Zeiss 50mm Planar "versus" Nikkor 50mm

[icuneko]

<In short, a non-apochromatic lens can never match an apochromatic lens when it comes to colors.>

 

For what it's worth, a couple of years ago a Mamiya MF lens rep wrote me that using APO designs under 135 or 150mm is "overkill and unnecessary" since shorter focal lengths with good quality glasses and modern designs can mostly solve the color fringing problem. Over 150mm is a different

story though, and there APOs can be effective.

[ebogaerts]

But Arthur, you're comparing apples to oranges when you talk about the apllication of ED and low dispersion glass with telephotos and supertelephotos - versus a 50mm lens. ED and asperical giass is just *not necissary* to make a top-notch optic for *all* focal lengths.

[ky2]

Arthur, I'm a firm believer in Nikkors. I have, or had, quite the lot-- i'm not going to list them here, it would take too much time. I've also had my share of Canon L's, Hasselblad, and even a Leica. There is nothing magical about ED, SLD, UD, APO, or whatever they try to feed you. Each lens is a compromise, and although the latest technologies clearly assist in designing a better lens, they are mostly applied to optimizing zooms-- and there's a reason to that.

 

There's a reason why the 50/1.8 AFD is a sharp lens. It's a simple, and well refined formula. It's certainly isn't the best. But it's simple, and will benefit nearly nothing from ED glass. That is probably why Nikon doesn't invest too much in new primes: they present very little (if you count out VR) of a benefit over older, well tested designs.

 

I've never owned the 28/1.4. I've rented it, and tried it out, but I could never justify it, since I owned the 35/1.4 at that time. Nikon discontinued it, ED and all.

 

I've had my share of 180/2.8's. ED, non-ED, they were all the same: superb. Easily beating the latest and greatest (the 70-200VR lens too-- not a true loss to me, as I'm not much of G-lens person). The best 35mm Nikkor is rumoured to be the 35/2 O. Pre-AI derivative. ED Glass? Are you kidding?

 

Is the Planar a nice lens? Yes. It's better than the following Nikkors: 50/1.2 AIS (own); 50/1.4 AFD (borrowed); 50/1.8 AIS (own); 50/1.8 AFD (own); 45/2.8P (own); 55/2.8 AIS (own). Is it worth $500? to me, it does.

 

Did I buy a D200 to work with AI/AIS glass? No, I bought it to supplement my Fm3a. I have 6 AF lenses, all pro-spec. I don't do action photography, sports photography, or wildlife. And yet, I can still manually focus faster than my D200's AF sensor (especially in dim indoors), and since I never need to refocus, the camera will fire immediately. FASTER with MF glass.

 

My ever favorite is my 105/2.5. Mine was $80. It rocks. No ED glass. Have your pick.

[arthuryeo]

>Is the Planar a nice lens? Yes. It's better than the following Nikkors: 50/1.2 AIS (own); 50/1.4 AFD (borrowed); 50/1.8 AIS (own); 50/1.8 AFD (own); 45/2.8P (own); 55/2.8 AIS (own). Is it worth $500? to me, it does.

 

It always helps to clarify. You see, now I know where you are coming from. Comparing to those Nikkors, I totally agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

>Did I buy a D200 to work with AI/AIS glass? No, I bought it to supplement my Fm3a. I have 6 AF lenses, all pro-spec. I don't do action photography, sports photography, or wildlife. And yet, I can still manually focus faster than my D200's AF sensor (especially in dim indoors), and since I never need to refocus, the camera will fire immediately. FASTER with MF glass.

 

For the type of usage you mentioned and if you are already an MF lens user, the ZF should fit in nicely.

[arthuryeo]

S. Linke,

 

>For what it's worth, a couple of years ago a Mamiya MF lens rep wrote me that using APO designs under 135 or 150mm is "overkill and unnecessary" since shorter focal lengths with good quality glasses and modern designs can mostly solve the color fringing problem.

 

Yes, I agree with you, it's probably overkill for film cameras and a good example is the Nikkor 85mm/1.4AF. It's perfect for film camera. On a high-res digital sensor, chromatic aberration (CA) starts to set in on edges between higher contrast areas.

 

Whether it is necessary for shorter focal length lenses to have apochromatic elements, I believe it is necessary if the lens is going to be mated with a high-res digital sensor. Take a look at the Nikkor 12-24mm/4 ED-IF AF-S. It has 2 ED elements and it is certainly a very wide lens. Even with the 2 ED elements, occasionally, some users will still experience CA on their D2X.

