Zeiss Lenses [ZF vs. ZS - M42 to Nikon]

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by g_guhan_gunaratnam|2, Feb 23, 2006.

  1. Hello,

    I was wondering what the disadvantages would be of putting an M42
    mount lens (like the newly announced ZS lenses - not the ZF in F
    mount) on a Nikon camera (such as a D200) by way of an M42-F mount
    adapter.

    I ask becuase I'd rather get a lens that works on many systems, rather
    than just one.

    Thanks a lot!
     
  2. Full-aperture metering?
     
  3. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Should you want to sell this lens later on, I would imagine that any ZS mount lens will be extremely difficult to sell since few people would want one. That is, potentially you'll lose a lot of money.
     
  4. Yes, the ZS lens seem redundan as a Canon EOS to Nikon F (lens) adaptor will work just as well on an EOS body. Zeiss mentioned that the introduction of the ZS mount targets EOS users.
     
  5. Don't the ZF and ZS aperture rings operate in different directions?
     
  6. Got this response on a Q&A with a member of marketing at Zeiss (original comes from Rob Galbraith's site):

    Q. For Nikon users, what will be the advantage to using a ZF lens over a ZS lens with a Nikon adapter?

    ZF lenses come with everything the user of a classical Nikon SLR expects, like fast change Nikon F bayonet, automatic close-down aperture, rotation direction of focus and aperture ring like on original Nikon lenses, including that tiny second aperture scale to enable optical readout of the aperture in the viewfinder, and AI coupling fork. With a ZS and an adapter, all these commodities would be missing.
     
  7. ZS (and any M42 mount) lenses cannot focus at infinity if you mount one on a Nikon body via mount adaptor.

    If you use any Nikon camera as your main (D)SLR, then it would make no sense to choose ZS instead of ZF.
     
  8. G^3, why not an, um, T-5 mount? 55 mm native register, like T, T-2, T-4, and TX mounts, with adapters with electronics and mechanical linkages to mount the lens and manage lens-body and body-lens communications.

    Or why, not, say, AdaptAll 3? Same concept, also from Tamron.

    But have you considered what a pain it would be to carry one lens and, say, five bodies to hang behind it? I don't see how doing that would improve my life. And this even though I have one T-mount lens and another that I suspect is a T-mount with the mount adapter glued on.
     
  9. Dan, You are completely igonring the possibility that there may be a D63 from an X company this month and a D702 from the Y company next month.

    What one do by not being able to use the same lens on a few thousand dollar a piece camera body that is newest and bestest every month?

    Give it some due consideration, my friend.
     
  10. Vivek, I take your point that one wouldn't want to be locked into the X, Y, Z, AA, AB, ... or any other manufacturer's mount system. What we want to do is decouple camera body manufacturers from lens manufacturers. Force all of 'em to agree on the one true mount and stick to it. The one true mount is seeking its prophet. G^3, since you raised the issue, I nominate you for the job.

    But I've already found the one true mount. Thanks to it, I shoot (in alphabetical order) Aldis, Boyer, Ilex, Kodak, Konica, Leitz, Lomo, Nikon, Reichert, Rodenstock, Schneider, Tominon, Taylor Hobson, Wollensak, & Zeiss lenses on the same camera. Not only that, I shoot many, not all, of 'em on my Nikons too.

    G^3, all you have to do to attain this nirvana is move up in format. You'll have bigger better sensors that fit behind any number of very nice little 6x9 view cameras and more lenses than you can keep track of. Spend the money and transcend 35 mm and its digital derivatives.
     
  11. If you want a Zeiss lens, go for a ZF lens. It will work perfect on a D200 and with an Nikon-EOS adapter just as good as a ZS with M42-EOS on an EOS DSLR.
     

Share This Page

1111