Are Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon worth getting?

[chip j]

Ken Rockwell says some are better, some worse, than the equivalent Nikkors. He also says the Zeiss ones are built like cheap 1970"s lenses.

 

[apoglass]

Yes, Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon are worth getting, especially the 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/2 Macro, and 100mm f/2 Macro. These wonderful ZF manual focus lenses have been subsequently updated twice, first as ZF.2 adding electronic contacts, and second as Milvus lenses with revised mechanics and slightly improved coatings. But it would likely be inadvisable to try to select among expensive Zeiss lenses without first subscribing to Lloyd Chambers extensive lens reviews, so that you would be making an informed choice.

 

[blockend]

Yes, Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon are worth getting, especially the 21mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/2 Macro, and 100mm f/2 Macro. These wonderful ZF manual focus lenses have been subsequently updated twice, first as ZF.2 adding electronic contacts, and second as Milvus lenses with revised mechanics and slightly improved coatings. But it would likely be inadvisable to try to select among expensive Zeiss lenses without first subscribing to Lloyd Chambers extensive lens reviews, so that you would be making an informed choice.

You're missing the point, it isn't a real question. The post is an ironic take on the kind of subjective, repetitive stuff that's posted on APUG. By responding you have allowed the OP to set the agenda and make the board even sillier.

 

[RichardJack]

Nope. That is if your comparing them to the new Nano coating primes. Or if your trying to impress someone. This should be in the digital forum, film is not going to show the difference.
Photographers here often get hung up on their equipment rather than improving their photographic talents. A great photographer can take a contest winner with a Brownie. If you really want better IQ, go to MF digital or 4x5 film.

 

[guangong]

Right. Arnold Genthe took his famous pictures of San Francisco earthquake with Kodak box camera.

 

[narsuitus]

Are Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon worth getting?

I cannot speak for Ken Rockwell and I cannot tell that the original question was not a real question because no sarcastic emoticons were present. I, therefore, will attempt to answer the question based on my personal experience.

I own two Zeiss ZF lenses (135mm f/2 and the 28mm f/2). The 135mm Zeiss produces better images than those produced by the 135mm f/2 Nikon that it replaced. The 28mm Zeiss is faster and at the same f/stop, produces images that are equal to the 28mm f/2.8 Nikon lens that it replaced. Based on my personal experience, my answer to the question is a definite maybe (insert sarcastic emoticon here).



Zeiss Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[apoglass]

chip j has previously cited Ken Rockwell's reviews of lenses twice in what seem to be serious posts ((there was a url link here which no longer exists) and (there was a url link here which no longer exists)), so blockend's opinion about the intent of the original post seems to be incorrect. (Please avoid attempting to discourage people trying to be helpful in answering posted questions.)

 

[apoglass]

Must disagree with the notion that "film is not going to show the difference" between a mediocre older lens with various aberrations and a highly corrected wonderful modern lens.

Certainly great photographs were taken and can be taken with imperfect glass, and the imperfections can be useful in achieving a desired look, but even comparing two excellent lenses, a wide open image taken with a Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D AF DC lens may look nothing like an image made with the newer and much better corrected Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar T* ZF.2. They typically will vary greatly in contrast, spherical aberration, chromatic aberration, etc.

The visible color produced by an apochromatic lens can be amazing. For example, check out the Jenoptik CoastalOpt 60mm f/4, UV-VIS-IR SLR APO Macro.

Getting back to the original question, the Carl Zeiss 100mm f/2 T* Makro-Planar ZF produces gorgeous color, but it's necessary to "stop down to f/4 or even f/5.6 with shiny stuff to avoid chromatic aberrations."

Why would you think that film is incapable of showing the difference?

 

[blockend]

chip j has previously cited Ken Rockwell's reviews of lenses twice in what seem to be serious posts ((there was a url link here which no longer exists) and (there was a url link here which no longer exists)), so blockend's opinion about the intent of the original post seems to be incorrect. (Please avoid attempting to discourage people trying to be helpful in answering posted questions.)

I recognise irony when I see it.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

It is not necessarily technical excellence that makes a photograph stand out. Unless you make images of brick walls train tracks and test charts the perfection of the glass is a small part of the overall result. Printing alone can have a significant impact on the success of an image.

Having said that I cannot answer the original question due to not having used any Zeiss lenses.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ken Rockwell says some are better, some worse, than the equivalent Nikkors. He also says the Zeiss ones are built like cheap 1970"s lenses.

not worth it to me; besides I love the 1970s Nikkors ,which you can get for very little $

 

[blockend]

not worth it to me; besides I love the 1970s Nikkors ,which you can get for very little $

In construction terms pre-AI Nikkors are the best 35mm SLR lenses ever built. From the 50mm f2 upwards the build quality was the same, rock solid.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

In construction terms pre-AI Nikkors are the best 35mm SLR lenses ever built. From the 50mm f2 upwards the build quality was the same, rock solid.

