View Full Version : Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 Nikon Lenses On the Way!
CameraQuest
04-25-2006, 17:51
I lucked out to get a small shipment of the new Zeiss ZF 50/1.4's in Nikon AIS mount. They should arrive early next week. Caps and the lens shade are included. Most are sold, but a few are still available. $500 + shipping.
A 50/1.4 lens does not sound too exciting, but the highest resolution SLR lens ever tested by Zeiss turns it into quite a different matter!
Stephen
flipflop
04-25-2006, 18:36
WOW....this is exciting...! 500 bucks for a 50mm seems a bit steep though...im sure its worth it though
billwheeler
04-25-2006, 18:38
I'm in agreement with you about the 50mm focal length. While many photographers choose the 50mm lens as a standard lens, I prefer the 35mm focal length. Perhaps Zeiss will produce a 35mm lens in its ZF series. A 35mm f/2 lens would suit me perfectly.
Huck Finn
04-26-2006, 03:09
How about the ZM 85/2 sonnar? Is it also on its way for May as scheduled?
Hugo vanG
04-26-2006, 04:43
A 50/1.4 lens does not sound too exciting, but the highest resolution SLR lens ever tested by Zeiss turns it into quite a different matter!
Ken Rockwell's view of that. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/nikon.htm)
boarini2003
04-26-2006, 05:27
Yeah, I read Rockwell's opinions, but I disagree with him on couple of things:
- Just cause the lens design is old, doesn't mean it's bad. Heck, the leica MP's design is old, and it's the best around! So yeah, the Zeiss design is old, and that can be a good thing. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. I would use the word "classic" instead of "old."
- Rockwell really comes out against 35mm in general, saying that you can get the same or better results with digital or medium format, if you insist on using film. To him, there's not valid reason to use the format. To me, there are still reasons to love 35mm, the main one being that you can get a lot of shots on a single roll of film, cameras are cheaper and easier to get, and lenses are generally much much faster. I think no digital will ever compare to the beauty that a well taken, developed and printed photo on Hp5 is going to have. So I say, 35mm still is the best for me. I have a Nikon, and would personally love to have a Zeiss 50mm on it.
How about the ZM 85/2 sonnar? Is it also on its way for May as scheduled?
Huck, I heard from my pals in Japan the 85 Sonnar will be out in August.
I'm in agreement with you about the 50mm focal length. While many photographers choose the 50mm lens as a standard lens, I prefer the 35mm focal length. Perhaps Zeiss will produce a 35mm lens in its ZF series. A 35mm f/2 lens would suit me perfectly.
I also agree with you on the focal length choice ... and speaking of a wishlist, I'd like to see a PC Distagon 2.8/35 and Nikon simply has nothing in this department for now.
The Zeiss Camera Lens web site has a download web page with specifications of the camera lenses they have made for Hasselblad, Contax-Yashica, and other cameras. You can view the cross sections, MTF charts, distortion, and relative luminance, and compare the data between the new ZF 50mm f/1.4 and the Contax-Yashica 50mm f/1.4. Calling the Planar an old design is true, of course! It was first designed by Paul Rudolph of Carl Zeiss over 100 years ago, and has been constantly improved since then. The new ZF lens is an improved version of the Contax-Yashica lens.
I forgot to include the address of the download page at Carl Zeiss.
It is http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Frame/8401A54783ED1154C12570F90049667D
Les Lammers
04-26-2006, 16:23
Sounds like a bargain to me.
Ken Rockwell's view of that. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/nikon.htm)
My opinion of Ken Rockwell just went down the toilet. What a load of crap.
Can I make a few observations?
1) There are a ton of very fine Nikkor 50mm (and other focal length) primes out there going for beggar's prices (pre and post-AI plus AIS). What did Gene W. say about a pocket full of "walnuts"?
2) The market for film SLR cameras is DEAD. I have a very fine condition Nikkormat EL up on eBay right now and after 3 days it has not gotten any bids! (No, I do not sell under the copake_ham name - so it's not THAT reason!). So who is going to buy these ZF lenses?
3) Who actually does these "tests"? AFAIK it's "CZ says CZ's ZF 50mm is the "sharpest ever"...."
At the end of it all, I just do not see what the heck CZ is trying to accomplish with these ZF lenses! [Oh, and let's not forget that most of them are actually being made for CZ by Cosina - yes, uncer CZ supervision etc. etc.]
Can someone enlighten me on why I would spend $500 for a 50mm/1.4 ZF lens in 2006? :confused: :confused:
Dunno George .... but can you have your wife call me and let me ask her about the latest Nikon? :D
billwheeler
04-26-2006, 18:50
Why would anyone buy this or that, ever?
For me, it's all just messing around with cameras and photographs. My stuff goes nowhere, really: in boxes, albums, portfolios lying around the darkroom; on walls at home or in the homes of friends; in weekly envelopes to a photo buddy. I just bought a forty year-old camera. What the hell for? I have to say it's a pretty cool camera, and because it has no meter I can practice estimating the correct exposure. None of it--equipment or materials--justifies the expenditure. For me, it's just messing around.
What about others?
My thought on Zeiss, based largely on the insight brought by insomnia, and nothing more ...
1. Nikon isn't paying much attention to its primes anymore, pushing the kit zooms instead.
2. Whatever market in film SLRs that remains is going to be the high-end boutique segment.
3. The Zeiss primes would work just fine on a digital SLR.
4. The designs have probably existed for a long, long time ... even if they're updated, the "tweaks" had a minimal R&D cost in the computer age (probably just a few all-nighters for a dedicated wonk, if you're starting with excellent designs anyway). So there's very little R&D to amortize.
5. Zeiss name has always had cachet.
6. What's to lose? You sell several thousand lenses to die-hards, keep the Zeiss name alive, let the lens designers have some fun and pocket a quarter-million dollars in profits ($100 profit per lens, sales of 2,500 lenses).
7. As a user, I'm in total agreement with George Copake_Ham's assessment ... you can get a full assortment of outstanding Nikkor prime lenses for the price of a single Zeiss 50, and if you're cagey, you can even get an F body to go mount the lenses on.
Hugo vanG
04-26-2006, 23:41
My opinion of Ken Rockwell just went down the toilet. What a load of crap.
Why do you think it's nonsense? Pls explain. Thank you.
And also they are his views as he states clearly here. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/aboutrvw.htm)
RObert Budding
04-27-2006, 02:01
The 50mm would make a great portrait lens on my D200 - and you get matrix metering. But it too bad Zeiss didn't come out with chipped AF lenses. Something similar to the Contax N1 lenses with seamless AF/MF would have been really nice. As it is, I'll keep my $96 AF Nikon 50/1.8 for portraits. And I'll keep shooting film when I'm not shooting sports.
I had some experience with the NC-2000 a decade ago ... a 1.3 MB digital with 1.5 crop that accepted manual F-mount Nikkors. I really enjoyed using an AI'd 50 f/1.4 as a short telephoto, 75mm equivalent. I took some of my favorite portraits with it.
enochRoot
04-27-2006, 07:16
hey vince...could you clear out a PM slot please? sorry..i have a quick question and tried to send you one...but the box was full.
Argh. I didn't realize our message folders had shrunk under the pay system. Guess I'll have to pony up.
1.>>>There are a ton of very fine Nikkor 50mm (and other focal length) primes out there going for beggar's prices (pre and post-AI plus AIS).
2.>>>Can someone enlighten me on why I would spend $500 for a 50mm/1.4 ZF lens in 2006? :confused: :confused:[/QUOTE]
Yes, there are lots of great Nikkor standard lens at dirt cheap prices.
I take a new CZ over an used Nikkor any day but not at 3 or 4 time the price!
Will
enochRoot
04-27-2006, 07:37
Argh. I didn't realize our message folders had shrunk under the pay system. Guess I'll have to pony up.
yeah...shocked me the other day. hard to keep it under 20 at times!
Why do you think it's nonsense? Pls explain. Thank you.
And also they are his views as he states clearly here. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/aboutrvw.htm)
Do you actually believe the stuff he writes? He contradicts himself all the time. And saying that it's just "his" views is nonsense, he mentions that nowhere in the actual review, and he's stating things in such manner to make it sound like the one and only truth.
Some quotes - think about them for yourself:
"Nikon lenses are superior photographically because they are autofocus"
"Almost no one uses fixed lenses on 35 mm anymore."
"the zooms are 20 years more advanced, have fewer ghosts and are sharper than the fixed lenses were."
"When photographers want quality they use larger format cameras, not 35 mm."
