Zeiss MF lens focusing problem on D70

I continue to read that there is a lot of interest in the new Zeiss

lenses for Nikon mounts. So, when I got the chance to borrow an old

Zeiss CF 80mm f2.8 and a Sonar 150mm f4, I decided to see for myself

what the fuss was all about, and bought an adaptor ring for my D70.

 

Being a beginner I stupidly bought the ring which doesn�t have an

infinity lock making it v.hard for me to shoot landscapes. On the

80mm infinity is somewhere between 7-10m and on the 150mm around 30m.

In fact just about everything is difficult to focus accurately.

 

My questions are:

1. How can I get accurate focusing, especially for infinity, and more

importantly:

2. Are the Zeiss lenses worth the bother, giving that some basic

tests I did show that my 200mm AI f4 is sharper than the 150, and my

75-150 Series E is at least at sharp as the 80 (not to mention that

IMO the colors and contrasts on the Nikkors are as good if not better)

 

My only reason left for continuing this nonsense (yes I was warned

against it on PN) it seems, is that some of you say that there is

good bokeh to be had on the 80mm. Another Zeiss myth?

The sad truth is that AF cameras are extremely difficult to use for critical manual focusing

unless you can change the focusing screen.

 

Regarding Nikkor lenses being as sharp or sharper than Zeiss, I don't think anyone

knowledgeable will dispute that. On the other hand, there is more to lens quality than

sharpness. Out of focus rendition, contrast, flare resistance, colour consistency, sharpness

consistency across the whole picture are as important.

 

All the great optics companies have exceptionnal designs and not-so-good designs in

their range, so it is impossible to establish a ranking by company.

 

And the worse is, in the end, it does not matter that much ;-)

i find it odd that you're comparing a lens designed for a medium format body in a fashion it was never intended, against lenses designed for 35mm format in a fashion closer to what it was intended for, and then claiming that one is better than the other. if you want to compare Zeiss vs Nikkors, get ahold of the ZF lenses, not Hasselblad MF lenses hacked to a Nikon mount. and while you're at it, test it on a film body with fairly neutral colored film, NOT digital because Nikon digital slrs have color-processing biased towards Nikkor color rendition.

 

and if you really want to blow away the Nikkors, use the CF lenses on a Hasselblad and then compare the results. ;)

How about trying the Nikkors made for the Bronicas and assessing the performance of the Nikkors for the F mount?

MF lenses tend to be of somewhat lower resolution than 35mm lenses because the much larger film format allows you to get more detail with less lpmm. Thus you'll find that even the sharpest MF lenses (Mamiya 7 lenses) are outperformed by good 35mm lenses when mounted on 35mm bodies.

 

Also the D70 and D50 aren't exactly great for MF focusing.

Hi Vivek.

 

Don't understand your reply. What I am trying to say is this.

I have been lucky enough to borrow 2 very expensive lenses for my experience. What I need to know is whehter or not I can learn more or not with these lenses on the D70. Particularly as I am having problems with focusing for infinity.

 

If some one says the Zeiss CFs are worth playing with for bokeh and shows me some photos, then I will continue; otherwise I can give the lenses back.

"Regarding Nikkor lenses being as sharp or sharper than Zeiss"

 

Life is full of details and sometimes these little details (like a particular lens or all lenses or the "average every day lens" ?) make the story. Such generalizations are the source of all evil :-P

 

There are quite a few Zeiss lenses and this includes lenses for different applications and various formats. The same is true for other brands such as Nikon. I like trucks over Porsches; general enough? Anyone care for details? (Hint: moving furnitures versus N�rburgring Bergrennen ^^)

 

Another thing: what is "sharp" anyway? Is that a technical term? Is it the only important aspect of a lens?

You did not mention the first "Zeiss myth". Was it something your test result discovered or something else?

Medium format gives better results because of the larger film size, not because of better lenses. These lenses are pricier because of the larger coverage and the smaller number made. In most cases, it makes no sense to put these on smaller formats, like DSLRs.

 

So, you just can't judge how Zeiss for Nikon would look by trying Zeiss for Hasselblad.

 

Zeiss for 35mm SLR Contax would be the ones to get instead.

Or trying to use a 2-1/4 lens on a APS-sized sensor gives one the general idea of "why" the APS film camera system went down the tubes. The digital sensor is sort of like film, but the lenses do not cover the area like film, and the 2-1/4 lens design would be really altered by giving your 'premium' coverage of a small area compared to the size of 120 film in a 2-1/4 camera body.

 

 

 

As noted above, prime MF lens focus may never be good in a DSLR body, but the same lens on a Hasselblad or Rolli body: great glass, designed to work well with 120 film.

The current Nikkor 50mm/1.4 AFD is rather weak in resolution when opened wide. I find this true in my experience and also by looking at the MTF diagram.

 

Based on what I have read, the new 50mm/1.4 Planar Zeiss ZF can resolve a lot more.

 

On the hand, I'm not sure I can live with the fact of losing the AF feature.

Andy, Get a 50/1.2 AIS lens. It will be equally difficult to focus on a digital body though..

 

I was saying don't compare apples with oranges.

"If some one says the Zeiss CFs are worth playing with for bokeh and shows me some photos, then I will continue; otherwise I can give the lenses back." - Andy Aungthwin

 

You should try the medium format forum then. And then

get the proper medium format camera to fit the lenses to.

You'll find the lenses are superb for their intended purposes.

Lenses designed for larger formats don't resolve as much in the center as those designed for smaller formats. This is pretty universal.

 

The focusing problems are mainly thanks to the worst viewfinders in the history of Nikon cameras which were put into the D100, D70 and D50. They are truly miserable for manual focusing. If you want help with it, get a Katz-Eye focusing screen - it has a split image, but it won't make all focusing problems go away. To get a lot better manual focusing, you can get a D200, which has a high-quality viewfinder. You can also get a Katz-Eye screen for that but I haven't found it really necessary so far.

 

Generally speaking any film SLR will beat any DX DSLR for manual focusing. Manual focus cameras are slightly better still, but as we know, Nikon doesn't make them any more. And the high-end F series models (F4, F5, F6) are also excellent for manual focusing, especially the F6.

"My only reason left for continuing this nonsense (yes I was warned against it on PN) it seems, is that some of you say that there is good bokeh to be had on the 80mm. Another Zeiss myth?"

 

Hi there. If you think pentagon shaped out of focus highlights make for good bokeh than CF lenses are for you! I owned the 150 and 80 CF lenses and they were great...other than the 5 or 6 bladed diaphram. I didn't have the newest generation of CF though.

>Another Zeiss myth?

 

Is there a myth? Guess why Zeiss lenses are used in satellites?

Oh, Arthur! Don't you know about the Zeiss myths and Leica fictions?!

Nikon users do not lack for options with exceptional bokeh in the 80-90mm range.

I think to answer the original question: you have to try out the new Zeiss ZF lenses on the Nikon F-mounts. Putting on a MediumFormat lens on a 35mm body is not a good way to evaluate Zeiss glass.

 

Apparently, Zeiss has learned quite a bit from their design of cine-lenses and have applied these techniques in the ZM and ZF lenses. The propensity to flare has been greatly reduced with conventional spherical elements and the resolution increased.

 

I have tried their 21mm Biogon ZM and I am very impressed by the distortion-free and high-res images it can project.

I saw some photos posted on dpreview of the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 and was not impressed by the bokeh. I honestly don't care that much about ultrasharpness as long as it is "okay." I've already got 5 Nikkor primes between 50 and 55mm, I certainly don't need anymore... I think they will release the 85mm in June but I doubt that Zeiss will be able to top the bokeh of the Nikkor AF 85mm f1.4 that I have. We'll see.

I've got a 80mm Zeiss Planar for my Hasselblad and it's sharp but the bokeh isn't wonderful by any means.

Well, thanks to all for contributing. I now realise that the Zeiss CFs are not ideal on the D70. Still, it was fun and I learned a thing or two about Medium Format designed MF lenses and the frustration that continues with the D70 view finder.

 

Ilkka, I�ve read your very good report on the Katz-eye some time back but as always money is the issue.

 

Walter, [what is sharp]? Well, sharp is sharp. Perhaps you are confused. I�ve seen your photos. They are not sharp. In fact I think there is something wrong with your lenses.

 

Just kidding Walter. In all honesty if I had the funds to buy Zeiss I would. You don�t need to test drive a top of the range BMW to know they are good. You just know.

Ravi,

 

>but I doubt that Zeiss will be able to top the bokeh of the Nikkor AF 85mm f1.4

 

That we'll have to see how it looks when it's released to the market.

 

Since you brought it up, another thing is that the Nikkor 85mm/1.4AFD-IF seems to show quite a bit of chromatic aberration on my D2X. It certainly did not show CA on films and I have contacted Nikon USA about it. They cannot fix it even with their Nikon Capture. I have a feeling Nikon needs to upgrade that lens to include, at least, one ED element.