What Zeiss ZF lenses would you like to see?

While some on this forum have made it clear they do not care about the new Zeiss ZF

lenses, I welcome the competition in the high quality manual focus F-mount lens market.

I'd like to hear what lenses people actually would like Zeiss to produce in the near future.

Please refrain from answering with anti-Zeiss posts; I'd prefer <i>not</i> to hear what

people <i>do not</i> want.<br><br>

 

From <a href="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/GraphikTitelIntern/01/$File/

01.jpg">PR photos</a>, Zeiss has released it seems that they are planning to release

28mm/2 Distagon, 60mm/2 Makro Planar, in addition to the first two lenses, the 50mm/

1.4 and 85mm/1.4 Planars. Zeiss said last month they are going to announce a line of

seven lenses at

the next Photokina, some of which were never produced before by Zeiss in the Contax

lines. I'm hoping they also will produce a 21mm/2.8 Distagon, a 35/1.4

Distagon, and a 180mm or 200mm/2.8 Sonnar in ZF mount.

15mm/2.8 Distagon, 100mm/f2 Planar, and 45mm/f2.8 pancake Tessar.

First of all, I have two Zeiss lenses myself, bought fairly recently in 2001 for my Contax 645. They are excellent lenses or I wouldn't have bought them in the first place. What I don't agree with is that Zeiss mystique nonsense.

 

The problem with the ZF lenses announced so far is that Zeiss is acting as if we were in 1986 instead of 2006. AI-S and focal lengths for 35mm film is out of date, and Nikon already has excellent lenses in those focal lengths. Those ZF lenses will only appeal to very few people who still shoot MF film and are also willing to pay a premium for the Zeiss logo. Zeiss will have a tough time competing against the huge inventory of used AI/AI-S lenses, very much like brand new F100's cannot compete against used ones.

 

What I'd like to see is some primes that fit the DX sensor, such as 60 or 70mm, f1.4 or 1.8 and perhaps a fast wide DX prime. Those are sorely missing in Nikon's lineup and are gaps Zeiss could fill. And if Sigma can put a CPU and AF-S inside a lens, I simply don't see why Zeiss cannot. My Contax Zeiss lenses are all AF-S equivalent with CPUs. But clearly, Zeiss is not going to do that.

 

I don't know whether the 4/3 system will eventually be successful, but the new Leica-Panasonic lens is at least designed for the modern time with IS/VR: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022608leica14-50mm.asp

A need that Zeiss could fill for me would be a a 1:1 macro in the 100mm focal length. If it

were available with a circular diaphragm and would be more petite in size than than the

current AF Nikkor (of which the AF function is superfluous for my needs). The Nikkor

105mm AF is a great tool, but it could be smaller and more modern in design. Strangely

enough, the new VR Nikkor Micro moves away from what I think a good macro lens should

be, but that's just my 2-cents. If Zeiss fills this need, I'm buying it.

Well, since we're just dreaming...

 

A rectilinear, sharp, distortion free 10mm f/2.8 Tilt/Shift for $1,000. It must be optimized for digital - no CA or internal flare.

 

Okay, that's probably asking a bit much. So I'll settle for a 15mm f/3.5 T/S.

We need a decent prime wider than a 16mm with Aspherical and CA correction. If a miracle can come true, let it be a biogon design. :)

I am also for T/S lenses but only if they will have the latest VR/G technology!

 

What can one do with a 350 lp/mm 50/1.4 or a 250 lp/mm 85/1.4 manual focus lenses. What a shame!

I don't think we know the size of the manual focus F-mount market. Clearly Zeiss thinks

they can make money selling ZF lenses for the same price as new Nikkors. Conventional

wisdom about the market totally shifting to digital/AF cameras seems to be wrong. Zeiss

has proved that there are enough filmophillic luddites in the world to sell to in the

rangefinder market with the success of the Zeiss Ikon and ZM lenses. Whether they

succeed again is anybody's guess. If sales are slow I think Zeiss might retrench, and in a

few years, come out with AF/CPU designs.

 

I doubt any Biogons will be part of the ZF line because they would have to be so deep that

a camera body with mirror lock-up would be required, using a hot shoe accessory finder

(like the first Nikon 20mm/4 design). Another lens I'd like to see would be a 25mm/2.8

Distagon, though I would probably not buy it myself (since I have the 25mm/2.8 Biogon in

M-mount). They really should do a 100mm/2.8 Makro Planar too.

<I>"The problem with the ZF lenses announced so far is that Zeiss is acting as if we were in 1986 instead of 2006. AI-S and focal lengths for 35mm film is out of date, and Nikon already has excellent lenses in those focal lengths."</I><p>

 

Gotta agree with that. I have 6 Zeiss lenses myself but I cannot see Zeiss attracting any substantial customers with their current and announced F-mount offerings. Let's hope those are just the beginning of more to come as the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 Planars are relatively easy converts from the Contax days. If Zeiss are serious about the F-mount may be some fast wide-angle primes would raise more interests.