 

As for why Zeiss did not put aspherical elements in the Planar (or for that matter, in most of their lenses), I think one of the main reasons is that Zeiss is still reeling from their loss of their main aspherical guru to Leica. As such, Zeiss campaigns that they can do without aspherical technologies and will still beat Leica. In some ways, I think this may be becoming a reality. I used their 21mm Biogon ZM on my Leica. It's very well corrected with no aspherical elements but it sounded like it took Zeiss quite several years to catch up to Leica's level without aspherical elements to correct the spherical aberrations.

 

Whether the 50mm really needs aspherical elements, Yaron is in a good position to go out there in the night to shoot some sample for us to see. Shoot a night scene with many point source lights and you will see whether that lens is corrected for spherical aberrations or not. Make sure some of the point light sources are near the edge of the frame and the truth shall be revealed. And, compare that to the Leica 50mm Summilux Asph.

[ebogaerts]

"Whether it is necessary for shorter focal length lenses to have apochromatic elements, I believe it is necessary if the lens is going to be mated with a high-res digital sensor."

 

And with that statement you seem to be reinforcing this belief that *all* non APO/ED lenses exhibit chromatic abberation on a DSLR, and that's just not true. *Some* lenses certainly do.

 

But, with this post I decided to check out Bjorn Rorslett's lens ratings, and he does not mention any problems with chromatic abberation amongst *all* of the Nikkor 50's that he's tested. Also - of all of the 50/55/58's that he tested with digital cameras, every single one of them scored 4.5 or better.

 

"Whether the 50mm really needs aspherical elements, Yaron is in a good position to go out there in the night to shoot some sample for us to see. Shoot a night scene with many point source lights and you will see whether that lens is corrected for spherical aberrations or not. Make sure some of the point light sources are near the edge of the frame and the truth shall be revealed."

 

But, how many other lenses can you take out into the same situation and not get the same "batwing" problem at the edges with point light sources? The 58mm f/1.2 Noct is a $1500 special purpose lens that Nikon discontinued - and its *design* makes that possible. Just because a lens has an aspheric element does not *necessarily* mean that it could handle the exact same situation that the Noct does.

[cabophoto]

Yaron,<br><br>

 

>>The only culprit is, that the D200's focus screen (and D2x, I <br>

>>suppose Shun can attest to that), is not suitable for pinpoint <br>

>>manual focusing for fast lenses.<br><br>

 

have you tried the KatzEye screen yourself ? I'm facing the same focus problems with my 50/1.2; maybe the KatyEye could be the solution. However, I don't want to order one without reliable evidence that it really works.<br><br>

 

Carsten<br><br>

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[vivek iyer]

Arthur, Nikon know what Apochromatic is and used the Apo designation on some of their process lenses, few of their large format lenses and some of their enlarging lenses. Just the mention of ED does not automatically means that the lense is "Apo".

 

If in doubt, you should ask Nikon to clarify.

 

The 16/3.5 A/AI do splendidly on digi bodies.

 

The 25-50/4 zoom from the normal aperture era also does splendidly on digis.

[arthuryeo]

Vivek,

 

>Arthur, Nikon know what Apochromatic is and used the Apo designation on some of their process lenses, few of their large format lenses and some of their enlarging lenses. Just the mention of ED does not automatically means that the lense is "Apo".

 

Please read this by clicking on the Technology tab before arguing further:

 

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/nikkor/index.htm

 

>If in doubt, you should ask Nikon to clarify.

 

Have you asked Nikon yourself?

 

I have no doubts whatsoever. And, you're arguing on a slippery slope ...

[arthuryeo]

And, you're telling me that the 2 largest guys (Canon and Nikon) cannot afford to put APO on their lenses but Sigma can?

 

UD (Canon's) = APO

ED (Nikon's) = APO

[vivek iyer]

"UD (Canon's) = APO ED (Nikon's) = APO"

 

Arthur, Nikon should rope you in as a sales rep. :-)

 

Whenever they had a chance, these companies (C, N, etc) wouldn't hesitate to blow their trumpets. Let us see some hard data on these "EDed" lenses to support the claim that they are "APo".

 

The only true Apo lenses that I know (I use them as well)from Nikon are some of the process lenses, an APO El-Nikkor and a couple of Printing Nikkors (corrected from 400-800nm, Nikon officially claims that and I think they are correct from the results).

