Considering a Zeiss 50mm ZF for D200

[james_symington1]

I like the Zeiss 50mm very much and don't have much problem focussing it on a D3 or D700 although it can be a bit tricky from time to time. Where I really love it is using it on my F6 which Nikon makes a slit-image/microprism for and there it is a real joy. I did do a rough test of it against the 50mm AFD a while ago and found the Zeiss to be slightly sharper stopped down but the Nikon is nevertheless excellent. My only criticism of the ZF is that it produces a bit of barrel distortion which you might not expect on a prime of this focal length.

 

I love 50mm lenses and am looking forward to the AFS version coming out next month. It is likely to be stellar (no excuse if it isn't) so perhaps you could wait for that if the ZF doesn't appeal?

[sprouty]

Andy, I'm not sure about IIkka, but I am mainly interested in the lens not for its performance but as an aesthetic choice in how I interface with the camera. I certainly wouldn't argue that it was faster or more accurate in all instances, or maybe even any for that matter.

[mike_lockwood]

Thanks everyone, lots to consider. I don't make a living through photography, so a used lens would be the most cost

effective approach. However, I'd like to use this as an opportunity to upgrade from my current 50mm, which is an F2.

Finding used equipment is pretty much hit and miss, and I've heard some good things about the Zeiss, but the cost

compared to used is quite high (no surprise there). So do I want to spend more on a new lens (I've never bought a

new lens before) or do I want to wait until I find a good used lens. My 50mm is still useable, so there isn't a real rush.

 

I'm not interested in AF. I had an AF fail me shooting in a light snowfall once, and haven't considered AF since.

Guess I know how to hold a grudge! I find manually focusing an AF lens to be less than ideal, too.

[ilkka_nissila]

Focusing manually is more convenient for me when working with shallow depth of field, as I can just turn the ring

and watch the image change and pick the

setting that works best for the whole image without altering the composition in the process. Playing with the

touchpad to select a focus point is annoying and cumbersome (to me). To me, using autofocus in these situations

is like have to step into a car to get into the next room. If that's convenient for you, I don't object to that.

I will stick to

methods that work well for me. To me, autofocusing on the face, even when carefully done, often results in slight

front focus, unless I am really close to the subject, too close for a nice looking portrait with a 50. To me,

neither method is universally superior and having the option to choose is a good thing - MF glass often saves me

stress and aggravation and I get images that I like, which is just as important.

<p>

In as far as the difference in image quality goes, the Zeiss lenses have a different look and it is easy to see.

The look of the in-focus areas at wide apertures with the 50/1.4 ZF look totally different from how they look

taken with a Nikon 50mm - this is not some minute difference that is hard to see. Perhaps it is hard to see for

someone who is determined to hate Zeiss or who can't see well enough to be able to focus manually.

<p>

I've done blind tests of prints made from close-up photos taken of the same subject with the same effective

aperture (f/8) with the 105 VR vs. the 100mm ZF recently, so far, everyone who knows photography has guessed

correctly, which lens is which. Moreover, every one of the non-photographers has identified the Zeiss image as

better. Personally I think the Nikon image looks "gentler" whereas the wider DOF and robust sharpness of the

Zeiss is easy to see. I wouldn't go and claim that one is always superior to the other - although it seems that

others have done that based on my images. The image is at 1:2.5 magnification, which is where the Nikkor is in my

opinion at its best, and

was taken with studio flashes. At wide apertures and higher magnifications the difference is greater.

<p>

Mike, the 50/1.4 Ai-S is a good, gentle lens but I preferred the f/1.8 to it when I had both. At f/2 the 1.4 is

better than the 1.8, of course, just as at f/1.4 the Nikon 50/1.2 is better than the 50/1.4. But at smaller

apertures the slower 50mm Nikkors are superior to the fast ones. The Zeiss IMO works well from f/2 to f/11 and

matches or beats the Nikkors in this range of apertures, retaining high contrast and sharpness. At f/1.4 the

Nikon 1.2 is sharper but I rarely use f/1.4 and the 1.2 seemed to be a lot harder to focus than the Zeiss 50/1.4.

Which choice is right for you - I don't know.

