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!

D3/D300 illustrated

harmsr

Workshop Member
I'll admit to swapping my ZF lens line-up around again.

I had the 35/2, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4 first with the D200. I had to change the screen out so that I had any hope of focussing with the 85 at close range and open aperture. The 35 was an incredible lens but a little long physically on the D200 but used often because of the approx. 50 focal length when cropped. The 50/1.4 was nice and reminded me of the Leica Pre-ASPH Lux.

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.

Next was the sale of the 85 since I missed focus as often as I nailed it on the D200.

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.

Sorry for the long post, but I just wanted to express how I got to where I am today and that you will most likely love the new 28/2.0 ZF.

Best,

Ray
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
On the contrary, Ray, I would like to express a BIG Thank You for the long post including many of the considerations behind your choices. That is exactly what makes it so useful for me and, I'm sure, for many others.
One more thing we need to know is, how does the 28mm perform compared to the 35mm, which so many have been raving about ? Do you think it is on par with the 35mm (maybe only with a more pleasing bokeh) ?
And like LCT I would love to see some samples when you get some captures that you would like to share with us :)
Btw. have you seen what the ZF 2/100mm does ... just trying to spend your money for you :D
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
Hi LCT & Bondo,

The 35 was a slightly better lens technically than the 28. This relates to basically how evenly sharp it across the entire frame, virtually no distortion , nor CA. If you are looking for a really, really good lens technically the 35 is tuff to beat. What I really did not like about it was the bokeh. That 35 Cron IV bokeh just doesn't work for me.

The 28 does have a little very minor distortion at the edges (much better than the 25), it can show a little CA (however it is better than the 25 ZF), it is just as good as the 35 in handling all items from close to infinity with respect to sharpness (while the 25 is weak up close), & I really love the bokeh or OOF rendering and transitions. In Leica terms I would say it is more refined and subtle like the Leica 28 Cron ASPH vs. the Leica 35 Cron ASPH. The only other thing which is slightly weird is that when working close and with narrow DOF the plane of focus shifts backward slightly as you move off center then comes back to the same center plane. This is very slight and only noticeable when shooting with very narrow DOF (close and open aperture), but it is there. However, the end result is that I still really love this lens more so than the 35.

Since I really like 50 as a focal length, I think the 28 just gives me more flexibility than the 35 as the next step.

I will say that even though my 24-70/28 is VERY GOOD, both the 28/2.0 and 50/2.0 are better in sharpness and fine detail.

I'll try to use it this weekend and post some pics. I'm shooting the SMMG3Gun Match here in Phoenix this weekend for Smith & Wesson, so I'll use it for the wides. The 70-200 is the lens really getting the work out this weekend.

Best,

Ray
 

harmsr

Workshop Member
Btw. have you seen what the ZF 2/100mm does ... just trying to spend your money for you :D
I REALLY HATE YOU!!!!!!!! :mad:

I must ignore this attempt at subversion.:angel:

No, I have not tried the Zeiss 100. However, I have been so happy with the Nikon that maybe I can resist.

Best,

Ray
 

rayyan

Well-known member
Woody, i have the 105/2 dcm after having had the 135/2 dc. for me the
105/2 dc was the better glass. at 5.6 you could resolve rivets way off!!

For portraits in the open prefer it to the 85/1.4. never really became fully
conversant with the dc control on either the 105/135. the hood can get stuck
in the micro grooves if one is not careful.

I am really looking for advice on getting the Nikon 85 1.4 vs the ZF 85 1.4. Reasons for wanting the Nikon are obvious but I am unclear about relative image quality. Also I am conflicted as to whether the 135 2.0 DC is a better choice as a portrait lens? Any help out there?

Woody
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
The ZF 100/2 is simply the best lens, both in terms of sharpness and bokeh, I have ever used, in any format. A big call, I know.

Reason I am not getting the Nikon VR equivalent is that (due to Auto ISO on the D3) I don't find it necessary. If I am doing products in the studio, I can control the light; there is always enough to use a shutter speed of 1/750, or faster. which I find gives results that are sharp, hand-held. That flexibility of composition is incredible (reason for Nikon making a macro lens VR in the first place, I guess).

The 50/2 Zeiss is just as good, but because the 24–70/2.8 is so good, I have not found myself reaching for it. Now the Brightscreen is fitted, I may use it more.

Same for the ZF 25: on the D300, not a focal length that grabs. I have not got around to using it on the D3 yet, I am somewhat ashamed to say. cheers, kl
 

vieri

Well-known member
The ZF 100/2 is simply the best lens, both in terms of sharpness and bokeh, I have ever used, in any format. A big call, I know.

Reason I am not getting the Nikon VR equivalent is that (due to Auto ISO on the D3) I don't find it necessary. If I am doing products in the studio, I can control the light; there is always enough to use a shutter speed of 1/750, or faster. which I find gives results that are sharp, hand-held. That flexibility of composition is incredible (reason for Nikon making a macro lens VR in the first place, I guess).

