Any User Comments on a Zeiss 35mm ZF?

Daniel, I am traveling for a while but I think I can furnish an image when I return.

Anyway, one thing I learned about online reviews, they usually have an obvious axe to grind, offer very limited info, and there is whole lot of parroting going on! Also, of course, there are sometimes bad copies. So the policy I have followed is to purchase a lens with a good return policy and simply try it out. I'll just state that I bought this lens for ease of focus and not portrait bokeh and had very low expectations... but I was quite pleasantly surprised. I definitely think I got my money's worth.

All, I purchased a ZF 50mm, tested it against my Nikkor AF 50mm f1.4, on a stable tripod, in the shade at 10-16 ft, with Delta 100ASA . The ZF is better. So much so I sold the Nikkor. I have since purchased (second hand cos' they are expensive) a ZF 35mm f2. Love it. Its the only fixed focus 35mm I have owned but its great. grips with the 50mm none. Grips with the 35mm -yes, why it it so dame big and heavy, yes lots of glass but the manual Nikkor 35mm f1.4 is lighter? If you can find one second hand, and don't mind the weight, get one.

Over all I am happy with my ZF's, something Im can't say about all my Nikkor (I owned/hane owned 7 of them).

Old cosina cameras -yes I have a CSM and my father a CSL and a CS3. OK, had a small problem with the CSL which could be overcome (depth of field preview button would stick in if pressed to hard. I would put them on par with chinon, but below the old BIG 5 makes.

Regards

Daniel_OB said:

keithwms
I never used Nikkor 1.2/50 so all I know is what I saw on internet. But I know exactly what I want from the lens. It is not "sharpness" for all lenses are more or less sharp if they are made to be "sharp". What is intersting to me this moment is how the lens handle out of focus areas. This is where all standards fails (from picts I saw on internet) except Leica lenses, and for photography it is far more important feature than "sharpness". When you once start to deal with it you will see why it is so important. If you have any pic from 1.2/50 with emphased first plane, at around F1.4, I would like to see it.

Click to expand...

Hi Daniel,
I don't have a pic to post, but I do have both the 50 f/1.2 and the 50 f/1.4AF. All I can add is that the 50 f/1.2 seems to me to have smoother bokeh than the 1.4 does.

Dan

I had several issues with distaogn 35/2 (on Nikon F6)

1. Size and weight (almost as big as F6 body)
2. Flare (?the shiny aluminum filter thread produced flare, even though I used a hood)
3. CAs. Wide opened the lens was useless. Stopped down it was much better, but CAs did't go away completely. When I took pictures of large single color but at the same time not completely homogeneous brightly lit surfaces, like snow or concrete the pictures had magenta patches. Initially I couldn't figure out where that discoloration came from, but when I looked at the scanned images at 100% (4800dpi) I realised that they were formed by multiple tiny CAs at the high contrast interfaces (like crystals of ice or grains of concrete).

5. Distortions. For $800 the lens distortions should be better corrected.

A combination of abovementioned issues made me sell the lens.

In terms of resolution the lens is fine, but it had too many other issues that I didn't want to live with.

sbelyaev said:

I had several issues with distaogn 35/2 (on Nikon F6)

1. Size and weight (almost as big as F6 body)
2. Flare (?the shiny aluminum filter thread produced flare, even though I used a hood)
3. CAs. Wide opened the lens was useless. Stopped down it was much better, but CAs did't go away completely. When I took pictures of large single color but at the same time not completely homogeneous brightly lit surfaces, like snow or concrete the pictures had magenta patches. Initially I couldn't figure out where that discoloration came from, but when I looked at the scanned images at 100% (4800dpi) I realised that they were formed by multiple tiny CAs at the high contrast interfaces (like crystals of ice or grains of concrete).

5. Distortions. For $800 the lens distortions should be better corrected.

A combination of abovementioned issues made me sell the lens.

In terms of resolution the lens is fine, but it had too many other issues that I didn't want to live with.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info.

What are "CAs"?

I mean this seriously. I don't understand the abbreviation - but figure from the context that they are not good.

Chromatic Aberration ?

sbelyaev said:

I had several issues with distaogn 35/2 (on Nikon F6)

1. Size and weight (almost as big as F6 body)
2. Flare (?the shiny aluminum filter thread produced flare, even though I used a hood)
3. CAs. Wide opened the lens was useless. Stopped down it was much better, but CAs did't go away completely. When I took pictures of large single color but at the same time not completely homogeneous brightly lit surfaces, like snow or concrete the pictures had magenta patches. Initially I couldn't figure out where that discoloration came from, but when I looked at the scanned images at 100% (4800dpi) I realised that they were formed by multiple tiny CAs at the high contrast interfaces (like crystals of ice or grains of concrete).

5. Distortions. For $800 the lens distortions should be better corrected.

A combination of abovementioned issues made me sell the lens.

In terms of resolution the lens is fine, but it had too many other issues that I didn't want to live with.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your feedback! It turns out that someone posted a user observation on www.fredmiranda.com in the Nikon forum. The person posted pictures as well. It turns out that he seemed to have a bit of an issue at first focusing the lens with an AF camera. The images seemed sharp but it was difficult to tell because of the resizing of the images to have them posted on the web. I guess this would not be an issue if shooting with a split prism focusing screen on any camera like the one in the F3HP.

I am now starting to look at other options. I have been shooting with a Nikon manual focus 35mm f2.0 AIS and I love the results. I was somehow hoping that the images would be even sharper with a Zeiss 35mm ZF. The Nikon version is IMO an excellent lens for the money. Its CRC system also helps improve the image quality as well. It's not that I am unhappy with the Nikon, it's just that I thought I would be even happier with the Zeiss.

chromatic aberrations

Zeiss must be having some success with this range of lenses because it appears they are about to be launched or just have been launched in the Pentax manual focus KA bayonet mount. They are already available in 42mm screw thread.

The adverts for the Nikon mount range which appear frequently in the UK publication Amateur Photographer, emphasise the fact they have metal barrells and are developed from Zeiss's range of movie lenses, which from what I have read are very successful. So are these Nikon mount lenses actually made by Cosina? Even if they are, does that matter, because from the many reviews I have read in the UK photographic press the Voigtlander rangefinder cameras made by Cosina are made to a much higher quality control level than Cosina own brand items? And Cosina's range of Voigtlander screw & M mount lenses frequently get superlative reviews. So personally if I had the money to buy one of these Zeiss lenses, the fact that it was made by Cosina wouldn't put me off.

I have no concerns about the quality of my ZF 35mm. The only indication of penny pinching is ... the 3 screws holding the mount to the main body ( but other independants have also been doing this for a number of years).
Note: If you use a UV / protection filter - no shiny chrome is then present on the internal screw threads.

As I have mentioned before, a bit too expensive new, but mint second hand - great (I don't do any colour neg scanning so don't have CA problems).

Kram
... The only indication of penny pinching is ... the 3 screws holding the mount to the main body ( but other independants have also been doing this for a number of years).

Can you be more elaborate (what is a problem,...)
-------------
Note: If you use a UV / protection filter - no shiny chrome is then present on the internal screw threads.

Some Leica filters are buried into chromed rings, so it is not a problem.

www.Leica-R.com