Menu
What's new
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!

AFS 60 Macro vs 50/2 ZF ?

R

robmac

Well-known member
Anyone had an opportunity to use the new AF-S 60 Macro ED+ associated 'alphabet soup' against the ZF 50/2 macro?

Reading so far seems to indicate the new 60 outperforms the 105VR and it's 60 AF predecessor re: performance starting WO, CA correction, flatness of field (Asph elements), etc.
 
H

harmsr

Workshop Member
I have never used the new 60 either and also would be very interested in how it performs.

The ZF 50 is a fabulous lens at all distances and apertures. I really wonder if the new 60 Macro is also good at distance.
 
D

David K

Workshop Member
Haven't used the 50/2 ZF but borrowed the 60 Macro several times from a buddy who uses it for everything... models, panos, product, macro and loves it. Here's one from a recent shoot, (no retouching done on this yet), and the crop. Shot with the D3.
 
D

David K

Workshop Member
Thanks guys... it was a fun shoot. I'm tempted to pick up this lens myself even though I won't likely use it for Macro at all. Woody, you can try this lens out for yourself when you come down for the lighting workshop.
 
M

Mozbee

New member
I asked a similar question about a month ago, Nice!
If someone can bring a ZF 50/2 at the workshop, it might be a good opportunity to get a good comparison! If some of you are going to do this I'll be very interested to see the results!

I heard only good things from both lenses, I'm now curious about how they may differ, both in usage, IQ, and paint/draw character.

BTW Nice picture David! :)
 
D

dfarkas

Workshop Member
I'd be happy to bring the full ZF line-up for anyone at the workshop to try out. I can also provide Nikon lenses like the 200 f/2 VR, 105 Macro VR, 105 DC, 60 Macro AF-S, etc.

Any special requests?

David
 
R

robmac

Well-known member
I can see why it does so well. From Nikon Japan. MTF at F2.8
I think any plans for a 50/2 ZF (for 2x the price) unless I can see a compelling reason otherwise just went bye-bye.
 
Last edited:
R

robmac

Well-known member
By comparison, the 105 VR. F stop not listed (at least in English) but lets assume the same - 2.8. If not, it would be the optimum aperture and any comparison just got worse, so..

When you look at the MTF for the 70-200 VR can see the long-end performance drop-off in the outer part of the frame people are now noticing. As for the 200/2 VR (especially in center) and 200-400/4 VR - yummy, just yummy. MTFs aren't the end all be all, but the AFS 70-300 VR folks like Jono and Terry have mentioned looks bloody nice as well. Now if I could only read Japanese....
 
Last edited:
P

Paul.R.Lindqvist

Guest
The diffrence has more to do with tonality diffrence and rendering characteristics then sharpness and mtfs. Just as with the 105/2,8 VR the new 60m micor has all of Nikons new coatings and names.

The old 60mm/2,8 micro (wich i owned) was sharp there where never a question about that. But due to the design ,it wasnt particulary good at a distance (infinity). Here the new 60/2,8 been improved alot.

So with no doubt the new 60 micor is sharp got some more punch , you should ask your self if its suitable for the subjects you gonna shoot ?

What will your primary usage be ? mostly 1:1 macro ? if thats the case the choice is easy.

It does have a much closer rendering to the 105/2,8 then to the ZF lenses.

So instead of basing your decison on MTF charts, wich dont reveal tonality diffrence or contrast, color, or bokeh. Try both if you can.
 
R

robmac

Well-known member
Naturally MTF charts aren't the basis for the decision, they're just adding fuel to the fire as it were.

Having owned the 35/2 (twice) and 100/2 ZF I have a pretty good idea of what the ZF line delivers re: sharpness, 3D effect, tonality, color-bias (e.g. warm, neutral, cool), etc. Some characteristics vary by lens of course (resolution, vignetting, field curvature, near/far performance).

While I think we agree on most aspect of the (fine) performance of the ZF line Paul, where we disagree is that I consider some of the lenses over-priced vs. new/used alternative offerings (which vary by camera platform of course) w.r.t. CA control, field curvature and mechanical QC (very good, but not as 'premium' as name would suggest).

While mechanical sample variation is not a big deal as exchanges are perfectly doable, it's annoying when you're in that snack bracket - and a PITA cross-border.

As a result I tend to look for alternatives - AND for a select number of ZF lenses on the used market. As a matter of fact, I just missed a nice (non-eBay) 50/2 on the weekend - for $700. So, while still interested in the ZF line (having been there as it were), I'm taking a much more critical eye as to what I'm willing to pay for them.

Having gone thru a no-hold barred Leica (sigh) phase for some time, I've become a bit spoiled as to what premium glass can deliver - but my feelings towards Leica are no different than towards Zeiss ZF - the used market more accurately reflects their (lens-by-lens) performance premium (if there is one) vs. alternatives.

A premium name is nice, and I'm willing to pay a premium price when warranted - but that price has to be warranted. What is 'warranted' of course will depend on what/how you shoot.

