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?

tjv

Active member
Hi all. I'm getting out of Leica and into Nikon. Being used to using prime MF lenses, I'm wanting to get my two most used lenses for personal use in fixed focal lengths. I've been searching for reviews on the Zeiss ZF range of lenses and, to be honest, most aren't worth reading and many of the sample images provided for illustrations are often no longer linked properly.
With this in mind I wonder if people could combine their thoughts on the Zeiss range of ZF primes here in one easy to access thread? Sample images and comparisons to Nikkor lenses would be great, especially for people like me who are tossing up between the AF-S 50mm f1.4 and 50mm Planar f1.4. No two reviews seem to agree on the quality of either of those! (Ugly bokeh, good bokeh... which one is it and where are the examples?)

I look forward to reading all your opinions.

Thanks.

Tim
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hi all. I'm getting out of Leica and into Nikon. Being used to using prime MF lenses, I'm wanting to get my two most used lenses for personal use in fixed focal lengths. I've been searching for reviews on the Zeiss ZF range of lenses and, to be honest, most aren't worth reading and many of the sample images provided for illustrations are often no longer linked properly.
With this in mind I wonder if people could combine their thoughts on the Zeiss range of ZF primes here in one easy to access thread? Sample images and comparisons to Nikkor lenses would be great, especially for people like me who are tossing up between the AF-S 50mm f1.4 and 50mm Planar f1.4. No two reviews seem to agree on the quality of either of those! (Ugly bokeh, good bokeh... which one is it and where are the examples?)

I look forward to reading all your opinions.

Thanks.

Tim
Tim, I honestly don't have time to search down shots taken with all the different Nikon and Zeiss lenses. But I will take a minute to write my opinion.

For a 50mm prime neither the Zeiss 50/1.4 nor the new Nikon AFS 50/1.4 floated my boat. I never like the Zeiss 50 in any iteration: Contax 50/1.4 manual focus, Contax N AF 50/1.4, or the ZF 50/1.4. They are all sharp, but that design is infamous for wormy bokeh ... not anywhere as nice as ANY Leica 50/1.4.

IMO the Zeiss 50 to have is the ZF50/2 Macro. A tad slower but head and shoulders above the 50/1.4 IMHO and direct experience. The ZF35/2 and ZF28/2 are also world class optics. I didn't like the ZF100/2 macro because of CA, IMO the new Nikon 100/2.8VR Macro is a better lens over-all for Marco work. VR is worth it's weight in gold.

The Nikon AFS 50/1.4 is an okay lens but at f/1.4 frequently disappoints in terms of absolute sharpness ... however, the bokeh is consistently good.

In terms of Nikon lenses the newer AFS 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are absolutely stellar, and a primary reason I went Nikon from Canon.

BTW, my way out of Leica SLRs was to replace my R9s and DMR with a Sony A900, and the set of Zeiss AF optics. The two zooms are incredible ... the 85/1.4 is pretty good (has some CA) ... and the 135/1.8 is the best 135 I've ever used, maybe one of the best lenses of all time. The AF Sony 50/1.4 isn't Zeiss (which is a good thing if Zeiss used the old formula to ever make one) ... but I found it to perform a bit better than the new Nikon 50/1.4.

Hope this helps even a little bit.

-Marc
 

tjv

Active member
Tanks Marc, your comments do indeed help a lot. The 28mm and 35mm ZF lenses seem to get the best write ups. The 50mm Planar seems to divide people somewhat. I'm looking most seriously at the ZF 35mm but am undecided on what 50mm to get. I'll keep looking!

Tim, I honestly don't have time to search down shots taken with all the different Nikon and Zeiss lenses. But I will take a minute to write my opinion.

For a 50mm prime neither the Zeiss 50/1.4 nor the new Nikon AFS 50/1.4 floated my boat. I never like the Zeiss 50 in any iteration: Contax 50/1.4 manual focus, Contax N AF 50/1.4, or the ZF 50/1.4. They are all sharp, but that design is infamous for wormy bokeh ... not anywhere as nice as ANY Leica 50/1.4.

