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.
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!).
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
"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...
Last edited by Daniel_OB; 04-11-2007 at 04:24 PM. Click to view previous post history.
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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Soeren
Exactly. It's hard to explain until you've seen it.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Daniel_OB
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks
I find it hard to explain even though I have seen it
I took that knowledge for granted, sorry about that
Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE