Carl Zeiss vs. Nikkor G (both are 50/1.4)

[ruslan]

<p>Our local shop now carry both redesigned 50/1.4 AF-S G and Carl Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF... Plastic fantastic or metal germanic "reference" glass? <br>

Which of them is optically better? Who tried them? I do understand that in terms of pixel sharpness our eyes could not be compared with up-to-date AF systems... So I thing percentage of sharp images would be more with AF lens. So I prone to AF. I consider D700 in the future.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Just an impression based on a short trial: Both lenses are excellent in terms of IQ but the Zeiss bokeh can be harsh. So it may be primarily a matter of taste and your application.</p>

<p>Perhaps your local store allows you a comparative shooting for say an hour? At least this is what local stores are all about?</p>

<p>There are other Zeiss lenses that I would go for first, like the macro planar lenses. One of these is the 50mm macro planar. But of course it is a bit slower. Do you need f1.4? How do you focus your f1.4 lens to the needed precision to use f1.4?</p>

 

[carl_becker2]

<p>You might do some research on the Sigma 50mm f1.4 also.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have used both of those lenses but not at the same time. A few years ago I tried a friend's ZF on my D2X for an hour, and I found out that it is very difficult to focus it accurately without a split-image focusing screen. If you can always use it on a tripod and use live view to focus on the D700, I would imagine that can solve the problem, but that kind of defeats to have f1.4.</p>

<p>Nikon's 50mm/f1.4 AF-S is a decent lens. AF is on the slower side.</p>

<p>Just don't expect to get great sharpness at f1.4, from any f1.4 lens. Depth of field is so narrow that most of the image will be out of focus anyway.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree with Walter,</p>

<p>The tests I have read of the Zeiss f1.4 are not really inspiring. You might as well try and get the Voigtlander Nokton or the Sigma AF if you are after a different look. The Zeiss 50/2 Planar is a superior lens indeed, but more expensive still.</p>

[photo5]

<p>I'd take the Nikon. If I shot with an F3, I'd take the Zeiss. AF is very handy in nearly every situation. Manual focus is OK, but if I have a choice I'll take the AF lens.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Hi Ruslan,<br>

It depends very much what are you shooting. I owned the 'plastic fantastic' and I had for a couple of days the 50/1.4 from Zeiss.<br>

The Nikkor is a good all-purpose 50mm lens but it was not impressing me at any aspect. At every point it is second to some other lenses... so finally I renounced to keep it. Zeiss 50/1.4 is a great piece of glass, it shines for shooting not so close subjects and its peak is from f2.8 to f8 but honestly is not bad wide open. It was not difficult at all to focus it manually on my D700.<br>

Anyhow my top three preferences on 50's are Zeiss 50/2, Nikon 50/1.2 AIS and Sigma 50/1.4, each one having a distinct character and specific applications.</p>

[ryan_smith9]

<p>I have used the Nikon 50 1.4 AF-S and currently have the Sigma 50 1.4 and Zeiss ZF 50 1.4</p>

<p>I wanted a 50 for AF purposes as I have a little one that runs around constantly and MF just is not an option. I wanted a 1.4 for just that, 1.4. Taking that into consideration, the Sigma was the hands down winner from about 1.4 - 2.8 as far as sharpness and bokeh (my taste) goes. From about 2.8 on the Nikon was sharper....but that is not what I wanted. I wanted 1.4 capabilities.</p>

<p>I then tried out the ZF 50 1.4 although I read the same thing that is mentioned above. Bokeh called harsh, not sharp, blah blah blah. Sharpness-wise, it is a little soft wide open at close-up distance but from about 8 ft on there isn't another 1.4 lens that can hold up to the Zeiss. From f/2 on this lens is razor sharp at all distances and the other 50 1.4 lenses I tried aren't even close. For landscape purposes, this is an excellent choice as the curvature and distortion are minimal to non-existant. For bokeh purposes, I agree, the bokeh from 1.4 to 2.8 is 'harsh'. It reminds me of the 50 1.2 AI-S I used to have. However, this 'harshness' can be put to good use and you can get excellent shots with the bokeh it provides.</p>

<p>The ZF 50 f/2 is also an excellent lens. Obviously it does not go down to f/1.4 but it is sharper than the ZF 50 1.4 all around. After looking at several hundred photos taken by each lens, I will say that the ZF 50 1.4 does have more plasticity providing for more of a '3-D' look than the ZF 50 f/2. From f/2.8 on I also do prefer the bokeh from the ZF 50 1.4 better.</p>