 

The quartz-fluorite esoteric, the 105mm f/4.5 UV-Nikkor, though Nikon claims to have correction from 220nm into the IR region is not claimed as a "Super Apochromat" (Zeiss has a couple that you probably know) or an "Apochromat".

User experience (not only mine) shows that is case (i.e. not a "super apochromatic") as well.

 

As for the claims of Sigma and others about their products being "Apo",

ask them to provide the data to support such claims. I will, if I am buying.

[arthuryeo]

Whose APO definition is that? Is there a standards body?

[vivek iyer]

If you claim yourself as a "standards body", anything with Ed, by your definition, would make them "APO".

 

If there are "other" standards by which you want to define "APO", buy some books and look up what would be classified as "Apo".

 

If Sigma or any other claim a lens to be "Apo", good for them.

[ky2]

<i>"have you tried the KatzEye screen yourself ? I'm facing the same focus problems with my 50/1.2; maybe the KatyEye could be the solution. However, I don't want to order one without reliable evidence that it really works."</i><br><br>

Carsten, I've purchased the OptiBrite version, and had it installed. It makes life MUCH easier. If needed to bracket focus for the ZF vs. Nikkor comparison (see above thread), I do not need it any further. Although the viewfinder is not as large as my Fm3a, I can pinpoint focus right now with my fastest lenses. It's not a cheap solution, but it works very well-- highly recommended.

[ky2]

Arthur, I'll definitely go out there with the ZF, but I'm not sure how I could test it outside wide open without an ND filter. I'll certainly try and take some snaps this weekend-- I don't like res charts shots either.

[ShunCheung]

My very first (film) SLR was a Minolta SRT-101 from the early 1970's, and I was a teenager at that time. The SRT-101 did not have any split-image focusing assist; instead, it only had microprism. Even back then, I found it a bit hard to focal manually. A few years later by the mid 1970's, split-image with a ring of microprism became the standard, which is used all the way to the recent FM3A, and I always find a focusing screen with split-image very important for manual focusing in general.

 

At least IMO, the Zeiss 50mm/f1.4, along with many MF lenses, is useless on the D2X unless I have a KatzEye type focusing screen. Your mileage (or eyesight) may vary, though.

[cabophoto]

Yaron,

 

many thanks for the info. Sounds real good; I guess I'll have to get this kind of screen. Kind of pricey as I need two of them :-(

 

Carsten

[steve_ql]

"Yes, I agree with you, it's probably overkill for film cameras and a good example is the Nikkor 85mm/1.4AF. It's perfect for film camera. On a high-res digital sensor, chromatic aberration (CA) starts to set in on edges between higher contrast areas." -Arthur Yeo

 

You missed the point of the fast 85 Nikkor. That lens was

designed specifically for portraits. A disadvantage of over-correcting for chromatic aberration in photographic lenses is the production of unpleasant bokeh.

[arthuryeo]

Steve,

 

>A disadvantage of over-correcting for chromatic aberration in photographic lenses is the production of unpleasant bokeh.

 

I've heard/read that over-correction with aspherical elements may make the bokeh harsh but not on the chromatic correction side of things.

[Allen Herbert]

Let's cut to the chase...

 

The Zeiss lenses will be sharper and have that Zeiss look.The other issues with Zeiss lenses are the same.

[arthuryeo]

Yaron,

 

>Arthur, I'll definitely go out there with the ZF, but I'm not sure how I could test it outside wide open without an ND filter.

 

I think if you shoot night scenes in the town/city areas, you will not need an ND filter at f/1.4. You may even need a tripod. Keep the ISO down to 100/200 and make sure you turn ON long-exp NR in your D200.

 

Good luck.

[daniel_venosa]

You have to remember that for a little more then 650 bucks you can get an used hasselblad

kit...that will have Zeiss Planar quality PLUS better resolution(6x6)!

 

No...i do not own a hassel....actually I own only Nikon gear and a screwmount leica. But I

think that hassels are going pretty cheap nowadays and are one of the best deals out there

[ky2]

IMO, if you want to go medium format, grab a Pentax 67. It's a much better value than a Hassy.

[vivek iyer]

A whole lot more noise than Hassy for less, Yaron? :)

[b_hall1]

It just occurred to me that the IF auto-focus lenses may avoid the clunky-lens-problem common to AF lenses...and the Nikon AF 85mm 1.4D is IF .

 

So that gives a choice of Nikon manual-focus, Nikon IF auto-focus, and Zeiss manual-focus. Gosh, is the Zeiss manual-focus 85mm lens also IF ?