Manual Zeiss lenses

[antonio_carusone]

Anyone use or have experience with manual focus Zeiss lenses on Nikon DSLR's,

specifically the D200?

 

I've always loved Zeiss glass, use to own a Contax and fell in love with the

lenses, so I'm thinking about purchasing a 50mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* Manual. I

don't do any sports or fasted paced photography and I've always loved focusing

manually, makes me feel like I have more control over the image even if I don't.

 

I understand that on the D200 the viewfinder is not full frame and it's a little

dark but I read that you can buy a split screen for it to help with manual focus.

 

Is it just a stupid idea or is manual focusing on a D200 tolerable?

[r.t. dowling]

According to the reviews I've read: they are decent lenses, but WAY overpriced, and certainly no better than those manufactured by Nikon. In fact, the build quality actually isn't as good.

[antonio_carusone]

Actaully Ive heard the opposite. The build quality is suppose to be superb, after all the Nikon 50mm lens is freaking made of all plastic.

[oceanphysics]

Where did you get the information that the build quality isn't as good? Sounds highly dubious, especially since most of the equivalent Nikon lenses are high in plastic.

[leicaglow]

I thoroughly enjoy using my arsenal of classic AIS MF lenses on my D200. I also shoot a lot of my classics, like my Canon EF. Even with a smaller screen, the D200 is as easy to focus as my Canon, or older Nikons. The big thing that makes the D200 not only tolerable, but very useful, is the LED that lights up when you turn the focusing ring and the camera senses the subject is in focus. I use this in dark lighting all the time. In fact, I trust the system enough I wouldn't have any trouble pointing the focus point where I want it and turning the focusing ring until the LED comes on, and trusting it is truly in focus. It's very nice.

 

I'd also like to try the Zeiss lenses, but I've yet to see ANY examples offered up by anyone, despite my requests.

[harvey_edelstein1]

My old Nikon 50mm F1.2 ais is made of metal has a rounded 9 blade iris.

This lense has great bokeh and the best MTF at F2.0 of any Nikon lens.

Look up the posts on this lens and google for test reports and you will find out it a gem. I like Zeiss I just got an 25mm f2.8 for my Leica, but I paid $250 for my lens in excellent plus condition and I got a 28mm f2.0 ais also all metal for $150 and together with my 85mm f1.4 afd I have a fast trio of primes Zeiss can't touch for 3 times the price.

[antonio_carusone]

Michael,

 

Here are some samples.

 

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/zeiss/planar_t_1450_zf

[antonio_carusone]

Here are some more.

 

http://www.digitaldarrell.com/Review%20-%20ZeissLenses4NikonFMount.asp

[oceanphysics]

<i>the best MTF at F2.0 of any Nikon lens.</i>

<p>

Reference? I <i>highly</i> doubt it.

[harvey_edelstein1]

Search within the last year for a post on the Nikon Pnet forum, I think it was R. Lai who posted it that he compared the 50mm 1.8, 1.4 and some third party lens to the f1.2. Why would I lie about this, I am trying on this forum to help folks for free and I am not looking to sell my lens to profit from what I am saying. Most lenses are much better stopped down a few fstops and since the difference in lens openning between f2 and f1.2 is a lot the lens performs about as well as the other lenses at f2.8/ at f2.8 the lens MTF tightens up but F2.0 the lens stands out.

[oceanphysics]

Well some guy having posted one time about having compared it to a couple of Nikkors and a few other lenses is about a thousand miles from it being an established fact that it's the best of all Nikkors at f/2.0, now isn't it?

<p>

I never accused you of lying. In fact, I never accused you of anything -- I merely wanted to know the source of your information so I could judge its credibility. Now I know.

[harvey_edelstein1]

It was a complete set of superimposed MTF curves so that the lenses could be compared. A lot of time went into the tests that require precision optical test bench. You may believe what you will but this some guy has many other tests he has shared over the past on the same focal length such as light falloff at fstops, barrel distortion, OOF rendering. His time our benefit. For the difference in price I can't see that the lens Zeiss lens will perform so much better to justify sinking so much capital in one lens. Unless you are rich and think that Nikon never made any lens better than Zeiss.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

"According to the reviews I've read: they are decent lenses, but WAY overpriced, and certainly no better than those manufactured by Nikon. In fact, the build quality actually isn't as good"

 

Oh...someone said something on a web site, so it must be true...

 

...more uninformed 3rd hand information..IGNORE IT.

 

The ZF lenses have superb construction, feel and handling..and YES I do actually have one...and lots on Nikkors to compare it to.

 

cheers Steve.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

It's too bad that Zeiss chose not to build AF lenses for the D200. Their Contax lenses (N and 645) nicely integrated MF and AF.

[Ed_Ingold]

Results with the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF lens, posted on Photo.net by Ilkka Nissila, have been simply stunning. Nothing in the Nikon stable compares to the sharpness and contrast of this lens. I find that most of my digital landscape and cityscape photos tend to center on 50mm. The ZF lens is pricey (>$600 US), but still a contender for space in my kit.

 

In case you haven't peeked at the manual (or through the viewfinder), the electronic focus detectors work with any lens, automatic or manual. Just get it in the ball park with the ground glass and look for the green ball.