<p>Like I mentioned, I have both the Sigma and Zeiss for specific instances. If you must have AF, I would recommend the Sigma. I have a D700 and focusing the Zeiss is not an issue at all. The huge VF is a pleasure to MF with. After master manual focus with my D700 I tried it on the D90 and also got superior results. Take a look at the photos below made with the D90 and ZF 50 1.4 at f/2<br /><img src="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/photos/842097521_F8Lm6-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://rsolti.smugmug.com/photos/842097212_Jr5qo-L.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

[ryan_smith9]

<p>And just for reference....the picture below is taken with the Sigma 50 1.4 wide open. The Zeiss would not be as smooth as this and the Nikon not as sharp. Pick your poison :)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.soltiphotography.com/Portraits/Annyston-Cashwell/RTS5498/927219998_L6pVB-L.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[james_symington1]

<p>I have both and use them extensively. Wide open they are much of a muchness and although some people say that the ZF bokeh is harsh I don't really agree - but it can be fairly dreamy as in the photo below. For what it's worth the resolution the ZF is supposed to be capable of stopped down is stratospheric but it rather presumes your imaging chain is capable of supporting that performance. The ZF is what I always use unless I know I need the speed of AF for photographing my restless little daughters.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>The Sigma is a fairly odd lens. Out of curiosity (although I`m currently fine with my 50AFS I`m always looking for something better) I`ve been checking the photozone`s MTF for both lenses... sadly the Sigma is not tested for Nikon cameras.<br /> Anyway, have a look at the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/441-nikkor_afs_50_14_ff">50AFS on the D3X </a>and the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff">Sigma on a Canon 5DII</a>; I understand that they cannot be compared on different bodies but it could give an idea of their behaviour. The Sigma looks to show all kind of issues. Extremely high center performance, at any aperture... at the center only. I have been tempted for several times about buying it but... I always chicken out.</p>

[ryan_smith9]

<p>Relying on photozone's MTFs sadly is not the best method to take</p>

[ruslan]

<p>Thank you! <br>

Does D700 provide focus assist with Zeiss? Do you often misfocus while focusing manually (and shootin' at f2.0 f 1.4)?<br>

D 700 does not have split-image, and now we can see our pictures on Plazma TV-screens, so pixel sharpnes issue is so crirical to me. </p>

[ryan_smith9]

<p>Ruslan, it depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting mainly stills or slow moving objects it is not hard to focus with the ZF and the D700. If you are shooting kids like I sometimes do, it is damn near impossible to keep up with them with the ZF. I posted the two taken with my D90 (horrible VF compared to D700) to show that it CAN be done. I took about 6 shots there by the way, every one of them was 100% sharp. They were shot at f/2. The D700 makes it even easier. Focusing is VERY easy with the large D700 VF. At f/2 I feel that I can rely on the rangefinder green dot indicator at the bottom for a good shot (though I normally don't). At f/1.4 it is less accurate and you should rely on your own eyes. You can rely on the green dot to get you close, but your own eyes will work better once you are close.</p>

<p>And no, focusing screen is not needed on the D700....for me. I wear glasses at work so that I can read the screen but do not wear glasses when shooting with the D700. I adjusted the VF to my needs and it works perfectly.</p>

<p>For those of us with the D700 it is a shame not to use some of the best glass out there strictly because it is manual focus. Classic lenses such as the Nikon 105 2.5 AI-S, Nikon 28 2.8 AI-S and several of the Zeiss primes are examples of very good manual focus lenses that we (D700/D3) users should make more us of. The VF is HUGE and manual focusing is very easy to do....just like the old saying....don't knock it til you try it. Now I would not whole-heartily recommend DX users or FX users shooting kids to use manual focus lenses all the time....but for us FX users that shoot landscape/stills/even portraits the amount of quality manual focus glass is there and it is a shame to overlook for the 'convenience' of AF.</p>

<p>sorry for the rant.....I'm done!</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p>Does D700 provide focus assist with Zeiss?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it does.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you often misfocus while focusing manually (and shootin' at f2.0 f 1.4)?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The rangefinder aid has a somewhat larger "focus tolerance" (it happened on all AF cameras I`ve had, D700 included). At such apertures there is a -high- risk of misfocus under certain situations; the only way is to have previously tested a procedure by yourself and to apply it in a scrupulous way. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>... pixel sharpnes issue is so crirical to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don`t want to be a party pooper but IMHO critical focusing on a D700 screen with MF lenses is not a good idea. I have tested it several times and found that I cannot distinguish small focus differences on it when shooting... differences that I see later at the computer screen. I`d like to be wrong (I have tons of wonderful AiS Nikkors), but it`s not my case. <br /> It is not matter of a good or not eyesight, but on the screen type that doesn`t allow to perceive small focus differences at such fast apertures. You can see a perfectly focused subject on the screen that really isn`t on the image. <em>Please notice that we`re talking about critical focu</em>s (wide open, relatively close subjects). Under certain conditions that some could consider "normal", maybe this screens are right. It is my own experience. <br>

