Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: roskav on July 10, 2007, 04:16:33 am
-
I was thinking of getting an 85/1.4 Planar ZF for my d2x... but not really sure how it will fare comared to my NIKKOR 85/1.4D .. which is a great lens... but <i>watery</i>
Just wondering if anyone has seen side by side comparisons of the Nikkor primes vs their Zeiss counterparts.
Thanks!
Ros
-
I was thinking of getting an 85/1.4 Planar ZF for my d2x... but not really sure how it will fare comared to my NIKKOR 85/1.4D .. which is a great lens... but <i>watery</i>
Just wondering if anyone has seen side by side comparisons of the Nikkor primes vs their Zeiss counterparts.
Thanks!
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Check out photozone.de, they have standardized measurements of many lenses, including some of the Zeiss ones for Nikon. The Zeiss comes out beyond the expected capability of the D200 sensor, but the Nikon equivalent is no coke bottle either.
-Lars
-
I was thinking of getting an 85/1.4 Planar ZF for my d2x... but not really sure how it will fare comared to my NIKKOR 85/1.4D .. which is a great lens... but <i>watery</i>
Just wondering if anyone has seen side by side comparisons of the Nikkor primes vs their Zeiss counterparts.
Thanks!
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just did one test a few days ago on the makro lenses from Zeiss, 50/2 and the just available 100/2, versus the 60/2.8 Macro from Nikon, but they all mount on Canon 1Ds MK2 with lens adapter, tethered to a computer using C1 Pro. The 100/2 and 50/2 Makro Plannar are visibly of higher contrast, just a little more sharp than the 60/2.8 which is also very good already. I did not have the 105 macro lens available for the quick comparison but I suppose the result will be close. The 100/2 Makro Plannar is a pleasure to use in studio, very bright, and very smooth focusing. Since I no longer use Nikon DSLR/SLR, I am really hoping they can introduce an EF mount some time soon. I did not test the 85/1.4 but I would assume the Zeiss will at least perform as good, if not better. At least, the fit and finish on the Zeiss lenses, although also made in Japan, is a class higher than Nikon and Canon.
-
Thanks to you both. I checked out the Photozone site.. wow those guys put the lenses through their paces!.. Easy to compare the data. Interesting mix of figures and anecdotal opinion. What I gathered from their site ... and not normally discussed, was the change in behaviour of wide aperture lenses such as the f1.4s when you stop them down to 2 or 2.8, in relation to contrast and resolving power.
I normally rush for my 85mm Nikkor when the lights dim in the theatre... using it at 1.4 .. while having to really be careful with the focus.. I was never totally happy with the resolving power of the areas in focus... "watery" as I said in my first post. These tests seem to concur with this. Funny thing is .... I've never really used it at smaller f-stops.. I'll have to give that a try sometime!
I also tried foccusing manally last night on a job .. just to remember what it felt like.... surprisingly nice!
Ros
-
Hmm just back from a job using the zeiss planar 1.4 ZF 50mm... Have used it already for studio .. nice... but after using it in a very very dark theatre space the focussing becomes very difficult ... compounded by being out of practice with manual focussing. I'll try to get some comparisons up soon with the nikkor 50mm 1.4.
Ros
-
No guys actually, just one. As far as I know ;-)
Erik
Thanks to you both. I checked out the Photozone site.. wow those guys put the lenses through their paces!.. Easy to compare the data. Interesting mix of figures and anecdotal opinion. What I gathered from their site ... and not normally discussed, was the change in behaviour of wide aperture lenses such as the f1.4s when you stop them down to 2 or 2.8, in relation to contrast and resolving power.
I normally rush for my 85mm Nikkor when the lights dim in the theatre... using it at 1.4 .. while having to really be careful with the focus.. I was never totally happy with the resolving power of the areas in focus... "watery" as I said in my first post. These tests seem to concur with this. Funny thing is .... I've never really used it at smaller f-stops.. I'll have to give that a try sometime!
I also tried foccusing manally last night on a job .. just to remember what it felt like.... surprisingly nice!
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I am sure that zeiss' 85 is an amazing lens but having a lens like your nikon 85 I don´t think you need nothing more than that. Today for using manual lenses you have to change your focus screen and you will not have that problem with the nikon af lens.
I am thinking in purchasing the new zeiss 35 for my street walkings, I am very used in manual focus but sometimes you miss the af.
If you want a good mf lens at a good price I recommend you nikon 85 f1'4 ais, which is an amazing lens (for me is better than its af brother) with a good price in the second market.
-
/2 Makro Plannar is a pleasure to use in studio, very bright, and very smooth focusing. Since I no longer use Nikon DSLR/SLR, I am really hoping they can introduce an EF mount some time soon. I did not test the 85/1.4 but I would assume the Zeiss will at least perform as good, if not better. At least, the fit and finish on the Zeiss lenses, although also made in Japan, is a class higher than Nikon and Canon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127407\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello,
I have had the opportunity to use the 35 f/2 ZF and 50 f/1.4 ZF with the Canon 5D for work that stretched for a 4 weeks. The lens came fitted with a custom EF mount with electronics for focus confirmation for the 1DS II. Unfortunately, confirmation did not work with the 5D but it was ok.
