Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 77,668   Posts: 1,715,477   Online: 794
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Medium Format
    If you have the cash to blow and you want to, why not?

    I wouldn't expect huge performance increases, however. Photozone has some fairly rigorous lens tests, they're not ranking significantly higher than other good glass wide open and most lenses are pretty good by f/4 or f/5.6 anyway. Film is less demanding than digital, I doubt you could blind-test against another good lens at higher than random accuracy. The placebo effect is HUGE here, on some level your brain tries to search for something, anything to justify why the luxury (read: "better") product is better and deserves its price tag.

    For example, take the Distagon 35/2. It's a $1200 lens that is matched pixel for pixel by a $400 Samyang 35/1.4. The Samyang develops essentially the same resolution as the Distagon at f/2, acceptable bokeh, plus you get a brighter viewfinder, more accurate focusing, and the capability to go to f/1.4 if you need it. Yeah, it's a bigger, heavier lens but the image is everything, right? Are there enough differences to drop 3x the price on the name-brand?


    That said, there are still gems in the Zeiss lineup. Their 100mm Makro Planar is great from what I've seen. On the other hand, kind of hard to justify that kind of price tag when I can pick up a Nikkor 105/2.5 for $150 that's also razor sharp and all that jazz. If it was good enough for 50 years of Nikon professionals, it's good enough for whatever I can throw at it.
    Last edited by PaulMD; 03-25-2013 at 08:23 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Multi Format
    Quote Originally Posted by ted_smith View Post
    As a multi-format shooter (MF Hasselblad, 35mm Nikon F5) this question is aimed at the 35mm range, not medium format.

    I own two Carl Zeiss lenses for my Hasselblad - really pleased with them etc. However, my Nikon body has Nikon lenses only. I've read on the web and watched on YouTube lots about Carl Zeiss lenses that fit Nikon bodies. An extreme and expensive example is the 55mm Distagon with 12 lens elements that costs about £3K I gather. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mEj...fuveOA&index=2

    Anyway, my question is whether the more 'normal' Carl Zeiss lenses are really as good as they claim to be (I can't afford that 55mm one so not even interested in that!)? It's obvious that they must be better than your standard Nikon lenses, but are they so much better to justify the cost? I've never used one and never seen a non-biased side-by-side comparison of a shot taken with, for example, the 50mm 1.8 Nikon or even the 1.4 pitted against a comparable CZ lens? Curious to know if it's worth spending about twice as much?

    (and, out of interest, are those side-by-side comparisons in the video linked above accurate, or exaggerated marketting tricks?)
    Hello Ted,

    sorry for being a bit late in the game with my answer, but I think I can give some helpful information.
    I am a multi-format shooter as well, and in 35mm Nikon is my main used system for more than 30 years.
    You have asked about the 1,8/50 Nikon versus 50mm Zeiss ZF glass for Nikon.
    I am using the Nikkor 1,8/50 AI-S (the better long barrel version with 0,45 min. focus distance), the 1,8/50 AF-D, and for four years now also the Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.
    Besides using the Zeiss in my daily photography, it is also our standard test lens in our optical lab for film and sensor tests.

    What are the differences between these three lenses?
    Advantages of the Zeiss are
    - much better performance at f2 (much better resolution and contrast) compared to the Nikkors
    - a bit better performance at f2,8 (resolution, contrast)
    - more even sharpness across the whole frame at from f2 - f8, the Zeiss is better at the borders compared to the Nikkors
    - no chromatic abberation
    - nicer bokeh
    - better build quality
    - a bit less distortion (compared to the AI-S, my AF-D sample has less distortion than the AI-S)

    Advantages of the Nikkors
    - less vignetting at f2
    - lower price

    In our resolution test at f5,6 both the Zeiss and the Nikkors achieved the diffraction limit of white light with 240 - 260 lp/mm on Spur Orthopan UR / Adox CMS 20 film (object contrast of 1:4).
    That are outstanding values. You would need a 200 MP FF sensor to get the same resolution in digital under the same test conditions.

    Each lens manufacturer has some "jewels" in his lens programme, and some lenses which are not so good.
    That is also the case with Zeiss.
    The 2/50 Makro is excellent, and the 2/100 has an even better reputation. Also the 2,8/21 belongs to the best 35mm SLR lenses available.
    On the other side the 2,8/25 for example is one of the weaker lenses in the current Zeiss programme.

    Here you may have a look at tests of most of the Zeiss lenses:

    Just as an important additional information: The photozone tests are based on 50% MTF tests with digital sensors. If you test the lenses with higher resolving films (like slide films, T-Grain BW films, BW microfilms) you get higher resolution values if you use object contrast above 1:3.

    Best regards,

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    35mm RF
    With regards to the 35mm, I would say the changes that Carl Zeiss lenses' effect on the picture quality would not be significant compared to Carl Zeiss on the Medium Format.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin