?"

 

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zf25_canon24/zeiss_zf25h.html

<i>I just got off the phone with Nikon Digital Technical Support (NDTS) (800-NIKONUX), which reiterated that D information IS NOT obsolete. According to NDTS, subject distance information, passed from D-compatible lenses to the D200 body, IS calculated into i-TTL exposures for maximum accuracy.</i>

<p>

Unbeknown to the NDTS, my AF nikkors work just fine when used with an SB-800.

 

<p>

<i>Though other modern Zeiss Distagon wide angle lenses employ floating element designs for better close focus, incredibly, Zeiss apparently didn't build a floating element into the expensive ZF lens. </i><p>

So? Many lenses (from various designs/makers) perform just fine at close ranges without floating elements.

"Unbeknown to the NDTS, my AF nikkors work just fine when used with an SB-800."

 

 

But a D-series lens will provide more accurate exposures in tough flash- and even some ambient- lighting situations where the subject is off-center in the frame, is backlit or takes up a small potion of the frame. "D info is" not "obsolete technolgy" and the Zeiss ZF lens doesn't provide this information to the camera.

 

 

"Many lenses (from various designs/makers) perform just fine at close ranges without floating elements."

 

 

But, according to the reviewer above, the Zeiss ZF lens does not perform well at close range. And note that the reviewer above was provided a pre-production test sample from Zeiss- not a production lens- so sample variation was presumably not an issue:

 

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zf25mm/index.html

 

 

What gets me is this- there are no reasonably-objective tests online directly comparing the Zeiss ZF 25mm with the Nikon 24mm f/2.8 AF-D lens. Nevertheless, despite the ZF lens being made by Cosina in Japan- not Zeiss in Germany, despite the ZF lens costing almost 3x as much, despite the Zeiss lens lacking AF and a CPU, despite the ZF lens being about twice as big and heavy as the Nikkor, people are ordering the Zeiss lens sight-unseen based solely on the nameplate.

 

 

If it were me, I'd want to take- or at least see- some A-B test shots taken with the Zeiss lens and the Nikkor before I bought the ZF lens. If the Zeiss lens isn't objectively optically better than the Nikkor, I'd feel pretty stupid paying out the wazoo for the Zeiss lens with a 20-year out-of-date lens mount to use on my DSLR.

<i>But, according to the reviewer above, the Zeiss ZF lens does not perform well at close range. And note that the reviewer above was provided a pre-production test sample from Zeiss- not a production lens- so sample variation was presumably not an issue:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zf25mm/index.html</i>

<p>

Eric, You have quoted the same "test" elsewhere to advance your views

on the ZF lenses. Market will eventually decide if they worth anything or not. The Contax 21mm Distagon is one of the most valued lenses today, regardless of its brand name or where it was made.

 

The i-TTL works as good as it can with non-D lenses, chipped manual focus lenses and the like, in my hands. Why have a preflash when you can program everything in the lens' chip? I can understand why NDTS would push D lenses G lenses.

Vivek, you make unsupportable arguments, then abandon them when you are proven wrong in favor of inuendo:

 

 

"Eric, You have quoted the same 'test' elsewhere to advance your views on the ZF lenses."

 

 

By putting the word "test" in quotes, you apparently dispute that the reviewer was conducting a test? And regardless of where the test has been cited, do you have information to contradict the reviewer's photos and assertion that the ZF lens performed poorly at close range? I guess not.

 

 

"Market will eventually decide if they worth anything or not."

 

 

The question isn't whether the underfeatured ZF lens is "worth anything or not." The question is whether the ZF lens has ANY advantage over the 24mm AF-D Nikkor lens, with the ZF lens costing almost 3x as much.

 

 

"The Contax 21mm Distagon is one of the most valued lenses today, regardless of its brand name or where it was made."

 

 

Which has what to do with what? Contax lenses had competitive features and were competitively-priced in their day. (And, as an aside, the Contax 21mm Distagon had a floating element for better close-up shooting.)

 

 

"The i-TTL works as good as it can with non-D lenses, chipped manual focus lenses and the like, in my hands."

 

 

i-TTL works best when it receives subject distance information. But you can believe what you want.

 

 

"I can understand why NDTS would push D lenses G lenses."

 

 

Setting your inuendo aside, you apparently can't provide any objective information to prove Nikon wrong in its assertion that its cameras will provide more accurate exposures when provided with subject distance information.

Eric,

 

The Contax 21 Distagon value shot up way over its past store prices due to its demand from other (non-Contax) users. Is any lens worth 3X the price of another lens? If a lens focuses to 6cm vs 30cm (or thereabouts), it is for me.

 

If in doubt, try the iTTL with manual focus lenses with no chip, chip with no D and chip with D. Nikon has not provided any tests to back up their purported claim over a phone call either.

I don't care much about tests. I know that I shoot a couple of non-D non AF old Nikkor primes on my D200 and have used them with the SB 800 and had no problem with exposures. "Accurate" is actually an acceptable range of proper exposure. You don't need a computerized lens on the D200 to get good/proper/accurate exposure. If you need that much accuracy in critical lighting situations, you are probably going to be using studio lighting in manual mode carefully metered and not any form of ttl anyways. As far as the lenses, i use an old 24 2.8 AI and its great. I would love to see real photos, not some test, over a range with the Zeis 25. Just ordinary photos in different situations. Same for any other lens one wants to compare. The rest is just talk. Vivek do you have some Zeiss photos up? Would luv to see some pics.

Not that particular lens, so I won't get into the merits of the Zeiss vs. Nikon image quality, or that weird discussion about "3D metering".

 

I've experience with about a dozen different manual focus lenses on the D200 and D2X, and I would recommend the purchase of a split image screen for your camera. Katz Eye Optics makes good ones. I've used theirs, and I've also milled Nikon K3 (FM3a) screens to fit.

Hello Andre,

 

I hope you got the D200 , 25ZF combination.

You didn?t say for what type of picture you are using this set up.

 

I have the D200 and the 25ZF and love it.

 

This lens inspired me. I am exited every time I can use it.

The lens has character and charm and when under stood is a beautiful tool.

It is a great lens if you have time to take the picture.

The Zeiss lens is less noticeable (vs my AFS Zoom) and works well with the build in flash.

The color reproduction is fantastic and has a emotional factor to it (like good wine)

(The sharpening function in the Nikon software does not work as well

with the zeiss lens in compared to the Nikon AF-S lens but the better color makes up for it.)

 

In situations where I need ?instant? focus I use a 28-70mm 2.8 AFS.

(this lens I over all like, except that it clips the build in flash of the D200.

So I have to carry a separate flash and this big lens.

I only shoot for personal use and hate when people take notice of my equipment.

 

PS

I find the comments in reference to the ?close up? test amusing.

 

Does this matter? What type of close up picture? With a wide angle?

I can only see the point if you snap very flat samples.

( and then your object must be perfectly plan parallel with the lens.)

In my world, I hand hold the camera and lens and play with the angle

To take (for my personal use) interesting pictures.