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 35mm f2 and Zeiss 100 f2 macro

toddbee

Member
I have been looking at these mf lenses and was wondering how much better IQ these zeiss lenses have over the nikon 24-70 2.8 and 105 2.8VR macro. At there equiv focal lengths. Is there a considerable difference. I know the creamy smooth bokeh of the zeiss' are absolutely amazing. Any input would be great if someone has experience with these lenses.
thanks
 

robmac

Well-known member
Have owned both the Zeiss-Cosina ZFs in question (the 35 twice, the 100 once and as well as the 50/2 macro) = all used on 1Ds2 with top adapters.

Very sharp starting WO, nice bokeh, strong Zeiss contrast (not to everyones taste in all situations). However, CA control only average (Nikon body firmware and NX will mitigate that somewhat). Will purple fringe - especially the 100 at fast apertures.

Some QC issues (some have had faulty 35s and some, self included, out-to-lunch 100/2 stiff focus) - but still far better than Canon. Personally came to conclusion they were over-priced (new) vs:

a) similar FL used product from Leica, etc,
b) the new Nikon 24-70 G or
c) the amazing for the $$ Cosina-Voigtlander 90/3.5, 180/4 and 125/2.5 APOs in Nikon mount (having owned all three). SHARP, APO, buttery bokeh. The CV 40/2 and 58/1.4 also get good reviews - but bokeh can be busy

Have used the 14-24, 24-70 and 105/2.8 VR (on a D300). The first two were a knock out - just amazing, prime quality in zooms. Found the 14-24 looked larger in pics than handling reality. Some field curvature (IIRC at 24mm) on the longer zoom, but minor. The 105 VR copy (new) I was trying was faulty - just a mess, so no real value I can add there other than test well upon receipt.

YMMV
 
Last edited:

toddbee

Member
Thanks for the response. I dont have that much experience with the zeiss'. I shot the 100 f2 at a store with D700 and the bokeh as far as i can tell on the camera screen was amazing. I know some people swear by them and i may dive into one. Possibly the 35 f2 first. I would love to hear more stories.
 

robmac

Well-known member
Your welcome. Like most lenses, opinions are usually in two camps on the new Zeiss's, so if you go that route, I hope it works out for you. The more hands-on testing time you can swing the better.
 

Stuart Richardson

Active member
I found the 100/2 to be a fantastic lens, but I was borrowing Bondo's copy. I do agree that there is some noticeable CA though, particularly at f/2. It is mostly gone by f/2.8.
As for the 35/2, it sounds great, but do consider the 40/2 from CV. The 40mm is noticeably better than the 24-70mm G, and it is TINY. I have found the bokeh to be pretty good. Since it is so small, so cheap and only 5mm different in field of view, it is worth considering versus the 35mm distagon. I think one thing is clear though, the 35/2 Distagon is not the 35mm Biogon -- the biogon is universally praised, while the distagon seems to be a very good lens, but not in the same league as the rangefinder primes.

Finally, there are rumors of a new Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AFS, so it might be worth waiting a little bit to hear about it.
 
Z

Zeiss

Guest
My opinion on the ZF35/2 differs from Stuart's.

I own / have owned the L35/1.4, Biogon 35, 'cron asph 35/2, R cron 35 and the ZF35.
Of all the above I like the ZF35 best, it is an amazing lens and the best 35 I have used in the SLR world. The only better 35 I know of is the asph lux.

The ZF35 is highly praised in reviews by Sean Reid and Lloyd Chambers as well as the Réponses Photo review, where the distagon scored the highest optical rating of any lens ever tested.

Rent / borrow it and form your own opinion.
 

robmac

Well-known member
If you're interested in buying any ZF glass - I would recommend getting a subscription to Lloyd Chambers site and reading his ZF reviews and updates. Well worth the price.
 

toddbee

Member
Thanks for all the great info. I DL the review from Lloyd and have a 35 f2 on the way. Cant wait to try it out. Any recommendations for focus/camera setup on a d700?
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Hi Todd
I don't have the ZF 2/35 myself, but I have seen so many fabulous captures with that lens that I'm fully convinced it's a fantastic performer. I actually think it's probably one of the top three ZF lenses.
I do have the ZF 2/100 but I haven't used it much since I'm sort of taking a break with photography for the moment, far too much work these days. Anyway, I really like what I've seen so far.
Here's a trial shot from our garden. Late rose, summer's gone :)




... and an actual pixels crop



Nikon D300 • Zeiss ZF 2/100mm • 1/160 sec. at f/8 ISO 200
 

rayyan

Well-known member
I have found both the zf 35/2 and the zf 100/2 makro to be some of
the best lenses I have used on any dslr, 35 film, or rf body by any manufacturer.

