Nikon AIS/AI Vs Zeiss/CV MF lenses

[simonclivehughes]

I'm currently thinking of selling my Nikon zooms and going with fast prime lenses (for D300) and I'm trying to gauge the relative differences of older MF AIS/AI lenses versus the newer Zeiss and/or CV MF lenses. I've done a bit of searching here but haven't seen posts comparing the older Nikon glass to the newer Zeiss and CV lenses.

Obviously buying the AIS/AI lenses is significantly cheaper than the newer lenses, but at what cost? The posts I've seen showing example of the Z and CV lenses are compelling, but there's no comparisons to older glass. I'm sure there's some excellent older glass out there.

The lenses I'm considering are:

Nikon (MF only)
20mm f2.8
24mm f2
28mm f2
35mm f1.4
50mm f1.2
105mm f1.8

Zeiss
21mm f2.8
35mm f2
50mm f1.4
100mm f2

CV
58mm f1.4

I won't be buying all of the focal lengths shown in the Nikon section above, they're just there for consideration. The Zeiss section really shows what I'd like to get WRT focal lengths.

Of the listed Nikon lenses, which are excellent performers and which should I avoid? Likewise, which of the Zeiss or CV should be candidates that are unmatched? The Zeiss 100mm seems to be a stellar lens, for example.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Cheers,

 

[Shac]

Simon - have you looked at Bjorn Rorslett's site for his opinions - I find them useful
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
David

 

[simonclivehughes]

Simon - have you looked at Bjorn Rorslett's site for his opinions - I find them useful
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
David

David,

Thanks... he likes the 28mm f2 and the 35mm f1.4, which is useful info, but how they compare to the Zeiss is more of what I'm after.

Cheers,

 

[glenerrolrd]

David

Two sites ..both "pay sites" have extensive testing information on these lenses .Reid Reports http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/login.asp and Diglloydhttp://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html. They both favor the Zeiss ZF lenses both for their optical performance but also for there mechanical precision.

The top Zeiss lens is the 100/2 (although the Nikkor 105/2.8 AF macro has shown similar performance) . Two you didn t mention that are highly rated are the 28/2 ZF and the 50/2 ZF. I think the 28/2 on a D700 body is a perfect wideangle street set up.

You can also convert existing Leica R lenses with the Zeitax.com mounts . This opens up some great lenses like the 80/1.4 summilux or the 100/2.8 APO.

The hot Nikon lens that is impossible to find without paying a dealer extra is the 58/1.2 Nocti Nikkor. The 28/1.4 AF is also a top lens thats hard to find.

Roger

 

[glenerrolrd]

David

Two sites ..both "pay sites" have extensive testing information on these lenses .Reid Reports http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/login.asp and Diglloydhttp://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html. They both favor the Zeiss ZF lenses both for their optical performance but also for there mechanical precision.

The top Zeiss lens is the 100/2 (although the Nikkor 105/2.8 AF macro has shown similar performance) . Two you didn t mention that are highly rated are the 28/2 ZF and the 50/2 ZF. I think the 28/2 on a D700 body is a perfect wideangle street set up.

You can also convert existing Leica R lenses with the Zeitax.com mounts . This opens up some great lenses like the 80/1.4 summilux or the 100/2.8 APO.

The hot Nikon lens that is impossible to find without paying a dealer extra is the 58/1.2 Nocti Nikkor. The 28/1.4 AF is also a top lens thats hard to find.

Roger

 

[simonclivehughes]

David

Two sites ..both "pay sites" have extensive testing information on these lenses .Reid Reports http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/login.asp and Diglloydhttp://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html. They both favor the Zeiss ZF lenses both for their optical performance but also for there mechanical precision.

The top Zeiss lens is the 100/2 (although the Nikkor 105/2.8 AF macro has shown similar performance) . Two you didn t mention that are highly rated are the 28/2 ZF and the 50/2 ZF. I think the 28/2 on a D700 body is a perfect wideangle street set up.

You can also convert existing Leica R lenses with the Zeitax.com mounts . This opens up some great lenses like the 80/1.4 summilux or the 100/2.8 APO.

The hot Nikon lens that is impossible to find without paying a dealer extra is the 58/1.2 Nocti Nikkor. The 28/1.4 AF is also a top lens thats hard to find.

Roger

Roger,

Thanks for the reply. I am a ReidReviews subscriber and I have seen Sean's write-ups on the Zeiss. As I'm shooting with a D300, I chose the 21mm rather than the 28mm. I didn't choose the 50/2 as I'm inclined to get the 50/1.4 instead (and the 100/2 for any macro work).

I don't have any R lenses, so that's not an option I'd explore , and I already have the Nikon AF 85/1.4 lens.

Again, I appreciate the feedback on the Zeiss lenses but what I'm really anxious to get is more info on comparable older Nikon glass. I'm looking for the best IQ I can get, but also the best bang for my buck.

Ciao,

 

[ddk]

I'm currently thinking of selling my Nikon zooms and going with fast prime lenses (for D300) and I'm trying to gauge the relative differences of older MF AIS/AI lenses versus the newer Zeiss and/or CV MF lenses. I've done a bit of searching here but haven't seen posts comparing the older Nikon glass to the newer Zeiss and CV lenses.

Obviously buying the AIS/AI lenses is significantly cheaper than the newer lenses, but at what cost? The posts I've seen showing example of the Z and CV lenses are compelling, but there's no comparisons to older glass. I'm sure there's some excellent older glass out there.

The lenses I'm considering are:

Nikon (MF only)
20mm f2.8
24mm f2
28mm f2
35mm f1.4
50mm f1.2
105mm f1.8

Zeiss
21mm f2.8
35mm f2
50mm f1.4
100mm f2

CV
58mm f1.4

I won't be buying all of the focal lengths shown in the Nikon section above, they're just there for consideration. The Zeiss section really shows what I'd like to get WRT focal lengths.

Of the listed Nikon lenses, which are excellent performers and which should I avoid? Likewise, which of the Zeiss or CV should be candidates that are unmatched? The Zeiss 100mm seems to be a stellar lens, for example.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Unless I find something really wrong with a particular product I find it very hard to completely dis something in favor of another but I'll try to give you my observations, as I have a bunch of the lenses that you listed. Also to put things in perspective, majority of my photography is people, more than 75%, wether its street, portraiture, nudes, family, etc., and the rest is landscape, so color, contrast and how a lens renders ranks very high for me. Center sharpness is important but I rarely notice it if the lens is a little soft at the edges. It might be because I shoot a DX camera for the most part.

Lets start from your last lens,

CV 58mm f1.4, don't much care for it, I find the bokeh horrible and the rendering ho-hum. I also don't like the fact that the lens cap doesn't fit with the hood attached.

Zeiss, I have the 35/50/100 for quite sometime now and just got the 21mm a week ago. I really love all of them, the 35mm is my most used one, mainly because of its fl and wonderful rendering qualities. The 50mm is very sharp with great color and contrast, mf is a breeze with this lens but its not an fl that I use much with DX. I'm sure you've seen all the rave reviews of the 100mm, its well deserved. 21mm is new so I can't tell you much besides that it also has the great color and contrast of the rest of the line, is very sharp, and wonderful rendering. I don't have a real handle on this lens, so I can't tell you much about it.

Now the Nikkors, I don't know all of them but I'm familiar with the 24, 35 and the 50mm in your list and I have nothing bad to say about them since I like their rendering too, maybe not as much as Zeiss but that's only personal preference. On the objective side they're not as sharp as their Zeiss equivalent nor the do they have CZ's color and contrast or its build quality, nevertheless I don't find much wrong with them.

 

[simonclivehughes]

Unless I find something really wrong with a particular product I find it very hard to completely dis something in favor of another but I'll try to give you my observations, as I have a bunch of the lenses that you listed. Also to put things in perspective, majority of my photography is people, more than 75%, wether its street, portraiture, nudes, family, etc., and the rest is landscape, so color, contrast and how a lens renders ranks very high for me. Center sharpness is important but I rarely notice it if the lens is a little soft at the edges. It might be because I shoot a DX camera for the most part.

David, thanks for your preface here... I concur with you, this is very much how I will use the lenses.

