Oh So Tempted by Zeiss 2/35 ZF.2

[james_symington1]

<p>Whilst 'magic' probably overstates it 'brilliant' does not. With the exception of the Nikon 35mm f1.4G, of which I have no direct experience, the 35mm F2 ZF is clearly superior to all the other Nikon primes both AF or AiS all of which I have owned. Similarly the 24-70mm is good at 35mm and the 14-24mm is very good however for me they ended up being too ungainly/heavy and in the case of the 14-24mm useless for filters.<br />On the AF thing well it just depends what you want to photograph. For children running about MF is clearly much harder and for that my Nikon 50mm f1.4G comes into play. But for street/travel/landscape photography it is fine. I do a lot of nocturnal landscapes now too and having a hard infinity stop is crucial for that - something that AF lenses simply don't provide.<br />Honourable mention should also go to the Voigtlander 40mm f2 as Rob F mentioned earlier. It is broadly as good as the Zeiss, chipped, smaller and cheaper. A no brainer frankly and if anything I use it more than my 35mm ZF for the smaller size when I use my FM3a/FA etc which the relatively large ZF can overpower.<br />Anyone wishing to invest in the ZF line ( I have six!) should cough up for the diglloyd reviews as they are done thoroughly and intelligently unlike the photozone ones.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>And yes getting a proper D700 focusing screen is important - particularly if you ever end up getting something like the 100mm Makro-Planar which is staggeringly good.</p>

[kellyway]

I use mostly all zeiss zf lenses. 18, 25,50,85. The only auto focus lens I use is the nikkor 180mm 2.8. I really love manual

focusing and rarely have a problem getting critical focus on the D700. I think the ZF line is great especially for studio still

life and landscape.

[JamieK]

<p>I think the focusing screen is important. If you want really good focus, you need the super-precision screen or live view. I have a super-precision in my Canon 5D1 and Live View on my Canon 5D2. Live view is best for wide lenses, a good focusing screen is best for long lenses, in my experience. best, jamie</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>What looks to have magic is the name "Zeiss". Like on soldiers, bravery is always assumed.</p>

<p>If you check photozone.de tests on the D3X, -<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/587-zeisszf3520ff">Zeiss f2</a> vs <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/596-nikkorafs3514ff">G Nikkor f1.4</a>- (I don`t have neither of them), you will see that performance is on pair, being the Nikkor one stop faster.</p>

<p>So, to me, it`s matter of AF vs MF. Well, we can then argue about the "creamery" or "buttery" thing (and all that kind of words about bokeh...); there will be always <em>anything</em> in favour of one or another.</p>

<p>This is the "magic" effect...</p>

[james_symington1]

<p>Jose I am not sure anybody is criticising the 35mm f1.4 G - yet. If it had existed when I bought the 35mm ZF I certainly would have considered it.<br>

That said - and here is the criticism of the of the 35mm f1.4 G - its autofocus was found to be fairly seriously flaky - at least on early samples. <a href="http://diglloyd.com/blog/2010/20101226_2-Nikon35.html">http://diglloyd.com/blog/2010/20101226_2-Nikon35.html</a><br>

Autofocus is great if it works well but if it is very unreliable it is better not to have it at all. I simply don't know if this has now been fixed but I am sure someone on this thread will be able to update us on that point.</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>@ Jerry Coffin<br>

Jerry, I am aware of the old screens (I have been around far too long) but my point is, given some pre-focussing and reasonable depth of field, you can get a majority of keepers. The D700 will also take screens just like the old ones so even for critical focus no problem really. I used to shoot motor racing with a Pentax MX and motor drive and very rarely had time to accurately focus using split image or microprisms, just be prepared, watch the subject into frame (using the "other" eye) then hit the shutter. My point was that we can all learn (and benefit) from these old techniques even with an AF camera. Certainly manual focus should not be the determining factor as to whether or not to buy a lens.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>James, I find the ZF line interesting, too. My temptation, the Makro Planar 50/2. I`m sure yours was a wise move :)<br /> I was not aware of the Nikkor issue... hope this has been already solved.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>A review of the 35mm f/1.4G<br>

<a href="http://mansurovs.com/nikon-35mm-f1-4-review">http://mansurovs.com/nikon-35mm-f1-4-review</a><br>

He even has some shot that compare it with the ZF 35. This reviewer had no problems with the Nikkons AF</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>it's well known that the guys at Cosina use the breath of dragons to smelt glass ingredients gathered from the foothills of Shangri-La. This glass is then ground in Elven foundries to be polished over millenia on the wings of fairies, lubricated by the tears of unicorns. The elements are coated using a secret distillation of philosopher's stone, sphinx blood and gorgon spittle. Each lens is lovingly assembled by gagged Sirens into perfectly machined barrels, of which only one in twenty-million meets the strict tolerance requirements, as measured by the smallest of Borrowers using Naniatechnology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>comment of the year? LOL.</p>

<p>to the OP, i think it depends on how often you are doing street photography and/or in situations where MF will be a liability. personally i would rather have the nikkor 24/1.4 G and that way i get AF. if i was going to get a MF lens, it would probably be the 40/2.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>One thing that gets written about fairly often in threads about lenses; is almost completely missing from this one; and would probably be enlightening, is an effort to describe whatever it is that is perceived as the special quality of a lens. Granted this is not easy to do, thus the temptation to use words like "magical." Yet, people do manage to put the image quality into words, using the admittedly limited vocabulary that's available for it. One sees comments like,</p>

<p>"The main subject looks three-dimensional, and pops from the background."</p>

<p>"The background is too harsh for me."</p>

<p>"This lens produces a painterly, soft-sharp look."</p>

<p>"It achieves a liquidly cinematic look." (No idea what that one means)</p>

<p>And stuff like that. Would anyone feel moved to try to describe the imaging qualities of the lenses mentioned thus far? Qualities they do or do not like? After all, Steve was moved to start this thread based on something he likes about the Zeiss. But how to describe it in a way that serves as a common ground we can all relate to?</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Rob, the reason these discussions lack objective terms is because it is very difficult to describe art or an artist's tools in an objective way, while still validating the all-important 'X' factor. Let me do the best I can, using two lenses I own.</p>

<p>I have the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AiS and the Minolta 58mm f/1.2 PG Rokkor. Both are excellent lenses, and both should be snapped up immediately at their (relatively) low price point if you can use them on your camera. In using them on mirrorless systems though, I find that the Nikon is overall sharper than the Minolta, at all apertures. Both are fairly free of CA, unless the subject is backlit and/or shiny metal - then it's CA like crazy. Backlighting is more of an issue for the Nikon, which the Minolta has more issues with shiny, harshly-lit metals.</p>

<p>That is where the objectivity ends. The Minolta has much more bloom (blown-out haze around highlights) than the Nikon. This can be described as a 'dreamlike quality', or as a design flaw, and both are equally true. The Minolta also has much less detail in the out of focus areas. You can say it has better, creamier, or smoother bokeh, or you can say that the Nikon has a harsher, busier, or more jagged bokeh. If you shoot for a shallow DOF, the better bokeh on the Minolta will result in better subject isolation. If you shoot for sharpness, the extra detail on the Nikon will make the transition from 'in focus' to 'out of focus' areas less abrupt.</p>

<p>But wait, there's more.</p>

<p>I've owned the Nikon for many years, and it's been my go-to lens for the last decade. But after using the Minolta on a mirrorless, I now strongly prefer the Minolta over the Nikon for digital work. Why? Reasons I can describe even more poorly than the last paragraph. Between the older coatings and the older lens design, the way that particular lens renders tonal range and the transition from shadow to highlight is just much more pleasing to my eyes. And unfortunately, that's not something that you can really see on an MTF chart. If you test the lenses side-by-side, I have every reason to believe that the Nikon will come out on top every time. Sure the Minolta is brighter, but the image at f/1.2 is so hazy that it doesn't even count. Even though the Minolta lens is objectively worse, subjectively it has qualities I cannot describe well that I prefer.</p>

