Do we really need Zeiss lenses for our DSLRs?

[david_h._hartman]

<em>Do we really need Zeiss lenses for our DSLRs?

--Todd<br>

</em><br>

This is a personal matter based on application and personal

preference. Some photographers will need them and other will not

based on the unique features of each Zeiss lens. <br>

<br>

I own three 105mm Nikkor lenses and four Zoom-Nikkor lenses that

cover the 105mm focal length. They have different lens speeds,

focus ranges, zoom ranges, flare & ghost resistance and more.

They have different image renditions or signatures and find

different applications. For example the 80~200/2.8 Zooms are

relatively fast and the zoom gives them versatility but they

flare quite easily. The 105/2.5 AIS, AI and IC are very flair

resistant and give very mallow background rendition at f/2.5 to 4.0.

The 105/4.0 AI and AIS is slower, focus to 1:1 with the PN-11

tube and give smooth background rendition.<br>

<br>

Those who cover a focal length with just one lens ignore

important lens properties. These differences may not be important

to them but they should be aware that they exist and are

important to some.<br>

<br>

<em>Please correct me if I'm wrong --Todd<br>

</em><br>

OK, I will correct you. When the bayonet locks, the camera and

lens are one unit. The weakest link will cost you. There are

interactions between lens and sensor that transcend the

resolution and sharpness of either.<br>

<br>

<em>Would you even be able to tell the difference between

two images --Todd<br>

</em><br>

Zeiss states that they have paid special attention to internal

flare with these new ZF lenses. Fast lenses often suffer from

internal flare particularly when wide open. This can make the

image flat at larger apertures so stopping down a couple of stops

is advised when possible. A low contrast lens costs one image

sharpness. The Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF Planar could be sharper wide open

than other options. Another issue is corner sharpness and there

are more.<br>

<br>

Those who shoot landscape with the lens well stopped down are

likely to prefer the 50/1.8 AI or AIS Nikkor or 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor.

Those who shoot in a photojournalistic style are likely to prefer

the 50/1.4D AF or AIS Nikkor and those who use a 50mm lens for

portraits and candids of people are likely to prefer the 50/1.4

ZF Planar.<br>

<br>

Two of the finest normal lenses Ive ever used are the Zeiss

80/2.8 Planar and Schneider 80/2.8 Xenotar so I exspect good

things from these lens makers.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

Postscript: there is considerable ignorance shown in many replies

above, by that I mean may chose to ignore relevant differences

between various lenses or the same focal length and maximum aperture.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>Sharpening? That's that artificial stuff that is used

with low-res sensors and poor quality output media. If you

sharpen a blurry image, you end up with artifacts. It's no

substitute for a good lens and technique. --Ilkka Nissila<br>

</em><br>

I find some light sharpening is needed with most digital images

but excessive sharpening is no substitute for a quality lens and

good technique. Unless care is taken the artifacts from

sharpening can be quite ugly. Some just dont seem to see

these artifacts.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>Ahhh--a rhetorical question. Buying the Zeiss brand

does not make you a better photographer. --Peter Pawlyschyn<br>

</em><br>

This is irrelevant to the question. If the question was, Will

a better lens make me a better photographer? the answer is

no. If the question was, Will a better lens give me more

options and better image quality? the answer is yes (or

maybe depending on lens and sensor interactions).<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>Yes, I need one. --Yaron Kidron<br>

</em><br>

Thats simple and to the point. A man of faith Zeus (I meant

Zeiss, supreme god of lenses ;-). I doubt that, that faith is

misplaced.<br>

<br>

Yes, its good to be back. Thanks for the kind words in

another thread.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>The 50/1.8 AF-D is mind-blowingly good at f/2.8 on a D200.

I'm in awe by the results. But wide open it's terrible. --Ilkka

Nissila<br>

</em><br>

I find the bokeh, excuse me, of the 50/1.8 AF and AI Nikkors

better at f/2.8 than at f/2.0 and f/4.0. I wonder if you notice

the same?<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[darren_cokin]

If you've read the thread this far, I bet you'd really enjoy this article:<br>

<a href="http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml">http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/digital-view.shtml</a>

[vivek iyer]

I believe that the ZF 50/1.4 for dSLRs will only push up the prices of the 50/1.2 AIS Nikkors. It is not the resolution, there are other factors (CA, flare, etc) to consider.

 

Yaron, look for a 50/1.2 AIS!

[ky2]

Vivek, I am ;)

[ilkka_nissila]

David, the 50/1.8 AF-D bokeh is outstanding at f/2.8, but I don't have reference images for f/2 and f/4.

[Jim_Tardio]

<i>I was happily using my 20 mm AF-D on film and on the D200 the left 1/3 of the image was all a blur.</i>

<p>

Ilkka, why don't you send the lens to Nikon? Alignment problems are very common.

[ilkka_nissila]

Jim, I did, they charge a modest $220 to clean and "check" the lens, with no promise of improvement. We shall see.

 

I guess I think that things should be made properly in the first place.

[dennis lee]

Ikka, are you serious? I've been contemplating sending both my old 28/2 and

my just aquired 50 1.2 in for a clean and adjust. That's not right.

[ilkka_nissila]

If your lenses are under warranty, you're all set. If they're not, I recommend that you find a cheaper place to do the CLA than Nikon USA. For example, when Nikon in Finland did repair for me, they never charged a cent (they recently closed shop and now the local repair is done by independents). I had two lenses CLAd in January and the shop I used charged 60 euros for each lens. $220 is, IMO, a quite high price.

 

The reason I sent it to Nikon USA was because I felt that they probably have better equipment to check and fix alignment problems than independent shops. So I figured Nikon USA, apart from Nikon Japan, would be the most sure way of getting the problem solved.

I have high hopes as several people online have commented that their 20 mm lenses do well on the D200.