Zeiss or Nikon lens

[louise1]

I have a D70s and am enjoying the camera and learning everything about it. I shoot manual mostly (RAW

and jpeg) so I can do a lot of editing in CS2 if need be.

 

I want to get a 50 mm lens to add to my lens inventory. (I've decided to spend the next year upgrading my

lenses and then hopefully by then Nikon will come out with a new body other than the D200 and D80 that

I can upgrade into--for now I will stick to my D70s and explore some glass)

 

I don't have a 50 normal lens. I've been reading up on the various differences in the Nikon 50mm 1:4 and

1:8.

 

But I'm also interested in this lens Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZF. the price is a couple more hundred than the

1:4 Nikon, and I'm wondering if anyone has had experience with the Zeiss lens?

 

I had sony ps 505 that had a zeiss lens, and even though the Point and Shoot had limitations, the glass

was amazing, really sharp every time.

 

thank you

[ShunCheung]

The Ziess ZF lenses with the Nikon F mount are manual focus with no CPU, so they are the equivalent of Nikon AI-S lenses from the 1980's. On the D70s, that means no metering and of course no AF. No metering is a bit of a pain but you can get around it with a hand held meter or use the histogram to trial and error your exposure. The bigger problem is that it will be very difficult to focus manually, especually with the D70s' viewfinder.

 

I have tested Yaron Kidron's ZF 50mm/f1.4 and on my D2X, I simply had a hard time focusing it and ended up with a bunch of slightly out-of-focus images. He had the same problem on his D200 and eventually got a KatzEye split focusing screen. I also did the "garage door" test and the ZF 50mm has no noticable distortion at all.

 

I have two Zeiss lenses for my Contax 645 camera. While those are excellent lenses, so are many of my Nikkor lenses. I am in the camp that Zeiss lenses are not a big deal and IMO they are mainly selling their brand name with their past glory. Therefore, it is unwise to pay more money and suffer from no AF and no metering.

[fast_primes]

Louise,

<br><br>

Consider getting a Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens! A 50mm lens on a D70 is not really a "normal", but a short telephoto--equivalent to 75mm in a full-frame sense. Also, because the Sigma is specifically designed to cover <i>only</i> APS or reduced sensor sizes, it will be <i>sharper</i> than any Nikor prime near it!

[ben conover]

Hi there louise,

 

If you want to spend more money and like a big aperture go for the Zeiss. If you want to save money and can live with 1.8 go for the Nikon. Either way you'll get very sharp photos and a creamier bokeh with the Zeiss. The 1.8 is sharper wide open that the 1.4, you need low light lens go for the 1.4. You prefer a lightweight lens go for the 1.8

 

Ciao

[louise1]

interesting answers! thank you.

 

so the sigma is a new contender as I hadn't researched this one. But at first glance it sounds

interesting.

 

Failing that, the 1:8 nikon might just be the best solution of the nikons. And less $, so more

money for other lenses and gadgets.

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

"the 1:8 nikon might just be the best solution of the nikons. And less $, so more money for other lenses and gadgets" Louise-agree with that comment 100%. regards,cb :-)

[frank uhlig]

Another response: do not obsess about lenses, but rather shoot AND be critical of your own work in order to improve and express yourself better.

 

The 50 f/1.8 Nikon is very cheap and nearly as good as the best and plenty good to make the photographer her/himself the weakest link in the long chain.

[g._armour_van_horn]

How big is your ego? If it's up there with Donald Trump, go for the Zeiss. If it's only in the realm of Tom Cruise, go for the Nikon 1.4. If it's under control, go for the 1.8.</p>

 

<p>I don't have an AF lens in this length, there isn't much advantage over my 60/2.8 which I can't give up because of the 1:1 focusing. I can't imagine that there are many times in which the extra 2/3 stop of the 1.4s is really going to be worth a lot of cash. According to my own experience (with the AIS versions) and everything I've read, the 1.8 is simply a sharper and contrastier lens than the Nikkor 1.4.</p>

 

<p>Taking a quick peak at eBay, things are going to stack up something like this:<br>

Zeiss - $550, fastest, manual focus<br>

Nikkor 50/1.4 AFD - $250, fastest, fuzzier wide open<br>

MicroNikkor 60/2.8 AFD - $250, slowest, sharp, 1:1 focus<br>

Nikkor 50/1.8 AFD - $100, a little slower, sharp<br>

Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS - $50, manual, sharp</p>

 

<p>My choice is the MicroNikkor, just in case I find a cooperative insect that catches my eye. If the Zeiss still sounds good, go get the AIS Nikkor to experience a fast manual lens on your D70s. If you like the experience, you can then decide whether to take the normal macho-rich-guy approach and spring for the Zeiss, or one up them by patiently watching for a NoctNikkor 50/1.2 which might cost even more.</p>

 

<p>Full disclosure: Despite everything I've read, I couldn't resist adding a 50/1.4 AIS to my kit, even though I already had the 1.8. (And rarely use either, actually.) If I'd just won the lottery, I probably couldn't have resisted the Zeiss.</p>

 

<p>Van

[ShunCheung]

Louise, you need to first decide you want a 50mm lens or a 30/35mm lens for your D70s. On the D70s, a 50mm is a short tele. If you want a "standard" lens that gives you a similar angle of view as a 50mm on a 35mm film SLR, you should be looking at the Nikon 35mm/f2 AF-D or the Sigma 30mm/f1.4 for your D70s.

[frank_skomial]

Sigma 30/1.4 is a good lens because it was designed and engineered well, and not because what someone says: "because the Sigma is specifically designed to cover only APS or reduced sensor sizes it will be sharper than any Nikor prime near it!" - may be it will be, but right now it is not.

 

Design of a lens with smaller DX image circle does not guarantee that the lens will be sharper than the full 35 mm frame circle lens, and usually it is quite opposite. Search the site for the "sweet spot" for explanations.

 

The only problem with Sigma is a sample variation. I tried 2 of them, and they were too much different. I was trying to pocket some money selling my Nikkor 28/1.4, but there is no contest here.

[rombon]

I had D70s for a year. I was quite happy with it but with that viewfinder I would't buy manual focus lens. If you want to gain the advantage offered by a very expensive Zeiss you must be able to get exact focus every time.

 

I did't try Zeiss but I am sure that for me, my 50 years old eyes and D70 a cheap Nikkor AFD 50/1.8 would be much better choice than any manual focus lens.

 

Now I have D200 and I can imagine using fast and top quality MF lens. Instead I bought myself a cheap used Nikkor AFD 80/1,8 and I am very pleased with it. I do not have any need for fast 50 mm.

 

Regards, Marko

[charles_miller]

With a D70s or any body with a small finder, you don't want a manual focus lens that is fuzzy wide open, because that fuzziness makes manual focusing even more difficult yet. And the biggest offenders for fuzziness wide open tend to be fast lenses, which are often used to shoot with a shallow DOF where precise fousing is critical. This leads to frustration.

 

So I think the safest recommendation right now is for the Nikon 50mm f1.8 AFD lens. Then trade this Nikon lens towards the delectable Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZF when you get a better DSLR. However, getting the ZF lens now is not a wrong choice if you are sure you will upgrade to a better DSLR.

[cl_ho2]

The so called ZF lens is just Japanese OEM lens. You cannot compare it with the real and

original German made CZ lens.

[louise1]

such great help. thank you to all. And yes, perhaps until I upgrade my system, I should

just go for the nikon 1:8.

 

I have no ego anywhere near trump nor cruise. Just an average person humble enough to

ask for help before I spend my hard earned pennies.

 

Is there any difference finding a used one (as long as it's in great shape) or a brand new

model. Has anything changed for the better or worse on the newer lens?

 

as an aside, I hadn't realized that the viewfinder was possibly the culprit in the manual

focus. I have often been dissapointed at the softness, but perhaps that has something to

do with it.

 

I did a product jewelry shoot using the d70s and nikon capture with my laptop (brilliant

system) and my 60mm 2:8 micro to great results, I couldn't have been happier with the

images. It's an older lens and has some cosmetic issues, so I was hoping to get a lens, (not

the same lens) that will produce similar results in sharpness, but perhaps something

similar to a 70mm in 35mm film, that could also function as a portrait lens in a pinch.

[flemming_s._christensen]

Louise, in this photo (D200 handheld with Zeiss ZF at 1/125, f1.4) the right eye (left in the picture) is sharp, although a bit soft because the lens is opened full up. At f1.8 the left eye would be sharp as well, I guess. To get more sharpness you would stop down to say f4 with the risk of blurring due to camera shake. The D70 could easily do the same job using the little green diode.

 

In my book the Zeiss ZF 1.4 is very good lens indeed. I am not a test person, but at infinity (no focusing involved in this case) it is far superior to the Nikon 50/1.8D. I have not tried the ZF against Nikon 50mm 1.4 at infinity - Shun could easily do that.

 

 

Flemming<div></div>

[fast_primes]

Frank Skomial<br><br>

 

<i>The only problem with Sigma is a sample variation. I tried 2 of them, and they were too much different. I was trying to pocket some money selling my Nikkor 28/1.4, but there is no contest here.</i><br><br>

Can you spell out what you mean in the above statement more clearly please? Are you stating that your 28F1.4 outperformed a Sigma 30F1.4? With respect to sample variations even Canon has them!<br><br>

I'm familiar with the term "sweet spot", but not all lenses have them. It has been common practice in recent years to sacrafice center performance (i.e. sweet spot) for better outer performance--especially in wide angles!

<br><br>

Louise,

<br><br><i>so I was hoping to get a lens, (not the same lens) that will produce similar results in sharpness, but perhaps something similar to a 70mm in 35mm film, that could also function as a portrait lens in a pinch.</i><br><br>

From that statement, I'd say the Nikor 50F1.4AF was your best bet!

[oceanphysics]

<i>Either way you'll get very sharp photos and a creamier bokeh with the Zeiss.</i>

<p>

And you're basing your statement about bokeh on what, exactly?

[arthuryeo]

The main advantage of using a modern Nikon and Canon body is their sophistication in automation and accuracies in AF and super metering. Putting on a non-CPU and manual lens on such a body seems like a 2-3 steps backwards and is also highly counter-intuitive to the original design goals of such modern bodies.

 

As such, I agree with Shun's assessment of the Zeiss ZF lenses. Unless you have lots of extra cash and just itching to try them out, I would vote for putting your money on AF lenses.

[steven_moseley1]

"The so called ZF lens is just Japanese OEM lens. You cannot compare it with the real and original German made CZ lens"

 

Just like to point out that very, very few of the 'original' CZ 50/1.4 were German made. The vast majority were made in Japan...oops...kind of kills the argument.

[ShunCheung]

As long as they use the same type of materials such as optical glass, the same types of precision machinary to cut and manufature the equipment ..., why does it matter at all which country the "Made in xyz" label specifies? In today's global economy, parts for a product would likely come from all over the world, anyway. Exactly where a product is assembled hardly makes any difference. Even in German factories, there may be workers from other countries. The exact nationality of the person who puts things together should not matter at all and is unknown to the consumer, anyway.

 

However, if you are a camera collector, a "Made in Germany" lens may carry more value.

[frank_skomial]

Fast Primes question:

 

Yes, that is what I mean. By "No contest" I mean that one lens is noticeably better than the other.

 

Seems that similar oprions were already expressed in:

 

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

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=15183380

[chema_perez]

1 vote for the Nikon 50mm 1,8. best buy for the money by far.

 

PS: I don't think the made in country tels anything. Mi German made Leica CM was sent to service two times. None of my other Japan made equipement had a single problem. And about the quality... it's a fact that the Zeiss is sharper lens, no care about made in Mars.

[louise1]

well, after all of this great discussion, I went to my local camera store and bought a 50mm

1:4, can't wait to try it.

 

i also had a spirited discussion with the salesman who wouldn't take my word that i didn't

like my go talked into a telephoto 70 - 300, the ED lens. I have a month to see if I really want

to keep it.

[amarkin]

Louise, I think this is a good choice. Carl Zeiss, as noted above, has its name. Using its 50mm AI-S on the D70s could be a bit of a pain. Because of focusing issues using a small viewfinder and no metering which means no correct exposures unless you buy another $100 gadget to provide you with accurate exposure readings. Carl Zeiss 50mm is expensive too. Often, these lenses are used on older cameras such FM2n or FM3a.

 

I personally own 50mm F/1.4. It's fast and good. I wouldn't rate it as fantastic since Iike my 85mm F/1.8 better but the latter has longer focal length.

 

If you ever decide to buy a wider angle lens for your Nikon, the choice for *quality* fixed focal length lenses is limited. I've done a small research for myself and found that for wider angle shots; it's better to buy 17-35mm F/2.8 or 17-55mm F/2.8 DX.