IMO the Zeiss 50 to have is the ZF50/2 Macro. A tad slower but head and shoulders above the 50/1.4 IMHO and direct experience. The ZF35/2 and ZF28/2 are also world class optics. I didn't like the ZF100/2 macro because of CA, IMO the new Nikon 100/2.8VR Macro is a better lens over-all for Marco work. VR is worth it's weight in gold.

The Nikon AFS 50/1.4 is an okay lens but at f/1.4 frequently disappoints in terms of absolute sharpness ... however, the bokeh is consistently good.

In terms of Nikon lenses the newer AFS 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are absolutely stellar, and a primary reason I went Nikon from Canon.

BTW, my way out of Leica SLRs was to replace my R9s and DMR with a Sony A900, and the set of Zeiss AF optics. The two zooms are incredible ... the 85/1.4 is pretty good (has some CA) ... and the 135/1.8 is the best 135 I've ever used, maybe one of the best lenses of all time. The AF Sony 50/1.4 isn't Zeiss (which is a good thing if Zeiss used the old formula to ever make one) ... but I found it to perform a bit better than the new Nikon 50/1.4.

Hope this helps even a little bit.

-Marc
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
The most complete tests on the zeiss zf lenses seems to be at , http://diglloyd.com/

This is a pay site but worth it if you are just starting with the zeiss lenses. I have some of Marc s lenses that he mentions as well as a number of others.
As with all lens evaluations ..you need a context (what type of photography do you enjoy).

My favorite is the 28/2 ZF because its perfect for street work and allows me to use a D700 (without grip) in a smaller form. I just received the 35/2 zf so no experience. Both the macro s 50 and 100 are well respected for their amazing resolution....but I find them requiring deliberate focusing due to a longer throw. (necessary for macro work but a PIA for street). I like the 85/1.4 zf . All of the zeiss lens have high contrast,high color saturation and outstanding resolution.

The bokeh can be harsh and CA is a problem with several designs ...I tend to think of the zeiss when I want "razor sharp" ,high saturation and strong contrast. Not always the best for portraits ..start looking for shade or softer light.

The other alternative is to convert Leica R lenses with the leitax mounts. The R glass provides another look altogether. The 80/1.4 summilux is a favorite due to the smooth bokeh ..lower contrast wide open ...when I think of this lens ...its "smooth creamy bokeh". Yet it is still plenty sharp. I use a 180/2.8 pre asph (a bargin lens at less than $500) for my 180. Got more to spend go for the APO version . The best 50 seems to be the E60 summilux (1.4) and these are I believe around $2000. Plenty written on the conversion process.

But it all depends on what you plan on shooting and what type of light you will have.
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Tanks Marc, your comments do indeed help a lot. The 28mm and 35mm ZF lenses seem to get the best write ups. The 50mm Planar seems to divide people somewhat. I'm looking most seriously at the ZF 35mm but am undecided on what 50mm to get. I'll keep looking!
A lot has been said, here and in other posts in this forum.

My opinion, while sharing most of Marc's thoughts:

50/2 -probably my favorite- is a superb lens , and truly the "divide people" part is mainly due to people judging from internet jpegs most of them never owned the lens. The others love it, with the two small reservations mentionned above i.e. 1/ it's not a 1.4... and 2/ focusing is not hyper fast (but extremely precise).
Did i mention (again) that it's a very versatile lens once you get the habit? Incidentally half-stops is great when working with powerful strobes.
Oh, and you often read or see brick walls shots stating that "50 1.4 and 50/2M perform equally from 2.8 up". That's wrong. The latter is a totally different animal. Much better.

35/2 for me is the same as the 50 but not quite as performing planeity wise. In other words, you can use the 50 for studio products shots (i do it a lot, and customers are satisfied), less easily the 35mm.
Then the 35mm has a shorter focus course, so as Glen says it's a great street oriented glass.

100/2 vs. 105VR? Well, despite the Arri Zeiss unrivalled bokeh and nicely saturated colors i indeed chose to go with the 105VR. Just marginally for macro and VR (which is a plus though), but the 105VR is a terrific portrait lens on FF, and ideal for studio even with difficult products shots, providing the extra 22-32 aperture range.

The one often overlooked focal in the ZF series is the 21mm. Stellar, but needing a bit of practice to account for metering variations if you use it, say, in the 2.8-5.6 range or in the 8+. Pricey, though. And definitely bigger and heavier than the 28 mentionned by Glen as a very convenient, lighter partner for the Nikon bodies. I have a slight personal preference for the 35, but of course YMMV.

My 0.02 :)
 
D

ddk

Guest
I've been shooting with Zeiss ZF lenses since their introduction and have, use and love all of them. While I agree with Marc regarding the Leica's 50/1.4 having the best bokeh (its also the most expensive 50mm!), I don't have a problem with the ZF 50/1.4. I'll attach a few samples at the end of the thread. I'd post more but since my cameras either don't register manual lenses or need manual info input, my exif data is either non-existent or inaccurate, so I'll post what was basically a test shot where I recorded the data.

As far as Nikkor vs Zeiss, having shot both I have to say that its all a matter of taste. Since one can shoot good and bad images with both brands, I can't say that one is better than the other, only that I prefer the Zeiss. In fact outside of 2 or 3 older designs (14/2.8, 58/1.2, 135/2 DC) I don't use Nikon glass anymore, and I own/owned everything under 200mm, including some of the latest zooms. Again not because they're bad, only that I like the look and feel of ZF lenses better for my work.

Roger is right, Lloyd's reviews of the Zeiss ZF products are best out there and will give you a great insight of the nuances of each lens. I read them long after owning the lenses and still found them very informative.

I was going to link some images from my pbase account but the site is down now, I'll do it later when its up again. In the meantime here's one that I had on a different server,

50/1.4 ZF and Kodak SLR/n;



100% crop

 

tjv

Active member
Great comments everyone. Thanks.

Coming from Leica, where my favourite two lenses were the Summilux ASPH 35mm and 50mm lenses in M mount, I've been really spoilt for quality. The thing is, I never shot Leica because of the optics, more because of the small package and rangefinder focusing. It's funny how deciding to change has provoked a kind of reverse "grass is always greener" thought process when it comes to lenses. I really respect and like the ZM range of Zeiss lenses (except for some QC problems.) The colour they produce, along with their resolution, was always very good. Hence why I'm thinking seriously about the ZF range.

The only ZF lens I've handled is the 85mm f1.4 and I must say it was a real beauty to look through and hold. Totally first rate build, it seemed, and forgetting for a moment the lack of AF, more satisfying to shoot with than the then Nikon offering. Not sure why they insist on silver / chrome front rings though. Makes no sense to me.

Most of my work can be loosely defined as portraiture. When shooting Leica a lot, I was mainly out on the street looking for the old decisive moment. But times have changed and for the last two years I've mainly worked with medium format and often with a tripod. Translating this methodology over to a new system with Nikon and manual focus lenses then wouldn't be an issue. I like having to really think about things and don't trust computers so why would I trust a camera to focus for me? It's not like I'm doing sports or motor racing!

I'm sold of the ZF 35mm and 28mm but am still on the fence about the 50mm. I'd really appreciate f1.4 and a father focus throw for when working quickly but am freaked out by the many negative reports I've read regarding bokeh and resolution - again, I'm spoilt coming from the Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH. Having said that, I only shoot f1.4 when in real need of light. f1.4 is more for practical reasons than creative.

The samples posted above are very impressive in terms of sharpness but also in proving the old Kodak cameras really did work well in controlled light! Thanks for posting.

At the end of the day it would be good to handle and try a sample myself but Zeiss lenses aren't available off the shelf here, only on prepaid special order.

Keep the images and opinions coming!
 

tjv

Active member
In terms of focus throw between infinity and 1 meter, how quick is the Makro-Planar compared to the Planar? Looking at the product pic on the Zeiss web site suggests the longer throw only really slows things down below the 1m mark. Would that be true? If that's the case the Makro-Planar is for me.
 
D

ddk

Guest
Thanks Vivek!

The 50/1.4 is the fastest and the easiest to focus with out of the lot. I don't see why it gets a bad rap from some; the build is top notch, it has great color and contrast, fast in action, very sharp wide open. Yes it doesn't have Leica's bokeh but no other 50/1.4 that I've tried can match Leica either. The 50mm ZF macro is too slow to focus in street imo, but you can get used to it.
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Focus throw in the 1m-to-infinity range is indeed very short, not sure which pictures were on the Zeiss website so here's below (a dirty) one from the actual product for you, live from the table desk :):
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Thanks Vivek!

The 50/1.4 is the fastest and the easiest to focus with out of the lot. I don't see why it gets a bad rap from some; the build is top notch, it has great color and contrast, fast in action, very sharp wide open. Yes it doesn't have Leica's bokeh but no other 50/1.4 that I've tried can match Leica either. The 50mm ZF macro is too slow to focus in street imo, but you can get used to it.
David is the throw in 1m+ range really different between the two models?
Can't remember really, and it looks to me that the 50M focuses really fast in this range... I use it a lot.
 
D

ddk

Guest
Yes, there is a difference in use Corian, I find it harder and slower to focus the 50M, not by much but enough.
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Yes, there is a difference in use Corian, I find it harder and slower to focus the 50M, not by much but enough.
ok thanks David, i did not notice that.

Some discrepancies have been reported in regard to focus ring smoothness, mine required a bit of break-in time. Maybe the small variation can be accounted for...
 

tjv

Active member
Thanks. That pic seals the deal. Look very quick in the range that's most important to me. :clap:

Focus throw in the 1m-to-infinity range is indeed very short, not sure which pictures were on the Zeiss website so here's below (a dirty) one from the actual product for you, live from the table desk :):
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks Vivek!

The 50/1.4 is the fastest and the easiest to focus with out of the lot. I don't see why it gets a bad rap from some; the build is top notch, it has great color and contrast, fast in action, very sharp wide open. Yes it doesn't have Leica's bokeh but no other 50/1.4 that I've tried can match Leica either. The 50mm ZF macro is too slow to focus in street imo, but you can get used to it.
I agree, the ZF50/2 is too slow for street photography.

No doubt the ZF50/1,4 is sharp, but it gets a bad rap because it deserves it. The most wormy Bokeh of all the lenses being discussed is a good reason IMO. I'd go with the Nikon AFS 50/1.4D before that ZF 50/1.4 ... and then you'd have AF to work with also. I just wish Nikon had incorporated their new nano crystal coating on the new 50.

For the best 50, I'm now considering a Leica Summicron-R 50/2 converted to Nikon mount for my F6 (if I decide to keep it). IMO, having used every 50 out there (including the sigma 50/1.4 which has amazing bokeh) none of the above mentioned lenses is its equal, and none manually focus as easily as the Leica ... Leica simply spoils you for manual focus lenses. Can be had for about $500. or less + the conversion. Just an alternative thought.

-Marc
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Talking about bokeh / portraiture and autofocus with the Nikon/Sigma 50mm lenses, another alternative or complementary candidate is the good ol' 85 1.4 AF-D.

Dustin Diaz calls it "the cream machine", some examples in his portfolio: http://www.flickr.com/photos/polvero/sets/72157621892940157/


Just it get over with the ZF 50Makro pros, one area it really shines is distortion / planeity. When you get monuments or some more technical shots from time to time (my case), it's better than all its F-mount competitors.
 
Last edited:
F

fliangshir

Guest
I'm very interested! I would love to find out more inforamtion related to this topic. Thanks in advance.
me too, I need more detailed info
 

bcf

Member
What about the Voigtlander lenses? The 40/2 and 58/1.4 are exceptional, inexpensive and still available new AFAIK. Lloyd Chambers has reviewed them as well. An advantage over the Zeiss lenses is that they are chipped: you will get the correct lens information in EXIF.
 
Top