<br /> If you are considering a MF lens I`d think on a MF screen as well.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>I put a Katz Eye screen into my D700 and it is brilliant. Part of the joy of these ZFs is using them wide open and making a small investment (relative to a D700 and a few ZFs) in a screen that brings up the percentage of accurately focused shots seemed a no-brainer to me. The rangefinder dot is categorically not good enough to use on nearby subjects at wide apertures as many shots will be slightly off due to the small latitude the green 'in focus' dot allows .<br>

Of course the great advantage of the D700 relative to many other cameras is that it has both Live View and a high resolution screen on which you can verify spot on focus (usually when tripod mounted). This has proved itself invaluable to me over the last year and I wouldn't invest in any digital camera that was without it now.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>IMHO critical focusing on a D700 screen with MF lenses is not a good idea. I have tested it several times and found that I cannot distinguish small focus differences on it when shooting... differences that I see later at the computer screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was exactly my experience using the ZF 50mm/f1.4 on the D2X. Near 1.4, the depth of field is narrow; any tiny bit of focusing error will show up easily. That focus confirmation circle is not very precise.</p>

<p>In fact, that has always been my experience with manual focusing. Today, wearing glasses, I still have above-average 20/15 vision. But back when I was a teenager, SLRs used to have microprism focus assist only, and I always had problems with precise focusing. Later on, split image was available and I found that was very helpful.</p>

<p>A few years ago I added a split-image focusing screen to my Contax 645 because once again that is necessary for precise focusing. The Contax also has a focus-confirmation circle and I found that not precise enough. Keep in mind that the 645 focusing screen is almost 3 times the area of FX. Therefore, it is not merely a screen/viewfinder size issue.</p>

<p>Of course, today we also have live view on newer DSLRs. To me, it is either live view for split focus.</p>

[diane_madura]

<p>Hi, Ruslan. Here is my experience when comparing the Zeiss 50/1.4 ZF with the Nikon 35mm f/2D AF. Color is pretty much the same. The Zeiss is slightly sharper, but by very little. A little bit better contrast in the fine details in the scene. I printed the photos out on 8.5 X 11 paper, and also printed out small sections of each scene on 8.5 X 11 paper. </p>

<p>There is, no doubt, some difference between the two lenses. I think I am normally very critical, but I could not see a big enough difference to warrant paying 3 times as much for the Zeiss, in addition to the Zeiss being manual focus. I had purchased the Zeiss, kept it for a week, but returned it. Now if they ever manufacture one that is auto focus, that would be another story.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>You are comparing a "G" Nikkor lens that is also the "D" lens.</p>

<p>From prior investigations was discovered that Zeiss lens is not a "D" lens.<br />To make sure, ask Zeiss if/when they will use the latest Nikon's CPUs in their lenses, or plainly ... when their lenses will be also "D" lenses.</p>

<p>If you want to use modes that require focus distance, like 3D Matrix metering or iTTL/Balanced flash mode, the Zeiss lens cannot provide required distance information.</p>

<p>Then more importantly, when you want to take advantage of both 3D matrix metering for ambient static lighting, and together with the flash iTTL/Balanced mode and metering, then you need a "D" lens.</p>

[ruslan]

<p>It is strange that Zeiss won't start to be a real third-party company, producing top-notch and popular AF lenses, now that Sony is going to reject Zeiss in favour of their G-glass (ex-Minolta pro-grade) - it is seen in camcorder area and in their current lenses changes... Zeiss used to be with Hassy, Contax.... ah.<br>

<em>"It is not matter of a good or not eyesight, but on the screen type that doesn`t allow to perceive small focus differences at such fast apertures. You can see a perfectly focused subject on the screen that really isn`t on the image. Please notice that we`re talking about critical focus (wide open, relatively close subjects). Under certain conditions that some could consider "normal", maybe this screens are right. It is my own experience".</em> I completely understand... That is true.<br />Yes, I used to have 50/1.4 AF Nikkor with F90 and and... in 4-7 meters off the object at f2 of f2.8 in dim ligth (3-5lux) or early twilight... I often misfocused focusing manually... In AF mode all was superb, at least on the paper and film. Now on huge plazma and LCD screens (and so as to use all the capabilities of the lens and the sensor) focus accuracy is even more crucial. <br>

