Ken Rockwell says Zeiss ZF lenses are no better than Nikkors?
-
A
- Thread starter chip j
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
Paul, I see that you shoot 8x10. Do you shoot digital at all? Most people find Ken Rockwell's site while googling for information on digital cameras and lenses. He does have information on some film cameras too. His review of the Tachihara 4x5 is what first got me interested in large format. I do thank him for that.
Should you care? Probably not unless you want his opinions on new digital cameras or lenses. I like his reviews as I mentioned earlier because he sometimes points out things that other reviewers seem to miss.
Some of the things Ken says are pretty opinionated, tongue in cheek or just to stir the pot. It seems to work for him. He makes a living off his website or at least he says he does.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
yeah not everyone ! but "everyone" .. LOL
The quality varies by brands and with in any particular model. I cannot remember which website buys each lens from different dealers so that they have about 15 to 20 samples. They report on the average, the best, the worse, and the quality distribution.
Nikon versus Zeiss, who did NASA buy from for lenses for space work and lunar exploration.
Lensrentals?
Thats it.
Well, I guess I am lazy. I let and trusted Hasselblad to test my Zeiss lenses and yes, I do put the camera on a tripod, lock the mirror up, etc.etc. because that is the only way I can get a decent picture. If I am going to hand-hold a 6x6 camera, a 620 Brownie will give mr all the sharpness that I deserve......Regards!
I think they bought Nikon because of the reliable F3 body & system--what did Zeiss have at the time? NASA did buy Zeiss (&Hassy) for 2 1/4.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2006
- Messages
- 200
- Format
- Multi Format
Ok, when I read anywhere: backlash, come apart, jolting, shaking and wobbling, the AFD line Nikkors comes to mind with strong scent of polycarbonate!
Could all that be a trick, to hide a superlative quality underneath?
Whatever, it's a choice available and affordable to all photographers, which is advantageous in its own right.
But, on the other hand, if we expect Zeiss to make zoom lenses like 20-300mm, at a decent price and weight while retaining the same expected IQ from Zeiss, we will wait longer than long.
Anyway, this thread has started with a claim, which unfortunately has not yet been proven.
Could all that be a trick, to hide a superlative quality underneath?
Whatever, it's a choice available and affordable to all photographers, which is advantageous in its own right.
But, on the other hand, if we expect Zeiss to make zoom lenses like 20-300mm, at a decent price and weight while retaining the same expected IQ from Zeiss, we will wait longer than long.
Anyway, this thread has started with a claim, which unfortunately has not yet been proven.
Really now???
I think you have actually gotten a lot of good answers here so I have to question just how serious you are to begin with.
Goodbye.
There are a few good, sensible answers which apart from in the later part of the topic the constant vitriol about KR. Every one has an opinion and some of these expressed in this thread I don't agree with but I am not in the habit of publicly insulting someone just because I don't agree with them. Is it simply a case of expressing their jealousy that they did not write it or make money from expressing an opinion.
If KR is capable of making a living off photography or writing then good for him. I have read a few of his reports about various Nikon Cameras and believe I am sensible enough to realise that what is said is an 'opinion' not cast iron fact. Oh yes, I have bought a camera, after reading a report and found that what he said, was also what I found - the camera was a D700 which I bought new and still have.
What good answers did I get? Someone said the 18mm Zeiss was great (but he didn't say the 18mm Nikkor was not great); another likes his 105mm 1.4 Nikkor --a digital lens; another tossed in a Milvus, which is not a ZF lens.The post on the 50mm 1.4 Nikkor vs the Zeiss is to the point, and at the end of that article Rockwell says he'd rather have the Nikkor.
Last edited:
That isn't a Rockwell article. Those are my comments after reading the figures and the graphs published by opticallimits.com.
I ignore if Ken Rockwell reviewed the two exact pair of lenses, however he must have had his own reasons for choosing the Nikkor. You have to decide wether his reasons are also important for you. If overall sharpness is important for you, distortion is critical and you like heptagons-like light point sources, buy the Nikkor. If you prefer top-of-the-tops central sharpness and circular light point sources, then the Zeiss is the lens for you. As a side note I bought the Zeiss Planar 50mm f:1.4 and the Nikkor 50mm f:1.8, and left the Nikkor f:1.4 to others.
In any case, Ken Rockwell and I may give you some advice, but then it's up to you to decide.
Perhaps if you list at least which exact focal lenghts you had in mind, you would get more well-addressed replies.
I ignore if Ken Rockwell reviewed the two exact pair of lenses, however he must have had his own reasons for choosing the Nikkor. You have to decide wether his reasons are also important for you. If overall sharpness is important for you, distortion is critical and you like heptagons-like light point sources, buy the Nikkor. If you prefer top-of-the-tops central sharpness and circular light point sources, then the Zeiss is the lens for you. As a side note I bought the Zeiss Planar 50mm f:1.4 and the Nikkor 50mm f:1.8, and left the Nikkor f:1.4 to others.
In any case, Ken Rockwell and I may give you some advice, but then it's up to you to decide.
Perhaps if you list at least which exact focal lenghts you had in mind, you would get more well-addressed replies.
Last edited:
The answer lies within you. Zeiss lenses are certainly amazing optics. So are Nikon lenses.
Will you take the photo and think, hm, I think it would have been better taken with a Zeiss, or will you be happy with the results.
I would propose the following:
Before you plunk in to buy either system, rent the focal lengths you think you will use more often from Lensrentals. Take photos with both lenses and check for yourself what you prefer. Can you afford the set of Zeiss lenses, then go for it...
As someone that has a very strong case of GAS, sometimes we want more than we actually need ....
I would not trust some reviewers, look at pictures and get a feel for how each lens draws. The best lens is useless if you do not like the way it renders the image
Best of luck
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
hi chip j
how about just getting whichever one you can afford
and not care what anyone else thinks ?
good luck with your purchase!
john
Hi Alan,
I stopped shooting digital several years ago, unless you count snapshots I make with my phone (I don't count those as anything but "sketches"). I guess this is why Rockwell's publication has escaped my notice. I've never much cared for equipment reviews anyway. So many apples and oranges being compared.
That right there is the most useful advice you will get.
Government purchasing agents sometimes have different priorities than equipment performance. This became painfully obvious to us Navy electronics repairmen when President Kennedy picked the brilliant and efficient Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense. Sometimes buyers should pay a little more to get much better items.
I too trust Hasselblad and Zeiss. I have never used the mirror lock up on the Hasselblad in over ten years. There is not much need for it.
NASA bought Hasselblads, custom made Hasselblad and custom made Zeiss lenses. Not a Nikon in the space flights I listed.
The penny should be where the film back joins the rear of the body.
Hasselblad didn't go to the expense of providing pre-release for no good reason.
True, but I have not needed it yet. I may need it with the 500mm lens at some time or if I am taking low light level photographs again. I certainly do not use it for hand held photographs. The only time I used a tripod with the Hasselblad is when I am using the 500mm lens or the 500mm lens with the 2XE, making it effectively 1,000mm.
Essentially they're not dissimilar designs from about the same optical era. They seem by all accounts to deliver about the same resolution & have similar aberrations as most first rank 50/1.4 designs of the 60s/70s. Beyond that, the major differences will be smaller & relate to colour rendition and specific MTF performance preferences of Nikon or Zeiss. If your visual reference points are minilab scans or Nikon .jpg's, then that will distort the results in a way that a high end scan or a darkroom print or a transparency will not. Try them both if you need to really make a decision & don't rely on the opinions of someone desperate to be photography's Jeremy Clarkson.
Last edited:
| 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:  |