Lets start from your last lens,

CV 58mm f1.4, don't much care for it, I find the bokeh horrible and the rendering ho-hum. I also don't like the fact that the lens cap doesn't fit with the hood attached.

Again, thanks... this is useful and I will leave this lens out of my deliberations.

Zeiss, I have the 35/50/100 for quite sometime now and just got the 21mm a week ago. I really love all of them, the 35mm is my most used one, mainly because of its fl and wonderful rendering qualities. The 50mm is very sharp with great color and contrast, mf is a breeze with this lens but its not an fl that I use much with DX. I'm sure you've seen all the rave reviews of the 100mm, its well deserved. 21mm is new so I can't tell you much besides that it also has the great color and contrast of the rest of the line, is very sharp, and wonderful rendering. I don't have a real handle on this lens, so I can't tell you much about it.

Appreciate the feedback on the Zeiss. Since I'll also be shooting DX, I'll think about the applicability of the 50mm. I know for the most part with zoom lenses that I'm generally at one extreme or the other. If I can get fewer but higher quality lenses, so much the better.

Now the Nikkors, I don't know all of them but I'm familiar with the 24, 35 and the 50mm in your list and I have nothing bad to say about them since I like their rendering too, maybe not as much as Zeiss but that's only personal preference. On the objective side they're not as sharp as their Zeiss equivalent nor the do they have CZ's color and contrast or its build quality, nevertheless I don't find much wrong with them.

Great to have your input on the Nikkors. I'm guessing that with the rather heavy-handed AA filtering on the D300 that the sharpness and contrast of the Zeiss would be a better fit. Many thanks for your assistance.

Cheers,

 

[simonclivehughes]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know whether the Nikon 1.4x TCII can be used with the Zeiss 100mm lens?

Ciao,

 

[Godfrey]

The lenses I'm considering are:

Nikon (MF only)
20mm f2.8
24mm f2
28mm f2
35mm f1.4
50mm f1.2
105mm f1.8

Zeiss
21mm f2.8
35mm f2
50mm f1.4
100mm f2

CV
58mm f1.4

I worked with Nikon gear for 30 years, prior to the digital era.

A few of my all time favorite Nikon lenses are the Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI or AI-S (the f/2.8 version is often quoted as being superior, but I find this smaller, less expensive lens has nicer imaging qualities), the Nikkor 28mm f/2 AI (a superb performer in every way), the Nikkor 105/2.5 (all versions .. one of the legendary Nikkors) and the Nikkor 180/2.8 AI (the ED versions starting with the AI-S model do better on film than the AI, but the AI on a DX sized sensor has nicer imaging). I still use the 20/3.5 and 105/2.5 with my cameras today.

Recent photos with the 20 and 105 lenses:

105/2.5 AI :: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3622/3371465054_1033831b95_o.jpg
105/2.5 AI :: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3461/3370643779_bd40467a6f_o.jpg
20/3.5 AI :: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/3327041224_a4d04b811f_o.jpg

 

[simonclivehughes]

Thanks Godfrey.

Cheers,

 

[Ocean]

I have been using Nikon AIS lenses (20/2,8 and 50/1,2 on your list) on my D200 for three years and recently added Zeiss ZF 35/2. But I still shoot films with these lenses on my F5/6 film cameras.

The Zeiss ZF 35/2 is one of the best 35mm lenses that I have although I only have had limited experience with it. It really performs well in almost all categories, color rendition, sharpness, open f-stop, and bokeh, and on and on...It easily outperform the Nikon 24-70/2,8 zoom, even though the Nikon zoom is an excellent lens of its own. On the DX format, I don't see any short comings of this lens. On film, I have not had a chance to compare it to the Leica 35 M-Summilux ASPH.

For Nikon MF AIS lens on your list. I find the 20/2,8 a good lens but nothing really special. The 50/1.2 is not very sharp and has lower resolution at f1.2. Stepping down to f2,8, it becomes very sharp. I really like the color rendition and creamy bokeh of the lens. There are two other lenses that I really like but not on your list, 28/2,8 AIS and 105/2,5 AIS. I find these two lenses perform as well as my Leica M/Rs at similar focal lengths, but at a very small fraction of the cost.