 

Don't waste your time and money on a split-prism "rangefinder". The don't work as well as the ground glass, and simply get in the way for composition. The main attraction for split-prism finders is that they aren't commonly found in modern (post 1976) cameras - "the grass is always greener...". My last one (Rolleiflex) went into storage in 1964.

[godfrey]

I have not seen any of the Zeiss lenses for Nikon mount.

 

The D200 focusing viewfinder is very good, however, and I have had no problems focusing

manually with it using older Nikkor AI-S series lenses (my brother's camera ... I personally us

Pentax DSLRs which have similar high-quality focusing capabilities). If the Zeiss lenses are

good, they'll work just fine.

 

Godfrey

[studor13]

Don't know if this is relevant since I get the impression that you are asking only about the new Zeiss, but I have used a CF 80mm and 150mm designed for the Blad on a D70.

 

At first I didn't find anything in favour of the Zeisses but not so long ago I found out that I had a back focus problem with the D70.

 

I redid some tests and found that I preferred images from my 75-150mm Series E as well as my 200mm f4 AIS over the 150mm Sonnar. Well, it is after-all a lens for 6x6.

 

However, the 80mm CF was a different story. This is just a great lens. It wasn't that it was necessarily heads and shoulders above the the 18-70DX and the Series E, but the lens as a whole gave me the feeling that any Zeiss lens designed for the F mount is just going to be outstanding.

 

If money was no issue I know what I'd get.

 

(BTW the three Nikons mentioned are plenty good for me)

[r.t. dowling]

Well, for one thing, they're not even <i>made</i> by Zeiss -- they're made by Cosina. Cosina manufactured the Nikon FM10, and having used several of those, I can say with confidence that Cosina's quality control and build quality is not up to par with Nikon.<br><br>

 

I'm sure it's not a <i>bad</i> lens by any means -- but it's still overpriced, and I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that it is optically <i>superior</i> to the manual focus AI or AIS 50/1.4 Nikkors that it is competing with.

[antonio_carusone]

Zeiss handles the quality control on these lenses. Cosina just produces them. Cosina also produces the Zeiss lenses for Leicas so I doubt they are as bad as you are saying. Personally the Nikon AF lens I have seen feel like a toy in my hand, they don't compare to anything made by Zeiss.

[r.t. dowling]

I don't doubt that the "Zeiss" 50/1.4 has a better feel than the autofocus 50/1.4 currently made by Nikon, but that's not a fair comparison. Compare the "Zeiss" lens to a <i>manual focus</i> Nikon 50/1.4 and I think you'll find that the Nikon version most certainly does not feel like a toy. Optically, the Nikon version should be just as good if not better, and it'll probably cost about 75% less.

[Ed_Ingold]

There is an interesting tutorial at the Zeiss website showing the manufacturing, assembly and QA process for lenses. No one else comes even close. One of the most difficult (and overlooked) tasks is centering the elements. Zeiss centering tolerances are 0.02 mm for production lenses (process lenses are really special). This is simply impossible with the plastic cams and bushings found in most modern Nikon lenses. As with any process, it takes a geometric increase in care to extract modest gains in performance. Anyone who has used an Hasselblad can testify that any lapses in technique negate the quality advantage you might otherwise have.

[jsbc]

Actually one of the Nikon lenses with the best build quality is the 45mm AiP. That is said to be made by Cosina.

[Uhooru]

Harvey, do you have any actual photographs using your sharpest ever Nikon that we could look on. I like to take and look at pictures, not test charts.

[steven_moseley1]

Hiya,

 

Mr R T Dowling..we might take you more seriously if your posts contained facts and not just biased supposition and invention..

 

1. "Optically, the Nikon version should be just as good if not better"

 

...please explain WHY exactly?

 

2. "Well, for one thing, they're not even made by Zeiss -- they're made by Cosina. Cosina manufactured the Nikon FM10, and having used several of those, I can say with confidence that Cosina's quality control and build quality is not up to par with Nikon"

 

...either you are in ignorance of the recent Cosina products, OR you choose to conveniently ignore them..

 

Cosina for the last few years have been designing and producing superb photographic tools; the Voigtlander rangefinder cameras, the matching Voigtlander lenses, which many Leica M users are more than happy to use and the superbly well made (better than Nikon AI) Voigtlander SL range of SLR lenses. All these products are very well thought of in Japan and around the world. I believe Cosina also made the Contax S2 for Kyocera.

 

Also lets put to bed this nonsense about "they are not even made by Zeiss"...Kyocera made most of the Contax C/Y Zeiss lenses and they are without doubt second only to Leica and in some cases equal to. Where a lens is made is IRRELEVANT..it is how they are made, to what tolerances and to what QC controls.

 

Many of the parts of the Zeiss ZF lenses are made in Germany and shipped over for assembly..also the production line is under Zeiss supervision and applies Zeiss QC controls.

 

And if the Nikon FM-10 is so bad, then it begs the question WHY did you use several of them?

 

Cheers Steve.M.

[dennis_mansour1]

I am not sure if what i read in this article but can I use a Hassy Lense 80mm on my Nikon D80 ? Is there an adaptor that i ahve to use ? I have always used a Hassy until digital came out. I now use a nikon D80 and would like to try a zeiss or Voightlander or Hassy lense

Any suggestions would be appreciated. habib