"Leica doesn't even make the two lenses most important to professional 35mm photographers: a 17 - 35 f/2.8 and 80 - 200 f/2.8."
Some quotes - think about them for yourself:
"Nikon lenses are superior photographically because they are autofocus"
"Almost no one uses fixed lenses on 35 mm anymore."
"the zooms are 20 years more advanced, have fewer ghosts and are sharper than the fixed lenses were."
"When photographers want quality they use larger format cameras, not 35 mm."
"Leica doesn't even make the two lenses most important to professional 35mm photographers: a 17 - 35 f/2.8 and 80 - 200 f/2.8."
hahaha, thanks for those!
enochRoot
04-27-2006, 07:58
yeah...that whole piece was quite laughable for me!
if I had a nikon film body that would take that lens then I would get one probably, not just because I live zeiss glass, but because its a lot of character going on there, even if the film slr sales are dead doesnt mean there are not a few thousand people world wide that are not interested in sticking one of these in front of their camera, film or digital...
NIKON KIU
04-27-2006, 08:10
IMHO...very few Nikon fans would fork out 500 bucks for a Cosina Badged Zeiss lens made in Japan....not when they can buy 3 or 4 real Nikkors.
But then, I can get Nikkors made by Cosina for a lot less :confused:
Now that Mr K had his lenses badged Voitlander, Nikkor, Contax, Zeiss and Leica, whats next?
Kiu
>My opinion of Ken Rockwell just went down the toilet. What a load of crap.
I would highly second that opinion. I only go to his website for entertainment, not for facts!
Now that Mr K had his lenses badged Voitlander, Nikkor, Contax, Zeiss and Leica, whats next?
Kiu
When are we all going to get over this ridiculous notion? Yes, Cosina assembles the ZF and ZM lenses in their Japanese factory. NO, it does not make them Cosina products. They are still Zeiss designs. They aren't Mr. K's lenses, they are Zeiss lenses, built using Mr. K's facility. There's a difference.
JonasYip
04-27-2006, 09:32
I'm not sure why people automatically associate the new ZF 50 with the "dying film SLR market"... I find that a 50 prime is perfect on a 1.5x DSLR.
I've always liked the Zeiss lenses from my Contax systems and would love to (and probably will) have a Zeiss 50 in F-mount . And I already have several Nikkor 50s.
Though it would have been nice if they did the AF/MF thing like for the Contax 645 lenses instead of making them just MF...
j
NIKON KIU
04-27-2006, 09:33
When are we all going to get over this ridiculous notion?
Never...not untill they change the sign on top of the factory :rolleyes:
Do you think It was Zeiss who went after Mr K to have Japenese made lenses? Or do you thonk It was Voitlander?
I would never buy the Cosina made Nikkors, or Zeiss or....and to those who do, look at the resale prices on the present Cosina, oops I meant contax stuff.
Kiu
I'll grant that there might be a small, specialty market for these lenses, although since the only F-mount bodies are Nikons (even when Cosina made) I don't think there are many "Nikonians" out there who covet Zeiss glass - particularly at "Tiffany prices".
As to the dSLR angle - I cannot agree with this argument. The ZF lenses are fully manual and will not take advantage of most of the features of a D-200 (or other D camera).
Just for instance, no data recording capabilities etc. Loss of AF matrix metering etc. Yes, I am sure there are a few who would mount these lenses on a Nikon dSLR as an "experiment" but I seriously doubt that many would do so. I certainly cannot see pro shooters forfeiting all of the auto features of their dSLRs to use a manual prime. Particularly when all the current rage for Nikon lenses is for VR zooms!
So I guess I am still baffled by the "business logic" of the ZF line. True it might make a few $$ for Zeiss since it is essentially "leveraging" a proven design - but it seems to be a product that is about 25 years too late.
Palaeoboy
04-27-2006, 10:15
Sorry but 500 bucks isnt bad value when you compare it to a new Leica 50mm f1.4 for example. At one point I used Nikon everything and still have 15 manual focus Nikkors. BUT their 50mm f1.4 was never up there with other top brands in this lens catagory. Actually their slower 50mm f2 has always had a much better reputation. The MF Canon and Minolta 50mm f1.4 lenses always were superior to the Nikkor. I still have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 cause there isnt much value in it to sell but using at f1.4 your not going to be happy with the results. The Yashica/Contax 50's both trounced the old Nikkor and the new ZF is supposedly even better. I found even the old 50's rangefinder Nkkor 50mm f1.4 that came with my S3 was better at 1.4 than the modern Nikkor lens. Nikon has some great lenses that could even be considered best in their class but sorry guys the 50mm f1.4 isnt one of them. Actually someone mentioned that Nikon has no 35mm shift lens to match the Zeiss, sorry but Nikons 35mm f2.8 shift lens is about the best 35mm focal length lens in the Nikon MF lineup although its a manual preset lens the optics in it are excellent.
Do you think It was Zeiss who went after Mr K to have Japenese made lenses? Or do you thonk It was Voitlander?
I would never buy the Cosina made Nikkors, or Zeiss or....and to those who do, look at the resale prices on the present Cosina, oops I meant contax stuff.
But have you looked at what the pictures look like, or do you only worry about the resale value? I am sure the build quality on this lens is fantastic, even though it is made by the Cosian factory that you so fear. Having seen pictures taken by the 50/2 Planar and the 35/2 Biogon, I can say that the lenses are great and have got nothing but great reviews (even in terms of feel and handling).
Sorry but 500 bucks isnt bad value when you compare it to a new Leica 50mm f1.4 for example. At one point I used Nikon everything and still have 15 manual focus Nikkors. BUT their 50mm f1.4 was never up there with other top brands in this lens catagory. Actually their slower 50mm f2 has always had a much better reputation. The MF Canon and Minolta 50mm f1.4 lenses always were superior to the Nikkor. I still have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 cause there isnt much value in it to sell but using at f1.4 your not going to be happy with the results. The Yashica/Contax 50's both trounced the old Nikkor and the new ZF is supposedly even better. I found even the old 50's rangefinder Nkkor 50mm f1.4 that came with my S3 was better at 1.4 than the modern Nikkor lens. Nikon has some great lenses that could even be considered best in their class but sorry guys the 50mm f1.4 isnt one of them. Actually someone mentioned that Nikon has no 35mm shift lens to match the Zeiss, sorry but Nikons 35mm f2.8 shift lens is about the best 35mm focal length lens in the Nikon MF lineup although its a manual preset lens the optics in it are excellent.
Well I guess you're one of those specialty niche market buyers. Enjoy the lens. :)
Never...not untill they change the sign on top of the factory :rolleyes:
Do you think It was Zeiss who went after Mr K to have Japenese made lenses? Or do you thonk It was Voitlander?
I would never buy the Cosina made Nikkors, or Zeiss or....and to those who do, look at the resale prices on the present Cosina, oops I meant contax stuff.
Kiu
I won't be buying these ZF lenses. I only own one SLR, that I never use (I keep it because it was my first camera) and it isn't a Nikon. I do, however, I own a 50/2 Planar ZM and its wonderful. Build quality, feel, handling, bokeh, sharpness, flare control are all wonderful. Its not an investment, so I don't worry about resale value. I use it to take pictures. I don't give a rats behind if it was build in Japan or Jupiter, its a great lens. I'm sure these new ZF lenses are just the same.
I really don't understand your argument, though? When Zeiss set out to manufacture their new Ikon, ZM lens line, and ZF lenses they decided to use Cosina to build everything. Zeiss simply does not have the facilities to build everything, but Cosina does. Again, that doesn't make all this stuff Cosina products, that makes them Zeiss products, built by Cosina. Yes, the Voigtlander line IS a Cosina product through and through with a different name on it, but thats a different story than this new Zeiss stuff.
My sister spent quite a few years building Subarus in Indiana. They were Subarus, not Studabakers. The plant is switching over to building Toyotas. It will be be building Toyotas, not rebadged Studabakers or Subarus.
Todd.Hanz
04-27-2006, 10:57
Sorry but 500 bucks isnt bad value when you compare it to a new Leica 50mm f1.4 for example. At one point I used Nikon everything and still have 15 manual focus Nikkors. BUT their 50mm f1.4 was never up there with other top brands in this lens catagory. Actually their slower 50mm f2 has always had a much better reputation. The MF Canon and Minolta 50mm f1.4 lenses always were superior to the Nikkor. I still have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 cause there isnt much value in it to sell but using at f1.4 your not going to be happy with the results. The Yashica/Contax 50's both trounced the old Nikkor and the new ZF is supposedly even better. I found even the old 50's rangefinder Nkkor 50mm f1.4 that came with my S3 was better at 1.4 than the modern Nikkor lens. Nikon has some great lenses that could even be considered best in their class but sorry guys the 50mm f1.4 isnt one of them. Actually someone mentioned that Nikon has no 35mm shift lens to match the Zeiss, sorry but Nikons 35mm f2.8 shift lens is about the best 35mm focal length lens in the Nikon MF lineup although its a manual preset lens the optics in it are excellent.
Huh? I guess that's why I keep getting crappy pics like this one... :)
(Fuji S2, Nikkor 50/1.4 @ f1.4)
I won't be buying these ZF lenses. I only own one SLR, that I never use (I keep it because it was my first camera) and it isn't a Nikon. I do, however, I own a 50/2 Planar ZM and its wonderful. Build quality, feel, handling, bokeh, sharpness, flare control are all wonderful. Its not an investment, so I don't worry about resale value. I use it to take pictures. I don't give a rats behind if it was build in Japan or Jupiter, its a great lens. I'm sure these new ZF lenses are just the same.
I really don't understand your argument, though? When Zeiss set out to manufacture their new Ikon, ZM lens line, and ZF lenses they decided to use Cosina to build everything. Zeiss simply does not have the facilities to build everything, but Cosina does. Again, that doesn't make all this stuff Cosina products, that makes them Zeiss products, built by Cosina. Yes, the Voigtlander line IS a Cosina product through and through with a different name on it, but thats a different story than this new Zeiss stuff.
Well said, and thats not even mentioning that the Voigtlander lenses are fantastic as well!
the bokeh stinks on the zf 50/1.4. it was in february's nippon camera.
As to the dSLR angle - I cannot agree with this argument. The ZF lenses are fully manual and will not take advantage of most of the features of a D-200 (or other D camera).
Just for instance, no data recording capabilities etc. Loss of AF matrix metering etc. Yes, I am sure there are a few who would mount these lenses on a Nikon dSLR as an "experiment" but I seriously doubt that many would do so. I certainly cannot see pro shooters forfeiting all of the auto features of their dSLRs to use a manual prime. Particularly when all the current rage for Nikon lenses is for VR zooms!George, I agree "it's a puzzlement" as someone said. But observe the enthusiasm with which so many dSLR users adapt Pentax primes for instance to their fancy new rigs... even when it means manual diaphragm operation on top of the other disadvantages you mention. Apparently, amazingly, the optical advantages overcome all this inconvenience. I expect Zeiss has observed this phenonmenon too... :)
the bokeh stinks on the zf 50/1.4. it was in february's nippon camera.
Does it have that strange saw like bokeh? I remember someone posted some picture with strange bokeh, but I forget if it was for this lens or some Contax lens.
Do you think It was Zeiss who went after Mr K to have Japenese made lenses?
It well could be Zeiss. German labour is expensive.
I would never buy the Cosina made Nikkors, or Zeiss or....and to those who do, look at the resale prices on the present Cosina, oops I meant contax stuff.
Kiu
I think something like a hedge fund makes a better investment either way :)
Benjamin Marks
04-27-2006, 12:36
Todd: nice snap. - Ben Marks
Taipei-metro
04-27-2006, 12:52
the bokeh stinks on the zf 50/1.4. it was in february's nippon camera.
Both Feb.2006 issues of Asahi Camera and Nippon Camera has the test shots, MTF of ZF 50 1.4, MM Zeiss 50 1.4, Nikon AiAF 50 1.4D (as well as the 85s).
You could be right on the 'bokeh' thing.
$500 now, buyer be hurry!
Japanese Yen's value is rising against US Dollar as we speak...
Basicaly the MM and new ZF 50 are 'exactly' the same, same 6g 7 element layout( Nikon has the same 7 element but a little bit fifferent layout) , the new one w 9 blades, old one 6 blades, but ends up w the old one producing more 'pleasing' bokeh.
Bokek is 'almost out of consciences' in Kanji. ;)
Taipei-metro
04-27-2006, 13:14
Huh? I guess that's why I keep getting crappy pics like this one... :)
(Fuji S2, Nikkor 50/1.4 @ f1.4)
1, S2 B&W output is crappy
2, You can't prove this was shot by Nikon 50 1.4.