As for Sigma, I heard a lot of complaints concerned with back and front focusing. Ryan, thanks for help and good information, maybe you are lucky not to have such ussues with your Sigma. <br>

Now my Olympus does a good job with 25/2.8 - in a very small VF I can not focus properly in in good lighting conditions. But camera musfocuses less than 1% (may be due to greater DOF in Olympuses)</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>If you want the best in terms of sharpness, the Zeiss 50/2 is the way to go. It's good even at maximum aperture and better than Nikon's 50/1.8. But If you need one stop extra then I think the choice really boils down mostly to manual focus vs. auto focus (yes, there are image quality differences between the AF-S 50/1.4 and ZF 50/1.4, but focusing handling differences are in my mind pretty critical).<br>

I'll also second to have the focusing screen replaced if you do MF; the stock screen is much worse than a good screen designed for MF. What the stock screen really is designed for is to appear bright when using slow zooms.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I shoot with the Sigma 50 F1.4 on a D300 so it is really a 75mm (crop factor). I believe it is intended to be shot wide open or closed down only 1 or 2 stops. I don't believe it is intended to be a travel lens as it heavy and bulky for a 50mm lens. The bokeh of the lens and the relative sharpness wide open is the main reason for using the lens. Otherwise, if you want to travel light and shoot subjects that don't require a wide aperture, this probably isn't the correct lens. It just depends which kind a subject you want to shoot.</p>

[elio_di_claudio]

<p>I have the ZF 50 and tried the 50 AFS in comparison on a D3x demo with manual focus, which was better in average than autofocus/LED. On the LCD screen the 50 AFS seemed sharper at full aperture, but a raw analysis showed that the AFS is slightly more contrasty, but less resolvent than the ZF on the most important part of the frame. Sigma is better than both at full aperture or at f/2, but looses stopping down. ZF and AFS are still almost on par on the D3x at f/2, but from f/2.8 the ZF is much better, even as for bokeh. On film, which has visibly higher resolution than the D3x (I use Velvia 50/100 with Minolta 5400 II scanner and top software), the ZF seems to be unbeatable at medium apertures, brilliant and ultra-resolving. From f/6.3, I prefer Summicron 50, Nikkor 50 1.8 and Micros 55-60, and Macro-Planar 50 ZF, because of CA, distortion and rendition at close distances. I have Nikkor 50 1.8 AI and Micro 60 AFD for this purpose.<br>

In true low light I prefer my Distagon ZF 28, VC Ultron 40 SL II and Nikkor 85 1.4 AFD.<br>

I don't take that a fast lens has to be used and evaluated mainly at near-full aperture (only the Summilux ASPH could, maybe). Zeiss seems to be optimized for peak sharpness, which happens at medium apertures, f/2.8-5.6, with high resolution sensors and films. Fast lenses optimized at full aperture regularly lose the game stopping down a little, because of physical reasons (flare, distribution of the limited correction capability on the full frame, more air-to-glass surfaces). I didn't not observe any exception here. Aspherics (molded ones at least) may extend the optimal quality range by about one stop (Summicron-M ASPH 35, Voigtlander 40 SLII), but still do not beat the ZF 50 1.4 as for peak quality.<br>

Sincerely<br>

Elio Di Claudio</p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>Personally I find it very easy focusing my two Zeiss lenses, a 35 ZF.2 and a ZF MP 100 F.2 or my Nikkor 105 f/2.5 AI or Nikkor 28 f/2.8 AI-S on my D3 and D700. I agree with Ryan Solti in this regard as there is a marked difference between using manual focus lenses on FX compared to DX cameras. Another very helpful item is the use of a DK-17M magnifying eyepiece. I always focus using the screen and don't rely on the green dot as it's not very precise most of the time. My keeper rate using manual focus on static subjects is 100%. On reasonably fast moving subjects about 70%.<br>

As far as the OP question is concerned I think it would be better to save and get the Zeiss MP 50 ZF.2. I haven't used one, but if it's anything like the 100 Makro Planar (and I heard it is - focal length aside) then it's a lens you would love.</p>

<p> </p>

[ruslan]

<p>Thank you gentlemen for detailed analisys. </p>