w. shinn ii Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Please indulge me. I am in sort of a "quandry" trying to decide whether to purchase the new Nikkor 50mm AF-S 1.4G or the Zeiss 50mm T. For the past few years I've drooled over the prospect of buying a Zeiss 50mm, but the recent introduction of the new Nikkor 50mm G lens has made me pause.<br> Nikkor Pros: Use of all the neat built-in automated exposure stuff on the D90. AF-S feature.<br />Cons: Not useable of Nikon F3s.<br> Zeiss Pros: Useable on F3s and the digitial (with hand-held light meter).<br />Cons: Useable on D90 (with hand-held light meter).<br> Question for the readers... from a purely aesthetic (quality of image) standpoint, forgetting everything else, which would be your first choice of these two excellent lenses. I would like your vote and please tell me why.<br> Thanks in advance!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Well, it is a hard choice. I have both. I love the looks and feel of the Zeiss. It is a gorgeous piece of machine/artifact/lens/glass or what ever you want to call it. It is sexy, pretty and made in Japan.<br> The 1.4G is well, made in China and feel very light. The plastic also makes it feel very cheap but it sure can make some nice images.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Hansen: have you had a chance to shoot the new Sigma 50/1.4 along side either of those?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_audacity_romberg Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 <p>Price no object?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankie_frank1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>If you're going to use with D90, pick Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S. With Nikkor, you'll get tons of almost perfect pictures ... easily. With Zeiss, you'll get few perfect pictures and lots of out-of-focus pictures.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Matt, I only did that one test earlier. I didn't compare the Zeiss with the Sigma. I did compare all my manual focus 50 mm before and the Zeiss is right up there with the Nikkor 50 mm f1.8 pancake at wide open.<br> I think I may just do that tomorrow if I get some time.;-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>I have both lenses and think the 50/1.4 AF-S has better optical quality especially at f/1.4.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_symington1 Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Same as what Ilkka said. The Zeiss I bought a while ago and like it but the new G lens is better from an end result point of view.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Recently I did some family photography with fast glass and I found the manual focus control on the 50 AF-S somewhat fiddly to use although it allows more precise control than the AF-D. However the image quality was truly excellent. I think this is one of the best recent Nikkors. It's also very lightweight which means finding space for it in my bag won't be a problem. ;-)<br> I did find that the G was somewhat more prone to ghosting when shooting into a spot light (I do some concert shooting so this is important to me) than the ZF (and the ghosting occupied a larger proportion of the image) ; and also the G has a bit more vignetting. But the G is a big improvement in image definition at wide apertures - the ZF is excellent at f/2.8 but at f/1.4 it has harsh bokeh whereas the G as better detail and more smooth bokeh at f/1.4 and f/2.<br> On the other hand results at f/2.8 which is my most frequently used aperture are excellent with either lens, so if you already have the ZF then it might not be worth the extra expense to get the G unless you frequently shoot in really low light and/or want to play with shallow depth of field. To me f/2.8 is a sweet spot for this type of work in terms of striking a compromise between depth of field, sharpness and usability in low light, but at times there just isn't enough light to use it. And the G delivers in these situations.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1268372">Frankie Frank</a> , Jan 12, 2009; 12:02 a.m.<br> If you're going to use with D90, pick Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G AF-S. With Nikkor, you'll get tons of almost perfect pictures ... easily. With Zeiss, you'll get few perfect pictures and lots of out-of-focus pictures.</p> </blockquote> <p>Can you elaborate on that? Was your Zeiss lens somehow incompatible with your D90?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Sounds like someone is having problems with manual focusing.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary_stamper Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Agree with Shun. Get your eyes checked, fixed your diopter and/or get a katzeye. Manual focus is just as accurate, if not more so, than autofocus, especially with the ZF lenses, which are built to be focused manually.<br> I'd say that if you are capable of accurately focusing manually, then get the ZF. If you aren't capable of focusing manually accurately, then get the Nikkor.