As an example, if a premium lens has but average CA control, I'm now paying a greater premium for other aspects of it's performance. If it also has an issue with field curvature 2/3rds of the away across the frame - as WELL AS average CA control, the premium for the remaining aspects of it's performance just jumped once again. Do those other aspects still justify what I'm being asked to pay vs. closer alternatives? If the answer is no, but I simply love the way the lens draws vs alternatives, I wait for a clean used one to pop up.

Sometimes it's too easy to get caught up in wanting to pay for 'the best' (a very loosely defined and subjective term) when if you take a critical eye towards what you're seeing, something 1/2 the price gets you 95% of the way home as it were.

That said, sometimes you just bolt on a lens, fall in love, ignore the price tag and warts and throw the rational analysis out the window. Certainly been there and done that ;>

Now, from what I've seen of the new 60 Micro so far, it's looking stronger and stronger (for me) as a candidate for my 50-60mm walk around lens. Further evidence may indicate to the contrary, in which case, it may fall off the short list.
 
Last edited:
S

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I am not sure...they don't seem to say what aperture either. Another subtle thing I noticed as well...the Nikon results are for 10 and 30 lpmm, while the Leica ones are for 5, 10, 20 and 40, so they are more exacting...anyway, just interesting.
 
R

robmac

Well-known member
On the 60 micro chart i noticed an "F=2.8" at the bottom right. The rest I assume are at optimum aperture. Leica does take them a step further with 40lp/mm.
 
P

Paul.R.Lindqvist

Guest
robmac said:
Naturally MTF charts aren't the basis for the decision, they're just adding fuel to the fire as it were.

Having owned the 35/2 (twice) and 100/2 ZF I have a pretty good idea of what the ZF line delivers re: sharpness, 3D effect, tonality, color-bias (e.g. warm, neutral, cool), etc. Some characteristics vary by lens of course (resolution, vignetting, field curvature, near/far performance).

While I think we agree on most aspect of the (fine) performance of the ZF line Paul, where we disagree is that I consider some of the lenses over-priced vs. new/used alternative offerings (which vary by camera platform of course) w.r.t. CA control, field curvature and mechanical QC (very good, but not as 'premium' as name would suggest).

While mechanical sample variation is not a big deal as exchanges are perfectly doable, it's annoying when you're in that snack bracket - and a PITA cross-border.

As a result I tend to look for alternatives - AND for a select number of ZF lenses on the used market. As a matter of fact, I just missed a nice (non-eBay) 50/2 on the weekend - for $700. So, while still interested in the ZF line (having been there as it were), I'm taking a much more critical eye as to what I'm willing to pay for them.

Having gone thru a no-hold barred Leica (sigh) phase for some time, I've become a bit spoiled as to what premium glass can deliver - but my feelings towards Leica are no different than towards Zeiss ZF - the used market more accurately reflects their (lens-by-lens) performance premium (if there is one) vs. alternatives.

A premium name is nice, and I'm willing to pay a premium price when warranted - but that price has to be warranted. What is 'warranted' of course will depend on what/how you shoot.

As an example, if a premium lens has but average CA control, I'm now paying a greater premium for other aspects of it's performance. If it also has an issue with field curvature 2/3rds of the away across the frame - as WELL AS average CA control, the premium for the remaining aspects of it's performance just jumped once again. Do those other aspects still justify what I'm being asked to pay vs. closer alternatives? If the answer is no, but I simply love the way the lens draws vs alternatives, I wait for a clean used one to pop up.

Sometimes it's too easy to get caught up in wanting to pay for 'the best' (a very loosely defined and subjective term) when if you take a critical eye towards what you're seeing, something 1/2 the price gets you 95% of the way home as it were.

That said, sometimes you just bolt on a lens, fall in love, ignore the price tag and warts and throw the rational analysis out the window. Certainly been there and done that ;>

Now, from what I've seen of the new 60 Micro so far, it's looking stronger and stronger (for me) as a candidate for my 50-60mm walk around lens. Further evidence may indicate to the contrary, in which case, it may fall off the short list.
Click to expand...
Well if something is worth it or not is very subjective, and varies qutie a bit. Mostly depending on wallet and reference.

To make one thing clear, i have no sentimental value attached to the name Zeiss(premium name). I started out with a Sony F-717 in 2003. I have shot very little film due to the fact i hated the darkroom.

I started shooting with manual zeiss lenses last summer, so my appreciation for Zeiss lenses in the F-moun is purely based on performance and handling.

My reference is to have owned most nikon lenses in the 30mm-200mm range worth owning. Meaning all Nikons "legendary lenses" such as 85/1,4D 105/2 DC and the pro 2,8 zooms.

Im not a 95% kind of guy :), the ammount i spend on glass is not that big in comparison what i spend on light.

Now you have to take into account that some of the ZF lenses have i got for alot lower then most people get them.

I paid around 700usd for the 100/2 ZF new...;) Before it got popular...

And in sweden the Zeiss 85/1,4 is cheaper then the Nikkor 85/1,4D.

Again im sure you be happy with the 60/2,8 Micro, it looks like a nice lens. I personally dont like the handling and the design so that alone puts me off buying one. And for the same reason i wont buy/use a D700.

Let see some images when you get one.

Kindest
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top