I was only able to process the RAW files after the 4 weeks and found that the 50 f/1.4 had 'smearing' issues, it was very serious at apertures f/1.4 to approx f/4 or so. The effect was very obvious because I had shot portraits and they were lined up carefully parallel to film plain. I am told that smearing could be due to lens element separation.
These lenses are about a year old (it was loaned to me) and there were no signs of damage on the barrel.
Best regards
Wesley
-
I was thinking of getting an 85/1.4 Planar ZF for my d2x... but not really sure how it will fare comared to my NIKKOR 85/1.4D .. which is a great lens... but <i>watery</i>
Just wondering if anyone has seen side by side comparisons of the Nikkor primes vs their Zeiss counterparts.
Thanks!
Ros
You can find quite good comparison at dpreview. Just go to the product page and choose these two models!
-
I have taken some comparison pics using a Nikkor 35/2 and a ZF 35/2 with a D200. It will be a while before I have sufficient time on my hands to make a nice webpage with crops comparing them, but I could make some full res JPGs available for download, if that is of any interest.
-
I was thinking of getting an 85/1.4 Planar ZF for my d2x... but not really sure how it will fare comared to my NIKKOR 85/1.4D .. which is a great lens... but <i>watery</i>
Just wondering if anyone has seen side by side comparisons of the Nikkor primes vs their Zeiss counterparts.
Thanks!
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ros
on Nikoncafe, look for Paul.R.Lindvist: he's a swedish member who has the whole full Zeiss line. He also did some comparisons, if I'm not wrong. On the net I was also looking for other info but it looks to be very hard.
All the best
-
Hi Ros
on Nikoncafe, look for Paul.R.Lindvist: he's a swedish member who has the whole full Zeiss line. He also did some comparisons, if I'm not wrong. On the net I was also looking for other info but it looks to be very hard.
All the best
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137418\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Chinese photo magazine, "Photographers' Companion" September issue also has the test between the AF 85/1.4D from Nikon and Planar T*85/1.4 from Zeiss, for Sony Alpha, between page 130-135. Basically the test result does show Zeiss lens to have some edge over Nikon, that between f/1.4-f/2.8, while Nikon is close to Zeiss in center sharpness, it is visibly less than Zeiss at edge. Zeiss has been consistent score between 1900-2088 resolvig power and Nikon at 1888-2081 at center, the edge from Zeiss at 1854-1962 while Nikon only 1501-1804. At f/4 Zeiss reach its peak with center/edge reading at 2319/2249 and Nikon 2177/1961 and at f/5.6 Nikon reach its peak at 2198/2017 but still less than Zeiss at f/5.6 with 2202/2162. The Zeiss is a more expensive lens but also superior, at least from the test. I believe the ZF/ZA mount should at similar performance as the Alpha mount except no AF, or perhpas a little better.
-
Thanks Khun,
As I saw above, also photozone has more or less the same conclusions. What looks strange, to me, is conversely the fact that il looks the only one really top notch while examining other lenses of the same line photozone often states "comparable to other manufacturers" that shouldn't apply for a Zeiss lens.
All the best
-
Hmm just back from a job using the zeiss planar 1.4 ZF 50mm... Have used it already for studio .. nice... but after using it in a very very dark theatre space the focussing becomes very difficult ... compounded by being out of practice with manual focussing. I'll try to get some comparisons up soon with the nikkor 50mm 1.4.
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use the 1.4 zeiss lens with the Nikon d2x and yes focussing is difficult. In fact the lens is very sharp at 1,4 already but the point is to focus it correctly. What has helped me a lot is buying a oculair loup.
It is not expensive ( 50$?) and really makes focussing a lot easier. I am now confident I got the focus right- even in dark conditions. I start to enjoy manual focussing again.
What I noticed about the quality of the lens- very good - better than Nikon- focal plain is perfect even at 1.4 from corner tot corner. Most lens issues gone at d2.0 - and d6,7 optimum for the whole area ( d2x 12mp)
I also have the 2.8 25mm. at 2.8 already an excellent performer- agian from corner to corner sharp even at wide open. quality only gains little further on- d9,5 optimum for the whole area.
The coating of the zeiss lenses is also the best a have seen - no flare...strong colours
-
I was thinking of getting an 85/1.4 Planar ZF for my d2x... but not really sure how it will fare comared to my NIKKOR 85/1.4D .. which is a great lens... but <i>watery</i>
Just wondering if anyone has seen side by side comparisons of the Nikkor primes vs their Zeiss counterparts.
Thanks!
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am sure the Zeiss is a great lens, but the quality of the Nikon lens is almost the same and autofocus- so the change you have a sharper picture out of the nikon will be much greater at 1.4 than with the manual focussed zeiss and you have all the other automatics which makes life more easy.
-
I am sure the Zeiss is a great lens, but the quality of the Nikon lens is almost the same and autofocus- so the change you have a sharper picture out of the nikon will be much greater at 1.4 than with the manual focussed zeiss and you have all the other automatics which makes life more easy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, Kers
on one had you're right, on the right I think they are thought for different kinds of users.. Of course if you're shooting a moving subject, you need a faster focusing; probably, if you are in a studio, you can focus only on quality and framing the pictures, so autofocus, especially if shooting at F/8 - F/11 or over isn't that critical since even if you misses your target, there will be enough depth of field not to notice it.. I too could think of it, to tell the truth... Probably the only thing missing in such system is a standard microprisms screen as on older rangefinder cameras but, aside from that, it's surely a great lens.
-
Well, Kers
on one had you're right, on the right I think they are thought for different kinds of users.. Of course if you're shooting a moving subject, you need a faster focusing; probably, if you are in a studio, you can focus only on quality and framing the pictures, so autofocus, especially if shooting at F/8 - F/11 or over isn't that critical since even if you misses your target, there will be enough depth of field not to notice it.. I too could think of it, to tell the truth... Probably the only thing missing in such system is a standard microprisms screen as on older rangefinder cameras but, aside from that, it's surely a great lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140935\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What is interesting is that in the new Nikon D3 there is a live view option that enables very precise focussing. better than ever before...that is if you have the time.
-
Hello,
I have had the opportunity to use the 35 f/2 ZF and 50 f/1.4 ZF with the Canon 5D for work that stretched for a 4 weeks. The lens came fitted with a custom EF mount with electronics for focus confirmation for the 1DS II. Unfortunately, confirmation did not work with the 5D but it was ok.
I was only able to process the RAW files after the 4 weeks and found that the 50 f/1.4 had 'smearing' issues, it was very serious at apertures f/1.4 to approx f/4 or so. The effect was very obvious because I had shot portraits and they were lined up carefully parallel to film plain. I am told that smearing could be due to lens element separation.
These lenses are about a year old (it was loaned to me) and there were no signs of damage on the barrel.
Best regards
Wesley
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133376\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
How did you like the 35 f/2 Zeiss? Corner sharpness with 5D? Bokeh?
I have not had the opportunity to take any pictures with these lenses but the craftmanship and the smoothnes of focusing ring etc are awesome.
Cheers,
J
-
Aren't these lenses for APS sensors only? (DX lenses) ? Louis Bouillon
-
Aren't these lenses for APS sensors only? (DX lenses) ? Louis Bouillon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148835\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
ZF-lenses cover fullframe and are marketed for both film and digital capture.
Cheers,
J
-
I am told that smearing could be due to lens element separation.
Maybe could be the adapter also?
-
Hi!
How did you like the 35 f/2 Zeiss? Corner sharpness with 5D? Bokeh?
I have not had the opportunity to take any pictures with these lenses but the craftmanship and the smoothnes of focusing ring etc are awesome.
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=148817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hello,
Apologies, I didn't get to read this till today.
The bokeh was non intruding and the corner sharpness was great. You're right, the smoothness of the focusing ring is great. Manual focusing is a pain. Corner sharpness beats ALL of the Canon 35mm primes hands down at big apertures (ie f/2 to f/4ish)
Best
Wes
-
I was thinking of getting an 85/1.4 Planar ZF for my d2x... but not really sure how it will fare comared to my NIKKOR 85/1.4D .. which is a great lens... but <i>watery</i>
Just wondering if anyone has seen side by side comparisons of the Nikkor primes vs their Zeiss counterparts.
Thanks!
Ros
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As some one else said, photozone.de has some excellent comparisons. The Zeiss lens that most interests me for use with my D3 is the MakroPlanar 1:2. Auto-focus is not that useful for macro work. The chip showing the true aperture and other information would be useful, but not indispensable.
Although not made in Germany, the build quality is said to be very high. By contrast, the build quality of the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 with its plastic barrel, silk screened letters, etc is a joke, especially at a professional lens price. Is Canon's offering any better? I can accept these limitations in my Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8 China manufactured lens for less than $100.
Bill
-
Hello,
Apologies, I didn't get to read this till today.
The bokeh was non intruding and the corner sharpness was great. You're right, the smoothness of the focusing ring is great. Manual focusing is a pain. Corner sharpness beats ALL of the Canon 35mm primes hands down at big apertures (ie f/2 to f/4ish)
Best
Wes
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169108\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for your valuable comments!
One additional question - did you use the 5D's default focusing screen or the MF-screen?
Cheers,
J
-
Thanks for your valuable comments!
One additional question - did you use the 5D's default focusing screen or the MF-screen?
Cheers,
J
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I used the default screen. Perhaps the MF screen might have been better? =)
Wes
-
I used the default screen. Perhaps the MF screen might have been better? =)
Wes
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169213\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi!
Thanks for the info. I've been thinking about the 35L and ZF35, mostly for handheld low-light work at around f2 (plus occasional landscapes), thus the sharpness at wide apertures is critical. The 35L I tested briefly worked with AF in unbelievably low light but I hate the feeling of allmost all of the current Canon's lenses. Probably have to go with the ZF.
Cheers,
J