Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,920   Posts: 1,556,524   Online: 1374
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21
    Daniel_OB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mississauga, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    420
    Airgunr
    I have the same problem with Zeiss lenses as you have. Are their prices reflects “quality” 3 times more expensive as Nikkors. If they are 50% “better” I would buy one. However I never saw on internet that anyone say ZF are far ahead of Nikkors. Even 1.4/85 is rather far behind Nikkor 1.4/85D. I have some doubt even and with 1.4/50 that is better than Nikkor. My interest was Macro and recently I saw some test on Nikonians.org 3rd party lenses section. Nikkor 45P shows better “sharpness” at F2.8 than ZF Macro 50mm at 1.5 meter distance. However that test is done with dig. Camera so might be is not true to what I want to know.
    Anyway as you are interested in Macro too my doubt is so great that it is (50 macro) any better than Nikkor 2.8/55 micro which I have and can say that is top class lens. The only I wish more is Leica bokeh and is the reason I still look around. If you can accept average bokeh you will be far more happy (print quality sake) with Nikkor 2.8/55 micro. I am just afraid to invest $1600cdn in ZF Macro just to test it. Actually I need for average distance (1-2 meter) and just sometimes for very close.
    I just would like that someone say and show what is it better with ZF 2/50 macro over Nikkor 2.8/55 micro. What is it?

    ZF 2/100 is full stop faster than Apo-Macro Elmarit 2.8/100 Leica. Also Leica is produced with much better glass than ZF and cost around 2 times more, but Leica does not claim so much as Zeiss does. What is true about ZF lenses I also would like to discover, but looks it is all big secret. Only resolution which photographers does not need. No one publish the truth with evidences. Always some talking around.

    www.Leica-R.com

  2. #22
    airgunr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    122
    Thanks for the response Daniel. You pretty much are looking at it the same as I am.

    I have all the Nikkor Micro lenses in my pile as well as the PB-6 & PB-6E Bellows system and have been very happy with them. My most recent addition was the 55mm, great lens!

    I guess it's kind of the old adage, "the grass is alway greener..." and Roger's review of the Zeiss lenses and mention of the 100mm macro piqued my interest and created a bit of "ZAS" (an offshoot of NAS!).
    WJS/wi/usa

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,336
    I had the chance to handle the 25mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/2.0 on a F100 yesterday. whats written is true, they are very easy to focus even on an AF body and despite the long throw. Ill rate their mechanical quality higher than the AIS Nikors I have handled (55micro, 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 180mm) I was offered to try them out in near future and Í think I will. I find them very tempting from what I have seen until now and depending on my decision on the future of my 35mm shooting I might go for the 25mm 50mm f/2.0 and the 100mm if money ever allows
    Cheers
    Søren
    Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting

    Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed

    Søren Nielsen
    Denmark

  4. #24
    Daniel_OB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Mississauga, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    420
    Soeren
    "they are very easy to focus even on an AF body ..."

    I do not get meaning of that. What is a difference with manual lens focusing on non- and autofocus camera. Might be I am missing someting? Do you mean turning barrel rotation amount? A long ago I compared Nikkor 2.8/55 and ZF 2/50 (from picture) turning angle of the focusing barrel but no noticable difference (Nikkor is better and here, if longer turning is better for you, but not so noticable). BUT nikkor is 55 mm and ZF is 50 mm so the turning barrel after the math is the same.

    "what is writen is true..."
    what is writen, and where?
    Again, can you be more elaborate...

    www.Leica-R.com
    Last edited by Daniel_OB; 04-11-2007 at 03:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,336
    Daniel
    Whoops not clear enough
    I meant whats written by Frances Schultz in Black & White photography (april issue) especially about focussing.
    Some find it difficult to focus manually (or with MF lenses) on AF bodies, I don't. The Zeiss lenses I found even easier to focus than the Nikors I own or have owned due to the way they seem to snap into focus. Hard to explain but I feel its easier to see it on the screen than with the nikors but thats subjective and maybe just me. Yes I meant turning barrel rotation amount. My 75mm on Pentax 6X7 I find hard to focus precisely because of this because the change is subtle and the screen is dark so its difficult for me to see when its spot on. This is my worst case lens and its a very slow lens I know. The same does not aply to the 25mm Zeiss lens partly due to its higher speed and the better finder of the nikons but whats important to me is that I found the zeiss lenses easier to focus because of the way the image just jumped into sharpness (or whatever) really no need to check with the electronic rangefinder like I use to when doing the same with a 20mm, 24mm or 28mm nikor.
    Kind regards Søren
    Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting

    Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed

    Søren Nielsen
    Denmark

  6. #26

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Soeren View Post
    I found the zeiss lenses easier to focus because of the way the image just jumped into sharpness
    Dear Soeren,

    Exactly. It's hard to explain until you've seen it.

    Cheers,

    R.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    I have an M42 mount Rikkenon 50mm where the image just seemed to jump into focus when I used it in a way that the other 3 or 4 50mm M42 lenses I had simply did not. No idea why, it just did.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Van Buren, Arkansas
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,412
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Daniel_OB View Post
    Soeren
    "they are very easy to focus even on an AF body ..."

    I do not get meaning of that. What is a difference with manual lens focusing on non- and autofocus camera. Might be I am missing sometingwww.Leica-R.com
    Auto-focus SLR's including digital models do not in general have focusing screens that have focusing aids in the middle, such as split-prism, etc., therefore it is harder for some people to accurately manually focus.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Dear Soeren,

    Exactly. It's hard to explain until you've seen it.

    Cheers,

    R.
    Dear Roger
    I find it hard to explain even though I have seen it
    Kind Regards
    Søren
    Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting

    Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed

    Søren Nielsen
    Denmark

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Naestved, DK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE View Post
    Auto-focus SLR's including digital models do not in general have focusing screens that have focusing aids in the middle, such as split-prism, etc., therefore it is harder for some people to accurately manually focus.
    I took that knowledge for granted, sorry about that
    Kind regards
    Søren
    Send from my Electronic Data Management Device using TWOFingerTexting

    Technology distinquishable from magic is insufficiently developed

    Søren Nielsen
    Denmark

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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