While I really enjoy using MF lenses, both Zeiss and Nikon, I still think that the zoom Nikon 24-70/2,8 AFS is hard to beat. I will not sell mine zoom lens anytime soon.

Kind regards,

 

[simonclivehughes]

Ocean,

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate the info. My initial choices have been driven by fast apertures, but, of course, if they don't perform wide open, it's moot. WRT zooms, yes, there's some stellar ones out there but I'm just tired of dragging around so much bulk and (especially with fast glass) weight.

Cheers,

 

[glenerrolrd]

Simon

I know what you are looking for but I must ask....Why are you committed to the DX sensor ? This changes how most of these lenses were designed. For example this pushes you to the 21/2.8 verse the 28/2 for the same field of view. You would benefit the most by moving up to an FX sensor.

If you every decide to do so..it could change your lens choices?

Also on the Leica R lenses ..keep in mind that some stunning glass can be had for less than $500 ...I converted a 180/2.8 elmarit with the Leitax mount. I tried to sell this for $375 with no takers. On the D3 this lens is stunning. A 50/2 summicron can be found for $3-400. So cost wise the older R glass is pretty reasonable. I used these lenses with a adapter on a 5D so I know the difference from the Canon L glass.

Good luck though in hunting for the Ai glass....my favorite was always the 105/2.5 .

Roger

 

[simonclivehughes]

Roger,

I'm committed to the DX format because I have that, in 2 D300s. I might consider the D700 but then I'd end up with one body rather than two, as this change is being funded by selling off existing. Certainly moving to a FF sensor would help in the wide end. As it is, I'm picking the lenses that mimic (as close as possible) the classic 35, 50, 75, 100 etc focal lengths, and the wide end is MIA.

I hadn't thought of the R lenses, and a quick check of a couple of websites (KEH etc) doesn't yield much, and even less at fast apertures. What I hope to gain back with primes is the aperture speed and the bokeh that I don't have now.

I will, however give some thought to the FF sensor.

Cheers,

 

[ddk]

Roger,

I'm committed to the DX format because I have that, in 2 D300s. I might consider the D700 but then I'd end up with one body rather than two, as this change is being funded by selling off existing. Certainly moving to a FF sensor would help in the wide end. As it is, I'm picking the lenses that mimic (as close as possible) the classic 35, 50, 75, 100 etc focal lengths, and the wide end is MIA.

I hadn't thought of the R lenses, and a quick check of a couple of websites (KEH etc) doesn't yield much, and even less at fast apertures. What I hope to gain back with primes is the aperture speed and the bokeh that I don't have now.

I will, however give some thought to the FF sensor.

Cheers,

Regarding adaptored or converted lenses, I can tell you from personal experience that the odd one here and there is ok, otherwise opening up to focus and closing down manually again and again for every shot gets pretty old, pretty fast unless you're always shooting static subjects and don't need to change settings continuously.

 

[simonclivehughes]

Thanks, David, that is a good thing for me to keep in mind.

Cheers,

 

[glenerrolrd]

Regarding adaptored or converted lenses, I can tell you from personal experience that the odd one here and there is ok, otherwise opening up to focus and closing down manually again and again for every shot gets pretty old, pretty fast unless you're always shooting static subjects and don't need to change settings continuously.

Depends on how you typically use the lenses and the amount of light you have. For example an 80/1.4 thats shot at 1.4 to 2.8 really doesn t need to be opened up to focus. Shooting typical travel shots in good light say at 5.6 can also be focused without opening up. If you are constantly facing low light then I would rather have the fast Zeiss lenses ..if for nothing more than the focusing accuracy.

 

[Mort54]

Hi Simon, the following site may give you some of the comparisons you're looking for. Unfortunately, from the Nikon side, they mostly review the newer D lenses, not the older AIS/AI ones. But the Zeiss and Voightlander lenses are mostly covered (it's missing the 100/2 Zeiss for some inexplicable reason). All the tests are done on a DX body.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

Regarding your question about the 1.4x converter working on the Zeiss 100, I'd like to know the answer to that as well. Anybody know?

 

[simonclivehughes]

Mort,

Thanks, and yes, I know Photozone and checked there to start with. As you say, no older lenses are there unfortunately.

Cheers,