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w. shinn ii Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 It's sounding like a split decision. I do not have problems manually focusing the D90. I give credit to its adjustable diopter and "in focus" LED (in the view finde)for this. I have to admit, my interest in photography is not in action or sports, where auto-focus would be more of a necessity. I prefer portraiture, landsapes, nature, still life, etc. Where I can take whatever time I need to compose, focus, etc. So Mary, are you saying you like the Zeiss better in terms of image quality; i.e., sharpness, contrast, color, etc.? What would be really great is a couple of "side by side" comparisons of the same image, photographs taken from the same camera, in the same light, from the same distance, etc. Anyone have something they could/would share with the group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprouty Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Not to high-jack this thread, but is there really no metering with the Zeiss?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofey_kalakar Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <blockquote> <p> <p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=3830881">Hansen Tsang</a> , Jan 12, 2009; 12:03 a.m.</p> <p >Matt, I only did that one test earlier. I didn't compare the Zeiss with the Sigma. I did compare all my manual focus 50 mm before and the Zeiss is right up there with the Nikkor 50 mm f1.8 pancake at wide open.<br />I think I may just do that tomorrow if I get some time.;-)</p> </p> </blockquote> <p >Hansen, I don't recall a Nikkor 50 f1.8 "pancake" lens. I do know that the 45 f2.8 AiP Nikkor is a "pancake" lens with a Tessar (4 element) design. As for the 50 f1.8 Nikkor, I don't believe it to be in the same league as the Zeiss 50 f1.4, Sigma 50 f1.4, 50 f1.4 AFS, 50 f1.4 AFD nor the 35 f2 AFD or 45 AiP @ f2.8 wide open.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>The Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIS 3rd generation was introduced sometime after the E Series in August 1985.<br> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index6.htm<br> The one I am is a f.18 mark 3. The first copy I bought used was loose and rattle but when I did a lens test this lens came out with some surprising results at wide open and stopped down. It has only one row of bumps on the aperture ring and small like the E-Series so I called it the pancake. It is not a genuine Tessar design.<br> As far as image quality you need to follow this link and check out the test images I just did today.<br> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00S5nc<br> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=887812<br> and if you are still not convinced, send me your email and I will be glad to send you the full size images to compare.</p> <div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Here is one with the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar T* at f1.8 100% crop also.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Here is one with the Nikon 50mm f1.4G AF-S @f1.8 100% crop also.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>It seems to me looking at this samples that this three lenses belong to the same family... very similar bokeh, color, almost the same performance (I certainly see the 50/1.8AiS slighty sharper, in second place the AFS and then the Zeiss, but by a negligible margin). Are all double-Gauss designs? If so, could it be the reason?<br /> Probably the optical quality is not the decisive factor at the time of purchasing one of this lenses, but to have AFS, compactness or contruction quality with a german name on it.<br /> I belong to the mole group, then with a super fine grain, splitless focusing screen like the one on my camera, and shooting what I usually shoot...<em> I need AF</em>.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>... at the US I`d belong to the <i>bat</i> group, thought.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>I was alerted to the fact that the shots I took with the Zeiss may not be in focus. So I re-shot and here is the new image. Now the three lenses are really close.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_santo Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Aside from the lens stuff. Am I reading correctly? Kadota Liquor charges $49.99 for a 750 ml bottle of Jack Daniels? That is highway robbery!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_santo Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Well I've had a cocktail (Crown Royal Cask 16), so I decided to take a look at image quality of the various 50/1.4's. I don't see a significant difference between the lenses. I didn't expect to. Why buy the Zeiss over the Nikon?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w. shinn ii Posted January 12, 2009 Author Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Thank you very, very much Mr. Tsang.<br> The image quality for all three look fantastic. for my eye the image quality ranking is from 1st to 3rd, the 1.8 AIS, the 1.4 G, and the Zeiss Planar T.<br> Photography, I've been smitten with it for over 30 years. Such a wonderful, interesting field of endeavor; with so many giving, kind, creative, and wonderful people involved in it. I abosolutely love it. Thank you again for taking the time and effort to post these wonderful examples.<br> Now I'm off to find me one of those 3rd generation Nikkor 50mm 1.8 lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seismiccwave Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 <p>Man you guys are making me feel bad about the price of Jack.;-) I never would have known I have been robbed if nobody told me about it. So what do you pay for a a fifth of Jack? <br> Some people like the built quality of the Zeiss. The older Zeiss optically legend has carried over some but these are Japan Zeiss and not the German Zeiss. So no reason to buy Zeiss unless it is a simple "want" rather than "need".</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now