They're my favorites, too.
But credit is due the earlier Takumars: Superb construction, and brass/aluminium helicoids, rather than Nikon's aluminium/aluminum construction. Theoretically the Takumar construction is better, practically I see no difference. The Takumar 55/2 Super Takumar/ SMC Takumar is my second favorite standard, second only to the 50/2 Nikkor H and HC.

 

[macfred]

In construction terms pre-AI Nikkors are the best 35mm SLR lenses ever built. From the 50mm f2 upwards the build quality was the same, rock solid.

I fully agree !

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Are Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon worth getting?

No, definitely not. They're well known to be crap.

 

[RichardJack]

35mm Film will not resolve high enough to see the minute details that your trying to see, it would be difficult with a 36mp DSLR as well. I'd match the results of a Zeiss 100mm f2 APO with Nikon 105mm f1.4 on film any day. But a 4x5 camera with a decent lens will out do both of them.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

In construction terms pre-AI Nikkors are the best 35mm SLR lenses ever built. From the 50mm f2 upwards the build quality was the same, rock solid.

I like them for both their optical and mechanical qualities.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I like them for both their optical and mechanical qualities.

I have a 35mm Nikkor O that went through two (both of whom I know) professionals before I got it. #1 bought it new, used it about 15 years, #2 got it, used it about 6 years until a screw inside came adrift and jammed the aperture, he gave it to me. The focussing ring has bare aluminum on the scallops, the front glass has one very fine mark, the helicoid is tight and smooth (after I cleaned & put new damping grease in) like new, there was some intetnal dust, but no lubricant haze, and it's been one of my favorite Nikkors for about 25 years. So, in service for almost 50 years, well cared for but used heavily, and functionally still as-new. Pretty damn good optically, too.
The 50mm Nikkor H is hands down my favorite 50, I have four, two single and two multicoated.
What's not to like?

 

[MartinCrabtree]

That is the one outstanding feature of the Nikon glass. Durability. Sadly it seems to be fallen by the wayside with the newer stuff.

 

[film_man]

Are Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon worth getting?

If they do what you're after then yes they are very much worth getting. If they do not, well...then no, they are not worth it.

 

[blockend]

In manual focus SLRs I have Nikon, Canon FD and Yashica ML lenses in most popular focal lengths, plus odds and ends from other brands. All of them exceed what I want from them, which is the capacity to turn out a maximum 15 x 10" print, sharply. For handling and looks pre-AI Nikkors are my favourite, but I happily use any of them. Tested on a d*g*t*l camera the results were close enough not to care about, and that translates into film so far as I can detect. They are all better made than my AF lenses, which are mostly Nikon although those too give good results.

Get a body you like using, and chances are you'll find glass that's plenty good enough for it without 2017 marketing hype.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Will it fit on they credit card or in the budget? If not then no. Otherwise buy it to feed the GAS.

 

[Paul Howell]

In manual focus SLRs I have Nikon, Canon FD and Yashica ML lenses in most popular focal lengths, plus odds and ends from other brands. All of them exceed what I want from them, which is the capacity to turn out a maximum 15 x 10" print, sharply. For handling and looks pre-AI Nikkors are my favourite, but I happily use any of them. Tested on a d*g*t*l camera the results were close enough not to care about, and that translates into film so far as I can detect. They are all better made than my AF lenses, which are mostly Nikon although those too give good results.

Get a body you like using, and chances are you'll find glass that's plenty good enough for it without 2017 marketing hype.

I agree, a number of years ago I used the last of my 35mm microfilm and tested a number of 50mm, in 42mm screw, Pentax, Mamiya, Yashica, in K Pentax, Ricoh, Konica in 1.7 and 1.4, Miranda, the only Minolta MD lens I have a 50 1.9, Kowa 2.0. there were a few others I don't recall, I did not test Nikon. Leica or Zeiss. The Konica 55 1.7 was the winner, but when I retested with Tmax 100, at F8 all just as sharp, of the lens I tested at the time I still give the Konica a slight edge, but just my subjective take on it, as all tested as very good. There was noticeable difference in contrast, the older M 42mm were a little softer in contrast, nothing that cannot be adjusted in development. Bottom line is that a lens that can resolve beyond Tmax 100,what's the point unless you use microfilm, does not matter.

 

[swchris]

.

[OFFTOPIC] Why do people put the AR-1 soft release on motor equipped F2s,. where the camera release button is almost never used? I've seen many such F2 pictures and always wondered, WTF?

 

[Theo Sulphate]

[OFFTOPIC] Why do people put the AR-1 soft release on motor equipped F2s,. where the camera release button is almost never used? I've seen many such F2 pictures and always wondered, WTF?

Because it looks cool.

...ok, in my case the camera had the soft release on it before I added the motor drive.