ZF lenses

Quite simply, with improving Nikkors old(ish) and new around are Zeiss ZF

lenses overkill for a D200 digital sensor plate?

Nothing is overkill for digital sensors, which can be very demanding of optics. Whether the ZF lenses are better than modern Nikkors is another question. I for one don't take that as a given.

Ocean Physics, did you see the previously posted comparison between Nikkor 50mm and the ZF 50/1.4? The wide apertures really gave an advantage to the Zeiss lens. Of course you need to be able to focus it, which is also not a given, but I have no doubt that at wide apertures the ZF lenses will show advantages.

... that just like film where sooner or later regardless of how good the lens is for contrast, distortion etc there is no substitute for more acreage - ie more acreage.

My gut feeling is that we must be close to having pixel pitch as the limiting factor for detail '35mm' type photography.

... means

 

ie more emulsion.

 

Doh!

Personally I just can't see spending so much on a lens for such a limited format such as 35mm of digital. I would much rather shoot medium format with a Hasselblad 500 series and slap a film or digital back on that. I think I remember seeing the 50mm ZF lenses selling for $600 or so. Jeez I bought a Micro Nikkor 2.8 AIS for $75 on eBay, I can't imagine the ZF lens being $525 better.

 

I guess some people have money to burn, or credit cards that *aren't quite maxed out yet*

 

Dave

problem is that some of us don't like the sloppy tolerances of a nikon mount.

Evidently, some have reported that the Zeiss lenses are much better than Nikon.

 

I know not everyone appreciates Ken Rockwell, but his 50mm roundup was, I though, pretty

darned balanced. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/index.htm

 

His findings are at least worth looking at. He concluded that in this focal length, your choice

of f-stop is far more important than your choice of lens. Check it out.

Paul, What lenses have sloppy lens mounts. Even my plastic kit lenses mounted up nice and snug.

 

Also, O.P.'s got a good point about digital sensors, which is they are sensitive to things like purple fringing. Some of my old AIS lenses that were so superb on 35mm film, got replaced with newer versions recently that don't display that trait.

Quite a few cameras from different eras, two going back to the 60's.

Many lenses with a good half dozen going back to the 60's.

Sloppy lens mounts? Not a one. Not once. You must be confusing the

F-mount with some other lens mount. Or maybe your mount got bent out

of shape/round/something.

 

I think this is the first time I've ever heard this one.

Sloopy Mounts? Second rate optics? With all due respect Clive I defy you to show me the difference between Zeiss and Nikkor professional lenses in an actual photograph.

 

Did it occur to you that a huge percentage of the professional photographs you have ever seen were taken through Nikon glass? Have you noticed the percentage of working professional photographers who use Nikon glass every day?

 

Why would you hang that ostensibly great glass on an amateur camera? Why not buy a D2Xs? (Leave me alone folks I'm just making a point.)

 

There is an entire industry that has grown up around serving gear heads. Its fun to be one and when it comes to computers I guess I am one too. The way to decide what glass to use is to take either one of two positions.

 

1. I want to carry the camera and lenses best suited to my photography. For example. If you are going to print your photographs on a $60.00 ink jet and share them with the family, don't invest a bunch of money. If you are a working professional engaged in the rare commission that requires exquisit detail then pay the big bucks. If you are hyper-critical of your own work, spend away.

 

2. If you want to stand around the water cooler and discuss MTF charts with others who enjoy that kind of thing, then spend your money for bragging rights. Your choice. It is not a choice many professionals would agree with but it is certainly yours to make.

 

I wear a Rolex watch. Its beautiful and keeps good time. It is jewelry however not the best timekeeper in the world. And I would never claim it is. It is a waste of money for the purpose to which it is put. But I like it anyway. I woudn't recommend anyone sinch up thier belt to own one.

 

Look at the photos posted on this site and what the photographer used to take them. For most of us the money would be better spend on Photoshop classes and seminars. Then we really will produce superior photos.

 

Your portfolio is gorgeous! Whatever you are using, use it some more. You mention the F3. If that is Nikon glass you are using you have your answer already.

Please, forgive Paul about his honest opinion about Nikon lenses. The man deserves to speak out his mind.

 

Perhaps, based on his bio: "Technical Side: Presently shooting w/ M7 Leica, 35mm Summilux Asph and 75mm Summilux lenses" - perhaps he had never use any good Nikon lens.

Will not overkill. Zeiss lenses are FF. So they work on DX sensor with its middle part only, so their high l.p.mm. are worse on the DX sensor. As for quality 50/1.4 Zeiss is sligtly better (appr.3-5%) than 50/1.4 Nikkor, but many folks who used Zeiss with Contax or Hassel say they are unrelieble. Manual nikkors are super - reliable. So it is proved in tests by EISA member magazine that Nikkor 50/1.4 AF has better resolution than Canon EF50/1.4 . Both Canon and Zeiss are more flowing lenses. Canon is softer a bit.

I've seen the examples Ilkka has posted, and the Zeiss lens gives strikingly better contrast and resolution than comparable Nikon lenses. I use 50mm more than any other focal length for landscapes with a DSLR, where it acts like a medium telephoto. Considering the importance of detail in landscapes, this lens is on my short list.

 

It is unfortunate that the price of photographic gear goes up exponentially with quality. But then, doesn't that apply to everything?

Edward, where was those comparison posted?

 

I am not sure how scientific these comparisons are, but I have seen one comparing the ZF 85mm/f1.4 and the Canon EF 85mm/f1.2, and the ZF looks very poor and unsharp in comparison.

 

Earlier, Bill Acito posted some images comparing the ZF 50mm/f1.4 against Nikkor lenses, again, not totally scientific since he was hand holding. But Bill Acito initially did not disclose which image was shot with the Zeiss and people had a hard time identifying it:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GIh2

Sorry Rick, but I've got a brand new Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AFD which definately 'knocks' slightly on my D200.

 

Although all of my other lenses are fine including a Tamron and a Sigma it's sad that it's the Nikkor that's the faulty fit. It may be at the extremes of manufacturing tolerance and it doesn't effect the performance that I can see so it won't be going back but I would have preferred that the 3rd party lens had been the odd one out.

Two major web sources of professional supply have reduced listings of AIS lenes. Others maintain listings but only have occasional supply of grey market products...

Ermm, Not sure what you're saying here.

The AIS lenses have a questionable availability and the ZF lenses become current professional supply...

To Ed: 50 mm on DX size sensor is too soft. I saw and printed full res. example of Canon EF 50/1.4 on EOS 30D taken from this site Bob Atkins article link (A Bride, 3.9 Mb)... Pentax point and shooter 6.2 Mpix takes much sharper images and I with film and 50/1.4 Nikkor take much sharper images. 50 mm use about 60% of its resolution on DX.

 

To Shun: Canon 85/1.2 is not so good wide open (see MTF curves) and no better than Carl Zeiss 85/1.4 which is an outstanding lens. They run VERY close. May be Zeiss is even better. NOTE - if you use Canon lens on Full Frame sensor of 5D, but Carl Zeiss ZF on the DX sensor of D200 - the difference will be HUGE - the Canon picture would be much better in this case. Usade of FF primes on DX cuts their resolution ability approx. by 40%

Testing primes without tripod on ISO 400 negat. film is a stupid exercise. If ISO 100, tripod and D2Xs - I would believe - but also stupid, before Nikon launches FF.