 

I would not be interested in ZF med-to-long telephotos as telephotos are not Zeiss' strengths, at least from their recent Contax offerings. Plus both Canon and Nikon have the latest AF and VR (IS) technologies well horned if Zeiss followed they would always be a step behind. But what shines for Zeiss are their wideangles. AF and VR are not that critical for wideangles so they can carve out a niche there and fill the void. But they must optimize the lenses for digital as 95% of the time it will be the intended market.

In my opinion, AF is only needed for 1) fast action, 2) for photographers with poor eyesight, 3) when the manual focusing action of the lens and/or the viewfinder are less than decent.

 

I find manual focusing much more pleasant as I can focus on any part of the frame without a clumsy recompose procedure. Only with AF-S if AF generally useful, and Nikon hasn't put AF-S in all but a few of their primes. VR even fewer. And judging from the size/weight increase of the VR 105 micro, we can expect that if VR is ever put into WA, normal or short teles, the lenses would grow substantially and would certainly be less attractive except for specialist applications. IMO Zeiss can ignore these. I know many of you disagree, but IMO the niche to fill for Zeiss is to make a series of fast primes which outperform Nikkors wide open. This is sufficient to get my interest.

One 135mm/f2 Makro-Planar (or whatev'ar) would make me pop my piece of plastic.

No, you can't talk me out of wanting a T/S VR/G lens!

I own three AIS Nikors: a 35mm f1.4, an 85mm f2.8 and a 24mm f2.8. If Zeiss makes a better quality lens than what I have so far, I'll replace them right away, especially the wide angle lenses. Another good to have is a 20mm f/2.8, but since I'll be using that with a DSLR, I would prefer one with AFD capability (only high end Nikon DSLR supports manual lens, and its not worth spending all that money on a high end DSLR at this point in time due to high rate of obsolescence).

AF-D standard prime 1.4

"The problem with the ZF lenses announced so far is that Zeiss is acting as if we were in 1986 instead of 2006. AI-S and focal lengths for 35mm film is out of date, and Nikon already has excellent lenses in those focal lengths. ... What I'd like to see is some primes that fit the DX sensor, such as 60 or 70mm, f1.4 or 1.8 and perhaps a fast wide DX prime." -Shun

 

 

Word, Shun. Other than the few people on photo.net who keep putting up these repetitive, breathless posts, I don't know any photographers who would buy expensive, non-CPU 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss lenses.

The situation wrt. non-CPU lenses has changed totally now that the D200 and D2 series have full support of these lenses. Personally for me, first and foremost a lens has to be easy to focus manually. If AF can be made to coexist with the first property, fine. Would I pay extra for AF in such a lens? Unlikely. Would I pay extra for the manual focusing precision? Definitely. Would I pay extra for better wide open performance? Of course. IMO the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 Nikkors are terrible wide open on DX cameras and the first usable aperture is f/2.8, which is pretty good. On 35 mm film I can get usable results at any aperture of them, but as we know there is no FF DSLR from Nikon. So the lenses need to be improved wrt. their wide open performance to compensate for the small sensor. This has taken place in many new telephoto lenses but nothing has happened to normal or wide angle primes.

 

I know quite a few people who are fussier than I am about the ergonomics of cameras and lenses. I have put up (albeit with pain) with the manual focusing feel of AF Nikkor primes because of the lack of non-CPU metering support and poor viewfinder in the D70. I would have bought manual focus lenses if it hadn't been for this. With the D200, the situation is totally different. Expect this to be reflected in the prices of manual focus lenses on the used market, once a sufficient number of D200 bodies reaches end users. I don't want wobbling plasticy put-to-gether-with-double-side-tape lenses. Before, I didn't have a choice. Now I do.

After many years using Canon EOS exclusively, in January I finally decided to buy a Nikon outfit (still keeping my Canon). What did I buy? These days you can get an F100 or a F5 for very low prices, but there was not doubt in my mind: Nikon F3, 50mm f1.8 AIS, 28mm f2.8 AIS (brand new) and 85mm f2.0 AIS. I guess I�m right on Zeiss target.

"The situation wrt. (sic) non-CPU lenses has changed totally now that the D200 and D2 series have full support of these lenses."

 

 

The D200 and D2 variants DO NOT "have full support of (non-CPU) lenses." So, the "situation" has not "changed totally."

 

 

According to Nikon, with non-CPU lenses, the D200, for instance, allows Auto Aperture and Manual Matrix metering, Center-Weighted and Spot metering. The body will also indicate an aperture number after the user inputs the f/stop and focal length by means of the multi-selector switch. With non-CPU lenses, the D200 DOES NOT allow 3D Color Matrix Metering or, more importantly, D-TTL flash metering, as non-AFD lenses do not pass distance information to the camera.

 

 

At the store I work at, we have many customers whose ability to afford expensive equipment far outpaces their skill in shooting the equipment. If I had a choice of selling these customers a 50mm f/1.4 AFD lens or a more expensive non-CPU 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss lens, I'd sell them the Nikkor every time. Any slight increase sharpness or contrast with the Zeiss lens that could even theoretically be seen in finished prints would be more than outweighed by less-accurate ambient light and flash exposures for these photographers.

