Quote Originally Posted by ted_smith View Post
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?
Not at all. Beautifully made. Not better in terms of image quality, and therefore not worth the money in my opinion. I bought 4 of them for my Nikon and have so far sold 2 and went back to the Nikkors. Since you've asked specifically about a 50mm I'll say my lowly Nikkor AF-D 50mm f/1.4 is every bit is good as the 50mm f/1.4 ZF Planar I ended up selling.

Save your money.