The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Zeiss ZF Lenses: Can we start the definitive thread?

V

Vertigo2020

Guest
I tried both the CV 58mm and 40mm. The 58mm is outstanding. It's sharper than anything else I've tried in that FL. On the other hand, the 40mm was disappointing to me. It had virtually no flare control. I sent mine back after a week.
 

tjv

Active member
Took the plunge today and ordered the ZF 35mm from B&H. All going to plan should be here next week along with my new D700.

Really want that 50mm Makro-Planar but good things take time... :p
 

tjv

Active member
Here's the ZF 25mm and 35mm in action.
What's your opinion of the 25mm? I'd prefer a little wider than the 28mm but hear the 25mm is not so good? Your example looks good, although it's always hard to tell by looking at little jpgs.
 
D

ddk

Guest
What's your opinion of the 25mm? I'd prefer a little wider than the 28mm but hear the 25mm is not so good? Your example looks good, although it's always hard to tell by looking at little jpgs.
Not so good? :ROTFL::ROTFL:

Its only the closest focusing, sharpest with the most gorgeous contrast, color and rendering 25mm out there for the F mount!
 
V

Vertigo2020

Guest
What's your opinion of the 25mm? I'd prefer a little wider than the 28mm but hear the 25mm is not so good? Your example looks good, although it's always hard to tell by looking at little jpgs.
I think once someone (we all know who) prints a few negative comments on the Internet about a lens they seem to stick forever and are accepted as gospel.

My opinion, in general use the 25ZF is superb. I tested it head to head against the Nikon 14-24 and @f5.6 the Zeiss spanked the Nikon in the corners. Center resolution was about the same. The ZF also showed much less corner CA. The only place the 25mm lost ground was some curvature of field at closer distances, like interior architecture. In landscape type photos it was impossible to see. The 25ZF more than makes up for this in its extreme close focusing and light weight.

BTW, click on the thumbnail to get a better view of the jpg file. Then imagine what the raw looks like.
 
Last edited:
V

Vertigo2020

Guest
Here's a shot with the 35ZF. You may see some color banding in the right side of the frame. This is not a failure of the lens but due to the sun shining through the high temp mineral filled water vapor. Basically a rainbow effect.
 

woodyspedden

New member
Here's a shot with the 35ZF. You may see some color banding in the right side of the frame. This is not a failure of the lens but due to the sun shining through the high temp mineral filled water vapor. Basically a rainbow effect.
If Aliens landed in Yellowstone and saw this they would conclude that there was no life on planet Earth

JMHO

Woody
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
"Pretty obvious if you ask me. Soon Earth will be a hostile environment where life cannot exist"


Nikon D300 • Nikkor AI-S 2.8/28mm • 1/400 sec. at f/8 ISO 200 • Sorry for the Nikkor lens in a ZF thread
 

tjv

Active member
Quick question...
I've read people say that infinity / longer mid range sharpness of the 50mm ZF Makro-Planar is not as good as the 50mm ZF1.4. True or false?
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Read what Ray (harmsr) had to say when he tried both. He was shooting D3 with a lot of different ZF lenses, before moving on into Medium Format land.
See his posts # 181 + 184 in this thread: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?p=17438

In the same thread I showed some captures with ZF 1.4/50 and ZF 1.4/85. Just send me an email if you'd like me to send you some NEF files with ZF captures to play with. So far I have ZF 1.4/50 + 1.4/85 + 2/100.
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Hi Steen,
thanks for the useful link. Interestingly enough, my conclusions (and Zeiss Nikon history) are extremely close to Ray's at the time:

Then came the 50/2.0 Macro which replaced my Nikon 60/2.8 Macro (not the latest brand new one). This 50 really blew the Nikor out of the water, so I kept it and sold the Nikon. Having listened to my dealer that it was a Macro range and not general range lens, I never really tried it at mid or long distance. (What a mistake that was!!!!!!) This lens is much better at close distance out to infinity than the 50/1.4 ZF.

[..]

Now that I have gone full frame with the D3 and bought the 24-70/2.8 (which is incredible), I first sold the 35 ZF as I prefer something wider and the bokeh reminded me of the sometimes strange 35 Cron version IV. I also sold the 50/1.4 ZF to just keep the 50/2.0 ZF.

In search of something wider, I initially got the 25/2.8 ZF and was loaned the 28/2. Well after a week with both in hand the 25/2.8 went back and the 28/2 stayed. The 25 is a sharp lens but weak up close, shows some distortion, and has less desirable OOF areas for my tastes. The 28/2.0 ZF is a stop faster and a better overall lens for my use with beautiful rendering of textures.

In between, all of this I had tried the Nikon 85 and preferred it to the Zeiss due to improved focus and it being a little more forgiving for portraits. It did not last long however either, when compared to the 105 VR lens on full frame.

So I have consolidated down to ZF 28/2.0, ZF 50/2.0 Macro, Nikon 105 Vr for primes.
Except i opted to try in depth the 21mm, but will probably go for the -cheaper, smaller- 28mm eventually.

28 (or 35) + 50/2 + 105VR is a really nice and versatile outfit for FF body.

If tele's needed then Nikon 135/2 DC + 200VR (!!) and you're set for good.
As a prime-only user, that is.


( note: love your ZF 100/2 though, but personnaly couldn't justify the write-off difference in real use performance (CA, too) + 1:2 instead of 1.1 + AF which is still a useful feature at times :) )
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Quick question...
I've read people say that infinity / longer mid range sharpness of the 50mm ZF Makro-Planar is not as good as the 50mm ZF1.4. True or false?
Hi Tim,
not sure what you're referring to, nevertheless here's a couple of examples possibly of interest regarding long range details with the 50/2.

Please do not pay attention to color balance, processing etc., i just quickly picked three test files, converted them to jpeg with basic parameters (no added sharpen, just the "standard" mode from the D700).

For each group, first picture is low quality jpeg (60) just to give a sense of actual framing and distance; then crops are mere 100% without further processing.


Attention, all shots are handheld with apertures from f/2 to f/5.6.

So the idea here is not to reflect the best possible performance of the combo but -as our good friend KR put it :rolleyes:- some samples of "real life" shots in regard to your question.


Of course posting jpeg is in itself deceiving and kinda defeats the purpose, but keeping in mind the restrictions, you'll get an idea...


P1 f/2.8



detail:




P2 f/5.6



detail 1:


detail 2 (added noise here is due to jpeg compression):




P2 f/2


detail 1:

(don't miss the leaves on the base of the tree trunk)

detail 2 (slight wind in the upper branches):
 
Last edited:

tjv

Active member
Thanks for the crops, that helps a lot and obviously goes against what I've read.
I'm going to order the Makro-Planar when B&H is open again. Then I just need the 21mm or 28mm and I'm set for all my personal work.

Does everyone here buy their Zeiss glass in the States, or is it cheaper to import from Japan / Asia like much of he gear we know and love?
 

tjv

Active member
Has anyone had to get their rig calibrated for manual focus errors like explained here:

LINK

Didn't know you could calibrate the mirror for manual focusing in SLR cameras. I've had to calibrate Leica M's many times before so should have known SLRs wouldn't be any different, being mechanical objects.
 
Top