Those zeiss lenses.
Who has used the new Zeiss 35 mm camera. I was able to handle it at the PMA this past week and was very impressed with it.
It would be interesting to see A-B shots comparing these lenses to other standards.... i.e. the Planar 50 1.4 to the Nikon etc...and the 85 1.4 to other 85 1.4 etc...both are available in mounts for SLR camera bodies nikon and others.
Originally Posted by Dave Wooten
This is a great inquiry. I don't have any idea how well the ZI-F mounts are selling but suspect not well, since I've seen zero threads etc.
I'd love to get the 85/1.4 if it "passed" a side-by-side with a Nikkor MF. I never did get the latter and would be curious....
I'm sure they've got some NYC dealers. B&H, Tamarkin, Fotocare, and perhaps others. I just got a couple of extremely slick brochures from Zeiss that I requested at PMA (I suspect Dave Wooten got them too). There is probably a dealer list at http://www.zeiss.com/photo somewhere.
Be careful what you wish for.
Originally Posted by Dave Wooten
Any of these ZEISS ZF (Nikon) lenses, can be ordered directly from ZEISS. Pls take a look in their Website!
There is also a row of ZEISS lenses in the pipeline, with ZK (Pentax) bayonet mounts!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
How much would comparison shots on the internet be worth? You'd not just be comparing lenses: you'd also be comparing scanners at the very least.
I've used an absurd number of lenses, not least because I test 'em for photo magazines: I recently had three of the ZF mount lenses, for example, the 25/2.8, 35/2 and 50/2 Makro. They are very, very nice. The Cosina-built lenses don't seem to me to be quite as lovely as the German-built ones (I've also used the 15/2.8 and own a 38/4.5, and have tried most of the lenses for the ZI, on the ZI and other cameras) but I suspect that part of this is preconception: by the time you get to this level of quality, a lot of it is down to seeing what you want to see.
At Shutterbug we always say that the text is more reliable than the pictures, simply because of the limits of photomechanical reproduction. It's also true that a skilled technician can actually improve the appearance of a print in repro or on the screen, as against the original.
Besides, there's more to a lens than can be measured objectively. A few years ago I was talking to a Zeiss lens designer -- I think it was Dr. Nasse, head of lens design at Zeiss -- and he freely admitted this; indeed, he was the one who brought it up when I was talking to him. I forget how many different 50mm Zeiss lenses he had for personal use -- five, I think, from the last half century or so -- and he said that each has its individual look, so he chooses whichever he thinks will give him the look he wants.
Now, he probably notices things I wouldn't, because he's looking for different things, but we agreed that some lenses are 'magic' and others aren't. The two most 'magic' lenses I own are the 38/4.5 Biogon (on an Alpa) and the 75/2 Summicron, but the my more modest 90/3.5 Apo Lanthar is pretty 'magic' too. So was my 58/1.4 Nikkor (Nikon F), which I wish I'd never sold, but so it goes.
Ultimately, the lens you like best is incredibly personal, and many people will praise a particular lens because, after screwing up their courage to pay a fortune for it, they have to convince themselves as much as anyone else. All the recent Zeiss lenses I've tried, Japanese-built or German-built, have been in the first rank, but (for example) I wouldn't buy the superb 35/2 ZM, even though it's a better lens than my old pre-aspheric 35/1.4 Summilux, because (a) I already have the Summilux (b) the Summilux is smaller (c) it's a stop faster and (d) it wouldn't make me a better photographer.
Most of my works are at “close” to medium distance, not at indefinite, so and lenses made as “macro” are I am interested for. However, as known to me, only Leica produces macro lenses I like. What I am looking in lens is -A. the name of manufacturer (his view on photography, his behave, and history), -B. rendering out of focus edges (bokeh), -C. mechanical quality, -D. usefulness at all apertures, especially at wide open, -E. pleasing looks, -G. price (low cost lens from say Leica will never buy…). So all of that are personal or subjective, even and price.
I was very interesting to see Zeiss ZF 2/50 Macro. Making a list of things matters to me that compares my Nikkor 2.8/55 micro and possible qualities of Zeiss counter lens what made me to say no to Zeiss are:
-A. I think that lens is made without Pb, -B. to compensate for it (partly), I think designers today in most cases use aspherical elements (as cast but not ground), and I never saw “good” bokeh with aspherical lens no matter manufacturer is Schneider, …, (will put only Leica beside with some reserves) -C. my Nikkor is with floating element and so good at near and medium distances (and it is to me), Nikon has its own glassworks as Zeiss, my Nikkor is made a long ago when were no restrictions in lens making, and so glasses in Nikkor are for sure “better” (means I like it better and I have more confidence in it) than in new Zeiss. –D. as Roger said I already have it.
The only think made me to take time to write this is bokeh of my Nikkor 2.8/55. There are certain light conditions where I see very clearly difference in bokeh between Leica lenses and Nikkor 2.8/55. I hope Zeiss made 2/50 macro with bokeh similar to Leica lenses. I will eat potato for months just to spare to buy that lens in such case, but something make me to doubt in it. But it is not all. I want stone sturdy lens, good at close-up and medium distances (say 3 meter), good focusing barrel turning, Leica feel while focusing.
What also make me reserved about Zeiss quality is that Planar 1.4/50 at F1.4 or F2 is nothing better than any other 1.4/50 lens, ZF 1.4/85 is far behind Nikkor 1.4/85AF at wide open, and also Zeiss emphases lens quality with resolution of 300 lpm I do not care for at all.
Some will think: so then get Leica. But I have beautiful Nikon F6 and Leica does not make ZF lenses, otherwise will not think twice. Even I strongly disagree with current Leica policy, I believe Leica as a company made things that are among the most complicated and most valuable in our history ever (together with Nikon through F6 and 1.4/85 AF).
I also agree with Roger H. when he say: good lens is the one you like, you believe in, and you have.
Roger, as you had Zeiss 2/50 what you personally think about its bokeh and overall at close and far, when compare to Leica 2.8/60 or Nikkor 2.8/55 ais.
Of the five ZF lenses - three are made by Cosina and two, I believe, are made by Zeiss in Germany.
Does anyone know which are made where? A year or so ago this was a "hot" topic on RFF but I've forgotten the "breakdown" of maker/origin by focal length.
Guess maybe I should just bite the bullet and get one of the last Nikkor 85's. I've always wanted one and they just ain't making them anymore!
Thanks Roger and Oren,
I have some very old lenses that have been with me for over 30 years and will keep their respected places on my Nikon and Pentax cameras. I was impressed with the "feel" of the new ZI body...slim size and brightness of the viewfinder...one of my passions is 35 mm available light photography in the wee small hours...
According to the brochures I received and the discussion I had with Richard Schleuning, Zeiss's U.S. marketing director, at PMA, the other line will be in M42 screw mount, which they are calling "ZS Mount," not Pentax K-mount. It's possible, of course, that they are introducing more options in Europe.