Manual Nikkor 1.2/50 is not worth money. Not so good lens by many. Manual 1.4/50 should be much better choice. Unfortunately no more 1.8/50 manual. The only problem is not nice rendering out of focus areas, but I never saw just any good standard lens, except Leica. 2.8/40 Nikon Tessar is very good lens but is very slow. If F2.8 is not a problem to you I think you will be the better off with 2.8/55 Nikkor Micro manual lens. It is good at short and long distance, I think ZF 2/50 is nothing better (Nikkor has better glass at least).
be happy with your Japanese car. I know many thinks what is going on in American car industry, and stupid is one to say it. People will just not beleive it for it is unbeleivable things. (management firing high paid enginners and getting crap people with mind that software will solve all problems, quality conrtol is up to customers to discover and report the problem, companies cutt health benefits to show share holders increase in profit,...., and this is just something someone can beleive, while other things are much worst).
Last edited by Daniel_OB; 07-05-2007 at 09:26 AM. Click to view previous post history.
If NASA took Cosina-made products to the space to play around, we probably wouldn't have this kind of argument. Or if US Navy used them, I would tend to think the quality is a top notch...
The build quality of the items I saw at the Zeiss booth at PMA in March didn't seem too bad, but I only handled them briefly. The most interesting lenses perhaps were Hassy lenses in Hartblei tilt-shift mounts for F-mount cameras. The representative from Schneider also seemed confident in the ability of the Asian companies to make high-quality optics, even in reference to the products of competitors.
I don't shoot Nikon, so I'll be interested to see what comes out in M42 mount.
Judging by the test at photozone, the ZF 35/2 is a very fine lens, certainly better than the Nikon options. I don't know how helpful it is to discuss the ZF lenses based on their price point- in my opinion, these lenses (especially the shorter ones) definitely address a longstanding gap in the performance of the semiwide Nikkors, so.. take it or leave it.
After going through various disappointing 35mm lens options on my F100 I must say that $700 on a ZF doesnt seem quite so outrageous. I haven't made the jump yet, I keep expecting a little price nudge! Which may never come.
Daniel, I actually do kinda like the Nikon 50/1.2; sure it's not up to par at f/8 with the other fast fifties or the slightly longer Nikkors, but the thing is extremely easy to focus in just about any light which is sometimes a priceless quality. It has also found a second life on my little d*****l body, for that it is expecially fun for grabs. Whether it's worth the price, well of course that always depends...!
I never used Nikkor 1.2/50 so all I know is what I saw on internet. But I know exactly what I want from the lens. It is not "sharpness" for all lenses are more or less sharp if they are made to be "sharp". What is intersting to me this moment is how the lens handle out of focus areas. This is where all standards fails (from picts I saw on internet) except Leica lenses, and for photography it is far more important feature than "sharpness". When you once start to deal with it you will see why it is so important. If you have any pic from 1.2/50 with emphased first plane, at around F1.4, I would like to see it.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Daniel, I am traveling for a while but I think I can furnish an image when I return.
Anyway, one thing I learned about online reviews, they usually have an obvious axe to grind, offer very limited info, and there is whole lot of parroting going on! Also, of course, there are sometimes bad copies. So the policy I have followed is to purchase a lens with a good return policy and simply try it out. I'll just state that I bought this lens for ease of focus and not portrait bokeh and had very low expectations... but I was quite pleasantly surprised. I definitely think I got my money's worth.
All, I purchased a ZF 50mm, tested it against my Nikkor AF 50mm f1.4, on a stable tripod, in the shade at 10-16 ft, with Delta 100ASA . The ZF is better. So much so I sold the Nikkor. I have since purchased (second hand cos' they are expensive) a ZF 35mm f2. Love it. Its the only fixed focus 35mm I have owned but its great. grips with the 50mm none. Grips with the 35mm -yes, why it it so dame big and heavy, yes lots of glass but the manual Nikkor 35mm f1.4 is lighter? If you can find one second hand, and don't mind the weight, get one.
Over all I am happy with my ZF's, something Im can't say about all my Nikkor (I owned/hane owned 7 of them).
Old cosina cameras -yes I have a CSM and my father a CSL and a CS3. OK, had a small problem with the CSL which could be overcome (depth of field preview button would stick in if pressed to hard. I would put them on par with chinon, but below the old BIG 5 makes.
Originally Posted by Daniel_OB
I don't have a pic to post, but I do have both the 50 f/1.2 and the 50 f/1.4AF. All I can add is that the 50 f/1.2 seems to me to have smoother bokeh than the 1.4 does.
I had several issues with distaogn 35/2 (on Nikon F6)
1. Size and weight (almost as big as F6 body)
2. Flare (?the shiny aluminum filter thread produced flare, even though I used a hood)
3. CAs. Wide opened the lens was useless. Stopped down it was much better, but CAs did't go away completely. When I took pictures of large single color but at the same time not completely homogeneous brightly lit surfaces, like snow or concrete the pictures had magenta patches. Initially I couldn't figure out where that discoloration came from, but when I looked at the scanned images at 100% (4800dpi) I realised that they were formed by multiple tiny CAs at the high contrast interfaces (like crystals of ice or grains of concrete).
5. Distortions. For $800 the lens distortions should be better corrected.
A combination of abovementioned issues made me sell the lens.
In terms of resolution the lens is fine, but it had too many other issues that I didn't want to live with.
Thanks for the info.
Originally Posted by sbelyaev
What are "CAs"?
I mean this seriously. I don't understand the abbreviation - but figure from the context that they are not good.