 

 

If you fancy the new Zeiss non-CPU Nikon mount lenses, I'd buy them while you can. I predict these lenses will sell about as well as Voigtlander's discontinued Nikon rangefinder mount lenses. In other words, I think the Zeiss non-CPU Nikon mount lenses will be discontinued within two years.

The 3D aspect of matrix metering is only mainly relevant if you use direct flash. I don't think anyone has demonstrated where it makes a significant difference elsewhere. I never use direct flash except in macro shots. All my indoor flash shots are diffused/reflected/bounced and so D matters not at all.

 

The manual focus lenses do support color matrix metering without the 3D aspect. The difference at least on my F5 was negligible in all situation which I could figure out (for non-flash metering).

 

In any case these lenses would primarily be used at wide apertures and this usually means no flash is used, otherwise one wouldn't have to use such a wide aperture (which always gives softer images than shooting stopped down).

 

In any case, manually metered flash works fine if you can use that, with digital or film. When I shoot weddings, I use color negative film, not digital so regular TTL flash works perfectly for me. Also, I would preferentially choose a zoom for flash work, and primes for available light. So I can't think of a practical problem with the Zeiss lenses that would affect me. I think the need for matrix metering and geewhiz-TTL is greatly hyped but excellent results are obtained with older technology when the photographer has a brain.

 

On the other hand manually focusing AF Nikkors like the 35/2, 50/1.4, 50/1.8 is a nightmare because of the clunky focusing mechanisms and the said double sided tape construction quality. Autofocus is not sufficiently accurate for shooting at wide apertures (how exactly do you focus on the eye with AF?) and only with a well constructed lens with a good focusing screen makes this type of photography feasible. These AF Nikkor primes drive me nuts when I try to focus with any kind of confidence.

 

Yes, there are a few manual focus Nikkors left but why not choose something that is a bit better than that if available? Most of the really good ones suitable for digital work e.g. 28/2 and 28/1.4 are discontinued, so Zeiss coming in is perfectly reasonable.

Too late - I've already sent my comments & feedback to the people who really matter - Zeiss. If I get a reply I'll be amazed.

 

If it's fantasy dreamworld time then I want a 12-50mm f2.8 (constant) CPU'd AIS m/f IF ED rectilinear zoom with impeccable characteristics - preferably in real chrome just for the "ooooh" factor - and with a proper lens hood and case. Oh, It'd have to work on my Leica too and cost under 300GBP.

It is good to have a Zeiss on Nikon. I saw many Canon photographers are bragging to have Leica R lenses attached to their digital bodies. The only thing wrong Zeiss did not think about is the Used market. Serious film photographers would rather buy a used Leica R lenses than a new Zeiss lenses. Why? They are, of course, both very sharp and contrasty but Leica lenses have the speical creamy look that Zeiss and Nikon do not have. Sorry, Zeiss.

By the way Eric, i-TTL does work with non-CPU lenses on those bodies which allow the data to be entered. D-TTL is an older generation flash system which is irrelevant to the D200.

<i>"AI-S and focal lengths for 35mm film is out of date, and Nikon already has excellent lenses in those focal lengths"</i><Br><br>

Frankly Shun, I don't buy that argument. My Fm3a sees more light than my DSLR these days; no, i'm not a fulltime pro, but what bothers me is that Nikon (like anyother company) focuses on slower lenses (f/5.6? are you kidding?) with VR (the one and only exception is the 200/2 VR, and Canon's just-announced 85/1.2L II). I want fast glass that can be used wide open. Fast glass is f/1.4, to be <u>used at f/1.4</u>. The 50/1.4 AFD is subpar in that respect. The 85/1.4 does better, but still requires a stop or two to reach optimum resolution. If Zeiss's offerings would do better, I would pay up. Something inside tells me they will.

Steven, to your question: I'd like a modern 35/1.4, and that's it. I don't shoot much wider than that on film. I really don't want to see DX-sized Zeiss's either: I don't think they'll tie themselves to this size (nor can they budget a separate R&D line).

 

The 50/1.4 is on my radar. The 85/1.4 will be up next if the 50 can deliver.

 

Just as a second note: my best "50" is actually a cosina: the 45/2.8P. I have the 50/1.8 AIS which is so-so below f/2.8, and gets easily tramped by the pancake at f/2.8 and beyond. I had 50/1.4s-- AIS and AFD Nikkor which I got rid of.

Ilkka, i-TTL is an updated version of D-TTL, which uses "D" distance information passed to the camera from the lens to set flash exposure based on subject distance from the camera:

 

 

http://www.jjmehta.com/products/nikon_sb800.html

 

 

If your lens is not passing distance information to your D200, the camera and flash do not have that information available to calculate flash exposure. And while you may not shoot direct flash, I shoot direct flash, all event shooters I know shoot direct flash and 99% of my Nikon buyers shoot direct flash.