[ilkka_nissila]

I have above maintained that the difference is easy to see. To me, this is so, and others have also seen it in

my prints. However, it is important to consider the aesthetics of an image as a whole. For example, some might

find the sharp transition of in-focus sharpness to blur unattractive. Many Nikkors have a very subtle transition

from in- to out-of-focus appearance. Whereas with the Zeiss the in-focus areas retain sharpness a bit further

from the focused plane than with the Nikon lenses, which is one of the things which make the images easy to

identify, but this doesn't necessarily work for every viewer and every subject. Portraits are an example, where

you may not want to use a lens which brings out the image details with high contrast. In my example image the

high contrast works, but on another subject it might not. This is why I think it's important to have choices -

and not have to resort to extensive Photoshop work to fix things that could be done optically.

 

Anyway, I didn't intend to sound as offensive as I seem to have towards people who criticized the manual focus

only characteristics of the Zeiss lenses. I know autofocus is an important feature. I was working very late last

night and was tired. But I managed to get a p-value of 0.017 for my study, so something good came out of it. ;-)

[sprouty]

<I>"...autofocusing on the face, even when carefully done, often results in slight front focus..."</I>

<P>

My experience as well. BTW thanks for posting that image and sharing your personal experience with all the lenses.

[oskar_ojala]

I like 50 mm. I find myself using mainly the 55/3.5 micro, then the 50/1.2 AI-S, then the 50/1.4 AF-D. The micro is versatile when I need to shoot both close and farther and produces excellent quality when stopped down. the 50/1.2 has excellent mechanical quality and good resolution. The 50/1.4 AF-D has the highest contrast, but the resolution is not as satisfactory as on the 50/1.2, so it gets used less. I've tried the Zeiss 50/1.4, it's a very good lens. For really large apertures, the 50/1.2 would probably be the best choice, provided that you can focus it. The Zeiss 50/1.4 would probably be the best overall, use anywhere -choice.

 

My feeling is that the 50/1.2 is mot like the formula one car; finely made, can perform but challenging to use. The Zeiss is easier, the contrast is higher and it snaps more easily into focus. I'm not that interested in Nikon's 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 anymore, unless the new AF-S manages to really improve resolution and flare. I kind of want a Zeiss 50/2, but can't justify the price right now.

 

Ilkka, your upload seems to have a serious contrast problem,the highlights seem clipped. The print certainly looks much better.

[jennifer_spencer]

I own the Zeiss 50mm 1.4, waited for a used one to come along and bought it (about $350). My other SLR lenses

are Nikons.

 

I am happy with the Zeiss. I love what it does to the color of my images. I can see a difference between photos

of the same thing in the same light, same exposure, with different lenses. It makes the light and the colors

less harsh, less flat, more translucent somehow. There's a certain subtle quality about it that is noticeably

different. My Nikon lenses are great - don't get me wrong - but they are different than the Zeiss, IMHO.

 

I have had no trouble focusing it with my F100 or my D200, though it gets a little harder for me at very close

range (I think it's my eyesight). However, I confess that it just feels good to focus the thing. There is a

certain smoothness to the way the barrel feels and how flawlessly it seems to spin - I could focus that thing all

day. It feels... expensive. Sorta like driving a Porsche or something.

 

If I could afford it, I would buy their macro lens as well. I keep thinking about it.

[35mmdelux]

By far the best Nikon mount glass I have ever used. My F6 kit is rounded out with a 28mm/2.0 and 105mm/2.5.

I had a portrait shoot (pro bono) developed at Walmart and it blew their socks off. The fotos would not be released because they said it was "professional work protected by copyright laws and I wasn't a professional."

[35mmdelux]

I picked up a copy for $400 bucks. I do not think this expensive for fast quality glass. Then, of course, I ponied up $2400 (US) for my pre-owned Leica 50mm/1.4 ASPH glass.

[mike_lockwood]

Went to the local camera shop today and found a used Nikon 50mm F1.4 in very good shape for a decent price. I picked it up and have about 2 weeks to play with it. It feels alot nicer than my old 50mm F2 (before it was wrecked)... focus ring has a smoother feel to it. Thing I find about used lenses is that if you find one you like, get it before it's gone.

 

The thought of a Zeiss 50mm still makes me salivate, but this route is more cost effective. I'm also not entirely sure that it's wise in this economy to spend that much on a lens when it really is an unpaying hobby.