On a recent trip the zf 35/2



and the zf 100/2



served me well on the D700 body.

The zf 100/2 imho is one of the best ( if not the best ) lens in that fl made
by any manufacturer.

Regards.
 

toddbee

Member
Great images. i cant wait to try mine. if i like it unfortunately the 100 maybe in my future. I like the nikon 105vr that i own, but after test shooting the zeiss 100 f2, i have to say the bokeh on the zeiss seems in another league to me. Just my opinion
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Zeiss ZF 2/100, bokeh at f/2.8, somewhat cropped




further cropped, not far from being actual pixels, at f/2.8 dof is very thin



1/320 sec. at f/2.8 ISO 200 • Nikon D300 • Zeiss ZF 2/100mm (despite exif says 85mm, forgot to change non cpu lens settings)
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
Todd, I think it depends on what you are going to use it for. As Ray summarized it in his comparison: "The Nikon goes 1:1, has great AF, and VR."

The image rendering of the Zeiss ZF 100 is nice for e.g. portraits, while going 1:1 is important if you intend to use a 100mm macro lens for e.g. bug shooting, just as the autofocus is a necessity if shooting underwater. I think that's the reason why another forum member, Andree (deepdiver), has both lenses, obviously the ideal solution.

So at least make sure you don't sell the Nikon 105 VR before you buy the Zeiss. In that way you can compare them shoulder by shoulder and then guide the rest of us :D
Good luck with your decisions, and let us know the result.


Here's the Zeiss ZF 2/100 bokeh at f/5.6




- and an actual pixels crop - at this close range the dof is still very narrow at f/5.6.



Nikon D300 • Zeiss ZF 2/100mm • 1/160 sec. at f/5.6 ISO 200
 
Last edited:

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
With regards to sharpness of the 100mm, here's a spider trying to hide on a tree of the same color (has also been shown elsewhere).




and actual pixels



Nikon D300 • Zeiss ZF 2/100mm • 1/400 sec. at f/5.6 ISO 200
 

toddbee

Member
Played around with the 35 today. I have to say i am amazed at this lense. I only got to snap a few pics, but the look and bokeh is amazing. similar to my contax g2 from years ago. As far as d700 setup for manual focus, does anyone have recommendations? do i set it for center weighted metering or matrix metering? Center focus point? set it for manual focus on the front of the camera? do these setting matter or does it set automatically since it is a manual lense?
 

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
I only have the D300 myself, but I found the D700 manual on the internet and it looks like D700 works the same way as my D300 with regards to metering with Non-CPU lenses.

Non-CPU lenses
The Zeiss ZF lenses are Non-CPU lenses (similar to the Nikon AI-S type lenses).
This means that these lenses have no electronic contacts and do not automatically communicate with the camera, and thus the user has to tell the camera which lens is mounted on the camera in order to make the so-called "3D Color-Matrix II metering" work (the most advanced metering). For reference see p. 210 in your D700 manual.

Go to the SETUP MENU >> Non-CPU lens data >> specify the following:

Lens number (your choice)
Focal length (mm)
Maximum aperture (wide open aperture)


Metering
The most advanced metering, the 3D Color-Matrix II metering, only works with Non-CPU lenses (e.g. the ZF lenses) provided you have specified the Focal Length and Maximum Aperture of the lens in the SETUP MENU as mentioned above.
If you don't specify these data the camera will automatically (?) use the less advanced metering mode: Centerweighted metering.
I other words Centerweighted metering does work with Non-CPU lenses as well, if you prefer to use Centerweighted in specific situations, but there is this limitation: you cannot change the width of the Centerweighted Area in Custom Setting menu "b5". With a Non-CPU lens the Area is the default size of a 12mm circle in the center of the viewfinder.
And Spot metering works as well, but again with one limitation: with a Non-CPU lens the Spot is locked to the center focus point and you cannot change that. For reference see p. 112 - 113 in your D700 manual.

I hope this is at least of some help. After all the above is just my personal interpretation of the manuals and the menu choices and of course I can be wrong about some of it. In that case I hope wiser members will correct me :)
/Steen
 
Top