<p>And that's why you never see a fully objective assessment of lenses. If you just stopped at the objective paragraph, you'd think I liked the Nikon lens better ... but that's not the case at all.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`m afraid I`m going to enter into an embarrassing field...<br /> Maybe the most well known "description" is the "<em>Leica glow</em>". It is a reality, it can be objectively explained as the result of that design with certain aberrations/corrections... whatever.<br /> Being a Leica, I see many people are willing to pay astronomical prices or to get mad looking for a sample, just to get this magic "glow" everybody talks.<br /> Imagine that this "glow", or a very similar effect can be achieved with a Nikkor, Voigtlander or even with an Arsat lens. Nobody mentions the "glow" on this lenses, nobody are willing to pay such prices for this... the thing is to have the "glowing Leica"; a glowing Arsat is just junk, a glowing Nikkor is a lens with flare "issues". This is where the name "Leica" practises its magic.<br /> (Another; I use to make "Hasselblad looking" b&w square prints from my Mamiya 6 negatives. Sometimes, I received a comment this type: "Wow! What a sharp looking photo... from a Hasselblad isn`t it?" -No, from a Mamiya-, I respond. The charm is lost. End of comments.)<br /> I suspect some of that abstract definitions are not based in real perceptions; the "creamery and buttery" could be somewhat subjective, but sometimes... not that much.<br /> This is the magic I`m refering to.<br />>>>Please notice that I`m not saying the OP is wrong, or bewitched, or that Zeiss users are blind... not my intention.<<< It is proven that Zeiss lenses are amongst the best, and this is why experienced photographers and/or photography enthusiasts know and want to own their products. I include myself in this group.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Magic aside (but maybe that's the point?) , if it can <em><strong>really</strong></em> be seen, then it can be quantified scientifically. Agreed it's not as simple as just MTF graphs, but with so much image analysis and software for optimising/filtering/manipulation out there, it <strong><em>i</em><em>s</em></strong> possible.</p>

<p>It just takes the correctly toned targets at the right distance under identical lighting etc to make them comparable.... after all there are only 2 variables, namely focused distance and aperture.</p>

<p>So if you want to put a £900 Zeiss 35mm and a £50 Nikon E-Series 35mm lens on your Nikon and duplicate lab based shots, go ahead and come back to us. If you read through this post, whenever anyone has done something similar, they can't tell the difference.</p>

<p>I remember in my old darkroom days trying to emulate the soft-focus B/W Hollywood type portrait images by stretching stockings over the enlarger lens and always being disappointed. It was only much later when I realised that this has to be at the taking stage as the highlights are diffused into the shadows. This doesn't have the same pictorial effect in negative. I suspect something of the fabled 'glow' etc is the unique way these lenses/coatings handle local contrast and this should be <strong><em>measurable.</em></strong></p>

<p>Whether you personally<em><strong> like</strong></em> or <strong><em>loathe </em></strong>any of these quantifiable lens properties is a whole new issue... ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>Mike, I don't think it's measurable in a <em>understandable</em> way. Take the example of paint: your average oil paint maker makes at least two different blacks, and usually multiple whites too. Some painters can tell the difference between blacks, and some cannot. You can analyze them in a spectrometer and real minute differences in colour reflectivity, but without being both a painter AND a scientist, you probably won't be analyzing it correctly. Also if you're not a painter AND a scientist, the results won't mean anything to you.</p>

<p>So, like lenses, the only way to explain the difference to your average art fan(and I include myself here) is to either have them try both, or to use subjective terms like 'richer' or 'colder.'</p>

[bob_cook]

<p>I remember years ago here on photo.net I first saw someone write the phrase "Euro-glass snap." I thought it was pretentious then, and I guess I still do. And that's coming from someone who owns a number of Zeiss lenses and really likes the images each produces. Oh well, some things never change.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Rob, good point, also a good point in respect to the assumption that MTF charts tell you which is the better lens.<br>

I mentioned much earlier in this thread the AiS 35 f/1.4. Many people dislike it because at wide apertures it has a number of optical flaws - the before mentioned "character". Some people will count this heavily against this lens and consider it unusable wide open. I like all the funky tricks it does, and try to make use of those qualities. I love the lens <em>because </em>it is flawed, not <em>despite</em>. It's the silly glow it has at f/1.4, the veiled low contrast, which holds amazing more detail than it seems. It's the biting unreal sharpness in textures it renders stopped down, a completely different thing from its wide open performance...There is just that "thing", that other lenses don't have.... It's creatively a tool unlike others, even when it's one that cannot be used for each and every occassion.<br>

Now sure somebody can cough up a MTF chart and tell me the lens does not resolve as much lines as the others. Might be true. I love that lens all the same, and while the Zeiss most likely is optically superior, I'm happy to have chosen this Nikkor. Even while I think the Zeisses just as well have a special thing to them... Seen too many photos to deny there is something special about them - for me.</p>

<p>As Zack said: nothing measurable in a scientific understandable way. And most of all: subjective, very subjective.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't think that all of the ZF range are so special and they are heavy and overpriced. However, having said this. the 21/2.8, 35/2. 50/2, and 100/2 are very good going by reviews and MTF charts etc, the others less exciting. The 35/1.4ZF is ridiculously heavy and large - that would prevent me from buying it straight off the bat - however good it is. The 21mm ZF particularly is a standout since really good ultrawides are rare from Nikon (and Canon). In the OP's shoes though I think I would go for the new Nikon 35/1.4 which is excellent and has AF.</p>

[sam_hunt]

<p>It's quite laughable to see people on this forum put down a lens they have never used. Ariel S even says, <em>"the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G gives noticeably superior optical performance". </em>It certainly does not and I would bet that Ariel hasn't even used the Zeiss 2/35 ZF.</p>

<p>I have the Zeiss 2/35 ZF.2 and use it on my D3. I owned the Nikon 35 f/1.4G before I tried and bought the Zeiss and to me the Zeiss is better of the two so I sold the Nikon. Specifically in the area of colour rendition, sharpness was similar but I'd give the Zeiss a slight edge there too. The Zeiss 2/35 is an extremely sharp lens, beautifully built with metal and glass, not plastic. The focus is a joy to use and even superior to the older manual focus Nikon lenses in this respect which in turn make the modern AF lenses feel cheap.</p>

<p>Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina in Japan using Zeiss equipment and supervision from Zeiss. Quality control is very high and each lens comes with a signed off check list from a technician. The reason they are made in Japan is to keep the price reasonable. If they were still manufactured in Germany the price would be horrendous. In fact it is said that the Japanese do a better job by some although that is just speculation. The one thing Zeiss need to do though is change the lens caps - they're fidly and hard to get on and off. Most people change them for a Nikon pinch style cap.</p>

<p>I find manual focus a breeze and prefer it over AF, although to be fair, I have been using MF Nikon and Leica lenses for more than thirty years. On a full frame camera I think you'd have no trouble with MF because the focusing is so smooth and precise - then again, only you can determine that for certain.</p>

<p>Once you have used a modern Zeiss lens you'll be hooked. I have the Zeiss Makro Planar 2/100 ZF.2 and would love to get the new Zeiss 2/25 ZF.2.</p>

<p>I think if I had to choose one lens to keep it would be my Zeiss Makro Planar 2/100 ZF.2 even ahead of my Nikon 200 f/2. </p>

[Rob F.]

<p>Sam, thanks for the comments. Do you find the weight of the Zeiss 35/2 to be within reason for a walk around town, or in the country, with extended time away from the car? Or does it get to be burdensome? I can't recall what I read: either 530 grams, or more like 850?</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>Zeiss 35/2 is weighting 530g at 65 x 97 mm size buing not small nor big :) but moderate, so its perfect for taking it in the town.</p>

[sam_hunt]

<p>Rob, as Mihai said. It's perfect as a walk around town lens and has a nice solid feel to it. I personally don't like a lens to be too light as a little weight also helps to steady things. On the other hand I'm not that keen on lugging my Nikon 24-70 around with me all day when on holiday.</p>

[stevejw]

<p>I went and tried out a 2/35 at a camera shop. It was really nice, the build quality makes a lot of other stuff look & feel pretty cheap. The IQ is excellent, there was a decent amount of vignetting and CA wide open with a small amount of distortion. The distortion and vignetting are fixed in LR with one click but the CA didn't go away, although the CA was only really apparent in one shot where I caught the ceiling lights just so. The colour and '3D depth' is great in some of the shots I took, as is the contrast. I like it.</p>

<p>I tried out the Nikon 24G, 16-35VR and 20 2.8 as well and to be honest I would have them as well. Alas, I can only chose one at this point...</p>

<p>Before buying anything, I'd still like to try out the 2.8/21 and the 35 1.4G. Maybe the CZ 25 & 28 as well.</p>

<p>Manual focusing on the Zeiss was not a big thing, it's made for it and made well. The focus ring has a long throw and is ultra smooth with the perfect amount of resistance. I probably couldn't say the same for focusing on a moving subject but that's my MF skill level at the moment as well.</p>

<p>Very keen to try out the 21 now.</p>

<p>Cheers. :)</p>

[sam_hunt]

<p>Steve, try to find a Zeiss 2/25 to try - might be hard to find though as they're new model.<br>

As mentioned by Rob F earlier, the Voightlander Ultron 40/2 SL is well worth a try too. A friend uses one on his Canon 5d MkII and loves it.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I just love this bit....</p>

<p><em>The IQ is <strong>excellent</strong>, there was a <strong>decent amount of vignetting</strong> and <strong>CA</strong> wide open with a small amount of <strong>distortion</strong>.</em></p>

<p>Maybe these are the '<strong>dreamy</strong>' qualities that are so hard to quantify ?? :-)</p>