The 50/2 Zeiss is just as good, but because the 24–70/2.8 is so good, I have not found myself reaching for it. Now the Brightscreen is fitted, I may use it more.

Same for the ZF 25: on the D300, not a focal length that grabs. I have not got around to using it on the D3 yet, I am somewhat ashamed to say. cheers, kl
Hello Kit, me again on the Zeiss 100/2: how do you deal with its magnification being limited to 1:2 rather than going all the way to 1:1? What I mean is, do you use it for real macro work or just for product shots and the like? :D I do some macro - product work, like this:







or this:







(all with the D2x & the 105 VR) where 1:1 or at least having the possibility for 1:1 would be necessary.

That said, the results from the Zeiss are very very good, once more - I just can't see getting & owning both... :D or maybe I do :rolleyes:
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
What I mean is, do you use it for real macro work or just for product shots and the like?
Shots much like yours! I like the look of the 105 VR, and (but don;t tell anyone) in a blind shootout, I think they would be hard to separate.

To answer your question, I use the 100/1 at its maximum (which you say is 1:2). If I needed more, I would use extension rings. Cheap and effective. I have some very young grape vine shoots I may post if time permits; the bokeh is dreamy, yet the sharpness is, well—sharp! I would stick to what you've got; it's a great lens on all account. cheers, kl
 

woodyspedden

New member
The ZF 100/2 is simply the best lens, both in terms of sharpness and bokeh, I have ever used, in any format. A big call, I know.

Reason I am not getting the Nikon VR equivalent is that (due to Auto ISO on the D3) I don't find it necessary. If I am doing products in the studio, I can control the light; there is always enough to use a shutter speed of 1/750, or faster. which I find gives results that are sharp, hand-held. That flexibility of composition is incredible (reason for Nikon making a macro lens VR in the first place, I guess).

The 50/2 Zeiss is just as good, but because the 24–70/2.8 is so good, I have not found myself reaching for it. Now the Brightscreen is fitted, I may use it more.

Same for the ZF 25: on the D300, not a focal length that grabs. I have not got around to using it on the D3 yet, I am somewhat ashamed to say. cheers, kl
Kit

I am wondering if the brightscreen 13mm does anything negative with regard to autofocus. I would love to have it for MF but I very much value Nikon AF and don't want to screw it up. Your experiences would be worthwhile here.

Woody
 

vieri

Well-known member
Shots much like yours! I like the look of the 105 VR, and (but don;t tell anyone) in a blind shootout, I think they would be hard to separate.

To answer your question, I use the 100/1 at its maximum (which you say is 1:2). If I needed more, I would use extension rings. Cheap and effective. I have some very young grape vine shoots I may post if time permits; the bokeh is dreamy, yet the sharpness is, well—sharp! I would stick to what you've got; it's a great lens on all account. cheers, kl
Kit, thanks for your answer - one more for you: do you feel extension rings lower the Zeiss' IQ and if so how much? I never warmed to extension rings with older Nikkors, but given the quality of the Zeiss they might be worth a try :D
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Woody, hello there my friend. As I understand it, changing from the standard screen to a Brightscreen has literally no effect on AF (different light pathways and mechanisms), This "two-systems" aspect is why you can have a camera that shows you perfect focus (via AF conf. light) and actually achieves perfect focus (when you look at the images) yet can have an MF system that is completely out (so if you get what looks like perfect focus n the finder, the images are out). My D3 Afs the same as with the standard screen.

Vieri, extension rings cannot lower IQ, in my experience; they are the mechanical equivalent of turning the helicoid a (say) half-inch further than you could before you fitted the ring.

cheers, KL
 

kit laughlin

Subscriber Member
Vieri, have you experiences image degradation via extension tubes on a macro lens? I have used them on occasions, but I have not noticed any image effects that don't seem to be the result of the further reduced DOF, and the closer focussing distance. Anyone else?
 

vieri

Well-known member
Vieri, have you experiences image degradation via extension tubes on a macro lens? I have used them on occasions, but I have not noticed any image effects that don't seem to be the result of the further reduced DOF, and the closer focussing distance. Anyone else?
Kit, I actually had - a few years ago, am not sure now of the tube brand but the cause (I think) was the tubes sides not being exactly parallel to each other (focal plane was getting uneven with the tubes, right side closer than the left). As well, one would lose AF (if one would care about AF for macro work) and all the auto metering stuff (are there coupled tubes? I have no idea, but there might). If so, sounds like it wouldn't be possible to use the 105 VR with tubes I guess (no aperture ring), though I have no experience with modern macro lenses and tubes: my (bad) extension tubes experience relates to the 55 micro Nikkor (very good lens btw). I assume if the ext tubes are straight there shouldn't be a problem, and if (as I assume) modern tubes carry electronic information (?) and/or if they are coupled (?) one might be able to use AF, AF-S and metering (?). As you see, after that bad one experience I didn't mess around with tubes any more :D of course, that would be a very good solution for the Zeiss!
 
Top