3, Cosina made Vivitar 50 2, that's the lens you're using
4, Your Nikkor has coke(Coca cola that is) spill.
5, Are you a Nikon basher?
The guy just don't want to buy the ZF made by Mr.K for $500 big clams.
I don' t think any one of you are calling Stephen.
I have F3 and 50 AiS 1.4. Excellent lens for the money.
NIKON KIU
04-27-2006, 14:48
5, Are you a Nikon basher?
My understanding is that he was actually saying it is a nice lens with super Bokeh, you thought he was being honest...he was being sarcastic....NICE PIX.
Kiu
Why do you think it's nonsense? Pls explain. Thank you.
And also they are his views as he states clearly here. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/aboutrvw.htm)
Hugo: What jvx (Jonas) said. His "logic" was not, i.e. not logical. It wasn't even comparing apples to oranges, it was more like comparing a fine bicycle to a Ferrari and saying "No Zeiss bike can go as fast as a Ferrari, and no self-respecting bling-wearing, self-important rooster would ever be seen on a bike."
Todd.Hanz
04-27-2006, 15:54
My understanding is that he was actually saying it is a nice lens with super Bokeh, you thought he was being honest...he was being sarcastic....NICE PIX.
Kiu
precisely, thanks Kiu!
Todd
Gabriel M.A.
04-27-2006, 19:31
Sorry but 500 bucks isnt bad value when you compare it to a new Leica 50mm f1.4 for example. At one point I used Nikon everything and still have 15 manual focus Nikkors. BUT their 50mm f1.4 was never up there with other top brands in this lens catagory. Actually their slower 50mm f2 has always had a much better reputation. The MF Canon and Minolta 50mm f1.4 lenses always bhwah bhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwah bhwah bhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwah bhwahbhwah bhwahbhwah bhwah bhwah are excellent.
Whenever somebody talks about Häagen-Dazs chocolate ice cream, it's really fun to always get the id...individual, that reminds everybody that Dairy Queen vanilla is the best value for their money, and that anybody that pays extra to have the super-expensive Häagen-Dazs ice cream, I mean, "sorry guys", but my vanilla ice cream always has a better reputation, and it'll melt faster (or slower --depending on my mood) blah blah blah blah. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
No soup for you!
back alley
04-27-2006, 19:34
so saving and then paying 600 bucks for the zm 50/2 is not a good idea??
;) i'm gonna do it anyway!
joe
Never...not untill they change the sign on top of the factory :rolleyes:
Do you think It was Zeiss who went after Mr K to have Japenese made lenses? Or do you thonk It was Voitlander?
I would never buy the Cosina made Nikkors, or Zeiss or....and to those who do, look at the resale prices on the present Cosina, oops I meant contax stuff.
Kiu
Kiu, I now have all five of the Cosina made Zeiss ZM lenses. The worst of them optically is the 28mm/2,8, and it blows any Nikon SLR 28mm or 24mm lens ever made, especially the AF Nikkor 28mm/2.8, which was just terrible wide open. All the Cosina built Zeiss ZF lenses are great optically, and mechanically as well finished as my best Leica M lenses. So the Cosina factory is clearly capable of producing the highest quality lenses for Zeiss.
Meanwhile Nikon's QC for AF lenses not what it was in their AI/AIs heyday, and Nikon is producing very few interesting prime lenses these days. I sold or gave away (to Rice University) a bunch of OK but disappointing Nikon lenses, and now I have a few very nice Nikkors and a wonderful well worn F4. But I more often find myself using the Zeiss ZM lenses a lot on my M7. The optical quality of my Biogons is clearly better than any of my Nikkor wideangles in my enlargements. I'm much madder at Nikon for cutting their MF camera and lens line to the bone and producing lots of lenses that are incompatible with the F4 (the G-type and DX-types). I expected better from them, when their early AF lenses were fully compatible with the AI type F-mount cameras, and the Nikon company was bragging about how they maintained lens compatibility while Canon did not. :bang:
Contax lenses in the Yashica mount had nothing to do with Cosina, but were made by Kyocera. If you are worried about resale price, why would you buy anything? Most lenses are not going to go up in price except for collectibles, LHSA or Black paint Leica lenses. Old Manual focus Nikkors and non-D AF lenses are very cheap now and have plummeted in price similarly to the Contax SLR lenses.
That being said, I've little interest in the 50mm/1.4 Planar ZF, mainly because I don't feel the need for another 50mm. The 85mm/1.4 Planar ZF is something I may be interested in getting, and perhaps the Distagon 28mm/2 they seem to be readying to release in the fall. If I get those, I may be using the old F4 (and my backup FM2) more. They certainly are terrific camera bodies, very well designed ergonomically.
so saving and then paying 600 bucks for the zm 50/2 is not a good idea??
;) i'm gonna do it anyway!
joe
Don't think that's what folks are saying.
$600 for a ZM 50/2 is a "bargain" when compared to a Leica/Leitz equivalent.
$500 for a ZF 50/1.4 is not a "bargain" when compared to a Nikkor equivalent.
telenous
04-29-2006, 03:13
Slightly OT and going a few steps back with some thoughts on Ken Rockwell's writing. He is pragmatic verging to the cynical (stylewise), not what most people frequenting this forum often are. I have often followed his advice when it comes to manual Nikkor lenses and I respect his knowledge on Nikons but I am potentially interested in the ZF lens. I never use autofocus lenses like he suggests but then I am not solely interested in 'getting the shot' as he says nor am I into the business of advancing the art of photography as he presumambly is. Enjoying the process of photography is much more what I 'm after and any manual lens (not just ZF) will make you feel you 're in the driving seat, so to speak. His photos are not my cup of tea, but, surely they must be someone's because he is succesful. He is a bad writer and sometimes it feels you are reading in circles but he has done the shooting and it's a net gain to have his site to consult.
If I have the money and my FM3A is still around I will buy the ZF lens.
Alkis: The problem with Ken's writing is that not only is he not a very good writer, but he comes across as an authority. Of course, the net is full of such stuff, so I'm not picking on him alone.
Slightly OT and going a few steps back with some thoughts on Ken Rockwell's writing. He is pragmatic verging to the cynical (stylewise), not what most people frequenting this forum often are. I have often followed his advice when it comes to manual Nikkor lenses and I respect his knowledge on Nikons but I am potentially interested in the ZF lens. I never use autofocus lenses like he suggests but then I am not solely interested in 'getting the shot' as he says nor am I into the business of advancing the art of photography as he presumambly is. Enjoying the process of photography is much more what I 'm after and any manual lens (not just ZF) will make you feel you 're in the driving seat, so to speak. His photos are not my cup of tea, but, surely they must be someone's because he is succesful. He is a bad writer and sometimes it feels you are reading in circles but he has done the shooting and it's a net gain to have his site to consult.
If I have the money and my FM3A is still around I will buy the ZF lens.
One of the wonderful things about Rockwell is his ability to "review" a lens without ever using it (not the first time this has happened).
His whole pan on the ZF 50mm lens is based on its threat to his dearly-held views on photography. It is obvious that there is no way that he could like the lens, since it must be used in a manner that he has already declared irrelevant. Put another way, if he actually tested it and evaluated it on performance, he would have to acknowledge other forms of photography than his own. Does this sound like a professional photographer? Perhaps more like a guy living on a trust fund.
Anybody gets to have opinions, but we are really a bunch of "wrongos" here. Using film. Using manual focus lenses (and RF to boot!). Some of us probably commit the sin of using Windows-based computers (no need to confess anything -- nobody is going to check up on you).
However, all that said -- if there are cases where, on his site, he actually commits an act of analysis, that analysis should stand on its own merit. Remember that intro course in college where they reminded us that a person’s incompetence does not negate his argument?
Does it have that strange saw like bokeh? I remember someone posted some picture with strange bokeh, but I forget if it was for this lens or some Contax lens.
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html
Look under Nisen-bokeh (double lined bokeh). That picture was taken with a MM 50/1.4, wide open IIRC.
neilsphoto
05-08-2006, 14:49
OK but here's a what if. What if this old style MF Zeiss lens has a great "look". We don't know do we. Some magazine posted if I remember some really poor shots of a flower. They were crap. And from those we decide the lens must also be crap?
It may just be great on TriX. Might be great on my D2HS. I'd like to find out.
For the last 3 years I've shot nothing but Leica Ms. Owned them for over 20 years with a varying lens collection. I used to shoot for a living but rarely with M's for paying work.
Since loosing my darkroom to a move I've been scanning and Epson printing. I'm very happy. My best M lenses still have the "look" I love.
But I had to try digital didn't I. I had 7 Nikon lenses I used very little as I also used SLRs very little. IMO the biggest let down of Nikon digital is Nikon lenses. BORING. I have good Nikon lenses too. I've also owned and used Canon. They just bore me, BUT they aren't junk either.
I'm not even all that thrilled with the Nikon 17-35 2.8 AFS lens. And it IS very good.
I don't want to open up a Nikon lens thread but maybe this Ziess will have some great look. The 50mm Summicron I've had for decades still kicks ass over most other lenses. It just has something special. On TX printed wet or scanned and ink sprayed on paper it is just a gem. My 75mm Summilux also the same. The Voit 75mm 2.5 was nice but had nothing special.
I know I know these are some ex$pensive pieces of M glass. Maybe no comparison to Nikon should be done.
But why don't we wait till someone does a review, Sean Reid is going to, someone else will too.
I for one would love a lens for my DSLR that has some character. Some of you know what I mean. It ain't all Bokeh and MTF charts.
Neil
back alley
05-08-2006, 17:00
'I now have all five of the Cosina made Zeiss ZM lenses....'
i am sooo jealous!
i have 2 and they are lovely to look at, to use and to fondle!
****
'Don't think that's what folks are saying.'
i know, i was trying to be 'cute' (as my dearly departed step-dad liked to say)
joe
Dan States
05-20-2006, 17:57
I used the Planar F1.4 on Contax for years and it was the ass-kick'n-est fast 50 I've ever owned. It certainly blows off my Nikons in every possible way and was the equal to my Summicrons in every way.
This 'bokeh' thing is a total load of crap. You can get funky backgrounds out of ANY lens depending on distance, aperture setting and especially what you are shooting.
The planar, like all Zeiss lenses is the best tool available for what it's designed for...SHARP PHOTOGRAPHY!
The real quality of Zeiss and Leica lenses is in their rendition of shadow detail and ability to hold detail in highlights...that is, flare control. They make black and white negatives that are a snap to print perfectly, and at lower contrast grades, so grain appearance is minimized.
With all the pixel sniffers that DSLR photography has created we are loosing sight of the ultimate goal...the print.
RObert Budding
05-20-2006, 18:02
You print? Most digital shooters just view their shots on their monitors!
billwheeler
05-20-2006, 20:18
Cool. Be sure to post pictures taken with the zf lens when you receive it. You state well the ability of some lenses--zeiss and leica lenses in my experience, too--to capture both shadow and highlight detail. Not all lenses can do this. I would love to try the nikon 45mm p lens, which I suspect does a better job of "holding" shadow and highlight detail than other nikon lenses. This said, I want to add that I enjoy using my nikon lenses a lot. Bill
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=304064#post304064
I don't shoot with the Nikons much anymore, but the lens is not a dog. It is capable of very good results wide open, but then I'm not all that much of a "bokeh" shooter.
Dan, a question if you don't mind. Are you a Zone System user?
Dan States
05-31-2006, 05:27
No. I develope my films pretty much per the manufacturers specs and don't have the brain power to figure out using zones on roll film.
I'll tell you I'm so sick of the word "bokeh" I could just gag. It's turning into a fetish for photographers who shoot pictures of plants in their back yard. I have never seen a photo posted for its "Bokeh" value that was worth a second look for its content.
Hey Dan, at first I liked the word "bokeh", but now I prefer the terms "out of focus character" or "out of focus rendition" or even the acronym "OOF," to keep within English. "Bokeh" seems too jargon, too cute, too esoteric. I'll not use it again.
Uncle Bill
05-31-2006, 07:14
How about "Bokeh" becomes a canidate for the banned words list. The ZF lenses are just hitting the street and I would rather hear feedback from someone who ran a couple of rolls through an F3 or an FM2. Yes the Zeiss for Nikon lenses are expensive but if the results are mindblowing then they will be worth it, there are a lot of Nikon SLRs floating around out there.
Bill
I have an Uncle Bill! He's about 85 now, but still a hale "dirty old man" with a love for porn.
I'd like to see some full frame shots too. Most of the new Zeiss SLR lens web example images are from DSLRs that crop. So we have no idea what the corner performances of the new ZF 50mm and 85mm are like, and their OOF rendition is probably exaggerated compared to what it would be at full frame on film.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.