Carl Ziess Planar 50/1.4 for Nikon?
-
A
- Thread starter ToddB
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Not any better than a 50 f/1.4 AI S nikkor when I test drove one. YMMV.
My experience with the Zeiss lenses is that they mix a pinch of magic into them. Whether this is worth the price is a question for you to answer.
Is The Pope a catholic ?.
ziess might not exist.
And a bear shits in the woods.
Are they made by Cosina? I have a 58mm Auto-Topcor recreation by Cosina in AIs mount, it's better in every way than the 50mm 1.4 Nikkor.
I have a Sigma UC zoom AF 70-210 that blows away all of my D lenses
Do you mean this lens? http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zf50.htm
I had a friend who had one and I saw the results. VERY sharp and contrasty. Try looking around Flickr and maybe PBase as I'm sure there are lots of examples.
I don't doubt that this is fine and sharp lens, but If I would want to give so much money for this type of nikon mount manual lens - I would look for some nikkor f1.2.
regards,
regards,
The 50/1.4 Zeiss is among the less coveted Zeiss lenses, and it sort of makes sense as there is a Nikkor match that isn't all that bad either. Given the price, I think it has bragging more than practical value for a large majority. The Zeiss 85/1.4 is said to be noticeably sharper than the Nikkor. Even so, I have never felt let down by my Nikkor AF-D version, and am not about to give it up for a manual focus Zeiss twice the price. I am sure that also applies to most Nikkor 50/1.4 owners.
Where the Zeiss lenses make more sense would be where a comparable Nikkor does not exist, e.g. the Makro-Planar 50/2 and 100/2, and some of the wide-angle primes which are markedly better than the offerings from Nikon. I have shot with the 100/2, and must admit that it is a wonderful optic. I feel no urge to fork out $1600, or whatever it costs nowadays, for a manual focus lens, but if it ever came in an AF-S version, I'd be right in front of the queue.
Where the Zeiss lenses make more sense would be where a comparable Nikkor does not exist, e.g. the Makro-Planar 50/2 and 100/2, and some of the wide-angle primes which are markedly better than the offerings from Nikon. I have shot with the 100/2, and must admit that it is a wonderful optic. I feel no urge to fork out $1600, or whatever it costs nowadays, for a manual focus lens, but if it ever came in an AF-S version, I'd be right in front of the queue.
When I look back at some of my prints from the 70s and 80s, I'm hard pressed to tell which were taken with my Nikon Ftn and the 50 mm 1.4, and my Lieca with a 50. (I can't recall which Leica 50.)
Probably it's very good. But will you see the difference in a blind a/b comparison? I'd say you need to look into the cost/benefit ratio. You can get a 50/1.4 Ai Nikkor for under $100 with a bit of luck, and this Zeiss will have to be a very very good lens indeed to beat out the Nikkor. So, it depends on whether you want to spend money, or take pictures.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you really want to blow money on a Zeiss normal, wait for their 55mm f1.4 to come out later this year 
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |