ZF 2/100, 2/35, 2/50, 2,8/25

Just searched the Zeiss page for ZF-Information and found the following page

with new lenses:<br>

<a

href="http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B0478/search/5C8A382AE7237A1DC12571EE004507FF?OpenDocument">Distagon

T* 2,8/25 ZF,Distagon T* 2/35 ZF,Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF,Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF</a>.

<br>

I didn't find other posts regarding the new lenses, so I hope this isn't old news.

Thanks

 

By the way, why the detail picture is different from the thumbnail...

The page seems to be set up in a hurry, the ZV-Lenses also being attributed as Nikon-F-Mount lenses, but the lenses, I think, are quite interesting.

I wonder if these are autofocus or manual-focus?

 

I thought it was silly for Zeiss to sell manual focus Nikon-mount lenses. I actually wrote to them saying there were lots of us who would love to buy Zeiss Nikon-mount lenses, IF they were autofocus. Does everyone agree?

Personally I always prefer to focus manually. The things I photograph don't move that fast and my preferred Nikon-body is the F3, so a long focus throw and a good feel are most important to me. I'm perfectly happy with these ZF lenses and I would like to add at least one to my kit.

I wonder if Zeiss' relationship with Sony, for whom they are producing AF lenses, will prevent them for producing Nikon AF lenses.

 

I'd be interested in the Zeiss 35 f2 for Nikon. The 35 f2 for M mount is incredible. I know the Nikon mount one wouldn't be the same formulation, but it would be interesting to see if they favored the same properties in its design.

Sony itself produces sensors for Nikon, Pentax, etc. Why can't Zeiss produce Nikon-mount AF lenses while they can produce manual-focus lenses?

 

With all of these MF lenses and focal lengths designed for 35mm film, Zeiss is competiting with one hand tied behind its back. Afterall, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc. have no problem producing AF-S type lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony/Minolta, etc.

I'm especially curious about the Makro Planar 100, which is announced with this statement: "The first photo lens with ARRI/ZEISS Master Prime optics from Hollywood's movie industry". This may be a marketing statement only, and of course the Nikon 105/2 DC is known to be exceptionally good, but who knows...

What is the deal with German camera companies? They release these beautiful images of their lenses, but it's virtually impossible to find any actual images taken with the equipment. I first noticed this with the new M8. There are no images taken with the camera!

 

Except for Ken Rockwell's site, I've yet to see a single, full-image from a ZF lens that showed what they can do. I also noticed they're not all that hard to find anymore. It seems all the dealers have them in stock.

ZV lenses for F mount? More likely for Hasselblad.

 

Rich

Yeah, those ZV lenses seem to be medium-format lenses, possibly for Hasselblad's old V series 6x6 SLRs. On the Zeiss page it does say ZV for Nikon, which is likely to be a typo which should soon be fixed.

Finally high quality wide angle primes for Nikon! I assume the 25/2.8 will give very good image quality on DSLRs since it's a new design (most Nikon wide angle primes have optical designs from the 1970s...).

 

They're manual focus because it's difficult to maintain precise mechanical tolerances in an autofocus lens (read on dpreview about all the sample problems people have with the 17-55mm DX) (18mm, 20mm,24mm, 28/2.8 mm Ai-S have better image quality than the AF versions mostly because they're better built and aligned). Perhaps Zeiss (as well as Nikon) are simply unable to make autofocus wide angles that are really good and not excruciatingly expensive.

 

In any case for available light people photography a good manual focus action is IMO much more important than autofocus. I cannot focus on an eye at f/2 or f/2.8 precisely enough using AF or even AF-S. It just results in a slightly front focused blurry image. Manual focus is the way to go. Of course, modern viewfinders make this difficult but that's not Zeiss's fault, it's Nikon's.

 

I just hope the 25/2.8 will cost less than an absurd amount of money.

To clarify: all of the above is just my opinion. ;-)

 

I understand that a lot of people need autofocus ... and I love AF-S just as much as the next person. The fact remains that adding AF-S and requiring the same tight tolerances that a manual focus lens has would probably make then lenses so expensive that almost no one could buy them. If you need AF-S, use 12-24 and 17-55, they're excellent lenses.

"Why can't Zeiss produce Nikon-mount AF lenses while they can produce manual-focus lenses?"

 

Wild speculation alert. Perhaps Sony doesn't want Zeiss producing any other AF lenses in order to protect Sony's unique position, AF Zeiss lenses. Perhaps Sony is supplying sensors for a Cosina/Zeiss digital RF, and is using that as leverage to prevent Zeiss from producing Nikon AF lenses. End speculation

 

I'm sure there's some reason Zeiss is offering manual but not AF Nikon lenses.

There are certainly reasons that Zeiss is only offering manual-focus lenses, for both Nikon and Hasselblad.

 

Not to make too fine a point about it, but when Hasselblad introduced the modern H series SLR a few years ago, they went to Fuji instead of Zeiss to produce new lenses, essentially ending their cooperation with Zeiss after some 4, 5 decades. (At least that was the beginning of the end, as Zeiss still produces the old series of Hasselblad lenses.)

 

My own speculation (and it is completely a speculation) is that Zeiss is challenged by modern technology, especially electronics. But that is a problem that could have easily been solved by working with a partner.

Two things, first, there is a reason most of the Nikon AF lenses are plastic and that is also the reason that the ZF lenses are MF. I think Zeiss wanted to make quality products, or at least those which conveyed quality. The Plastic Nikkors, even the pro-lenses, don't feel solid like the old MF nikkors. I believed that the AF nikkors are plasticy to increase AF speed, there is also the slop in the design tolerances of the AF nikkors, which lead to the sample variation. I'm sure none of the ZF lenses will rattle when you shake 'em. As for Sony, does the system even allow for MF?

 

Second, did you guys see the DOF markings on the 100mm/2?? Only the f11 and f22 were showing. I thought that DOF was all aperture based, can lens design narrow dof?

Isn't the 100mm a macro lens. That's why the depth of field is such a small turn. The full turn needs to go from macro to infinity.

 

I am very glad that the Nikon F mount is turning out to be such a flexible and widely supported platform. Fuji and Nikon make DSLRs, Zeiss, Nikon, Voigtlander, etc make high end lenses, and Nikon has improved metering support of Ai-S lenses in the most recent DSLR generation (D2*).

I suspect that Zeiss themselves can't really make AF lenses themselves. Contax had AF Zeiss lenses but Kyocera probably designed the electronics and AF mechanisms.

Paul, any engineer can implement autofocus in a lens. It is not difficult at all. Zeiss certainly could do it. If you sincerely doubt it, check out their website for the things they do.