Ken Rockwell says Zeiss ZF lenses are no better than Nikkors?

Huss · Aug 22, 2018

mnemosyne said:
I enjoy reading KR's reviews. They are silly and full of sarcasm. Pure entertainment. He is a wise guy. He is deeply ironic. He has long ago found out that lens sharpness doesn't matter. In fact he found out that lens reviews don't matter, but he is making a living from it. I feel sorry for anyone who picks out one of his sentences dripping with sarcasm, takes it for face value and gets excited over it.

Agree 100%. I think people fail to realize that. I actually have found his site extremely useful for educating me in the world of Leica (ignoring the Leica man stuff but paying attention to the information on lenses). And for things like which Nikon bodies work with which lenses etc.
Some things he's said I have found the opposite in my experience - eg that old Nikon lenses never need any servicing while old Leica stuff does. All the old Nikon lenses I've bought have needed regreasing of the focus helicoils etc as they were very dry. All my old Leica glass still felt like new. But the price difference.... eeesh!
I have Zeiss lenses, and Nikon lenses and the Zeiss glass I have does outperform the equivalent Nikon stuff (ZF 35 f2, 50 Makro Planar) but there are some cracker Nikon lenses.

The actual question is what Nikon lenses are you looking at? Then we know which Zeiss ones to compare them to. If you want AF, then every single Nikon one is better!

chip j · Aug 22, 2018

I'll stay w/my full set of AI/AIS nikkors. The Contax G lenses I had were something else, but I know the Zeiss ZF lenses won't come too close to those.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 22, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
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.

Sirius Glass said:
True. ...

Being an engineer and a skeptic (a good trait to have), I decided to do a vibration test myself.

(How we got here is that I previously mentioned that differences between a Nikon and a Zeiss lens wouldn't be noticeable unless one's technique was meticulous enough to reveal those differences - hence the talk of pre-releasing the camera.)

So here is before and after:

Dismayed · Aug 24, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Nikon versus Zeiss, who did NASA buy from for lenses for space work and lunar exploration.

NASA purchased German-Made Zeiss lenses. Bu this thread is about Cosina Zeiss lenses manufactured in Japan.

pentaxuser · Aug 25, 2018

Thanks for the pics. Looks pretty convincing to me, Theo

pentaxuser

benveniste · Aug 25, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Nikon versus Zeiss, who did NASA buy from for lenses for space work and lunar exploration.

Um, Both? Or is this a trick question?

https://www.hasselblad.com/history/hasselblad-in-space/
http://www.timmchapman.com/NASANikons.htm

It's hard to do apples-to-apples comparisons. Since Zeiss entered the F-mount market, I think the only new manual focus designs Nikon has produced are the tilt/shift lenses. Since autofocus lenses require another set of tradeoffs for the lens designers, that means that Zeiss either has a built-in advantage by avoiding those tradeoffs, or has a built-in advantage by being able to exploit decades of new materials and computer power to apply to the design. There are also a few psychological effects that come into play. Zeiss benefits from both a price placebo effect and a brand placebo effect. In addition, with modern autofocus gear (film or *gasp* digital), people using a manual focus lens tend to slow down a bit. (I love the feel of a real helicoid!)

At the end of the day, results count more than tech specs. The only Zeiss camera lens I own is a brass-barreled antique, and when I want to slow down I typically shift to a larger format. If Ken Rockwell doesn't get better results with Zeiss lenses, I'm cool with that. If some of you do, I'm cool with that to. For my own shooting style and habits, I can't justify buying ZF/Milvus/Otus/whatever lenses.

mshchem · Aug 25, 2018

I saw my local photo dealer put a Sigma 85 1.4 through the resolution test the other day. Canon mount, a new nice Canon DSLR. I was very impressed. And wonders of wonders it had auto focus! Sigma makes a 50mm 1.4, ginormous w/77mm filter. Pretty hard for me to get excited about manual focus for Nikon. I do have a 35mm Zeiss, Cosina made Biogon. Nice lens, compact, fits my Leica like a glove. Seems really nuts that I can buy a mint like new Zeiss 150mm Hasselblad lens with a leaf shutter for less than half the price of a (very nice) Cosina made Zeiss lens a bit larger than a golf ball.

I'm glad to see people buying the new stuff to keep people in business.

GLS · Aug 26, 2018

KR is a clown, and any of his proclamations should - at best - be taken with a fistful of salt. Most of it is nothing more than clickbait nonsense, and there are many examples where he says one thing and then contradicts it in another article. I shudder to think how many novices rely on his advice.

As to ZF lenses vs Nikkors?

Nikon make some very fine lenses to be sure (I own/have owned, or used quite a few), but in my experience/opinion the Zeiss equivalents tend to outperform them optically. I own three ZF.2 lenses: the Distagon 2.8/21, the Distagon 2/35 and the Makro-Planar 2/50. They are all amazing (especially the 21mm). A commonality that all the Zeiss lenses have is greater colour saturation as well as more macro & micro contrast, and very high resolution from wide open. These differences are not subtle either; straight out of the camera a file from a Zeiss lens is obvious. Generally their only optical weakness is they tend to vignette more heavily wide open. I'm talking here btw about performance on a high resolution DSLR; the differences on 35mm film are doubtless harder to appreciate. I did (very) briefly own the 2/135 APO Sonnar too. It was bought from an eBay seller advertised falsely as new, but I returned it as it clearly was not new (minor damage) and had focus ring play. However optically it was astonishingly good; easily the best lens I have ever used on any format. And then of course there are the Otus lenses; Nikon have no equivalent to these.

Beyond the optical differences, in terms of haptics/tactility the ZF lenses are just far nicer to actually use because of their superb build quality. I actually prefer manually focusing if it's practical to do so, as it makes me feel more connected to the whole process of photography.

Anyway, there's my 2p.

Sirius Glass · Aug 26, 2018

I too agree that the Zeiss lenses are sharper and higher contrast than Nikon lenses, but most serious photographers would be happy with the Nikon lenses. I use both but greatly prefer the Zeiss lenses.

choiliefan · Aug 28, 2018

I'd much rather peruse KR when researching new (to me) things than click on the quirky talking head louder-than-life personalities on youtube any day.

whojammyflip · Sep 3, 2018

Arthurwg said:
I do wonder why the emphasis on this site usually seems to be the equipment and which is best. Great or even good photos are not often the result of the camera and lens, but rather the result of the photographer and his or her grasp of the necessary technique. True, it's easier to quantify lens performance than the brain power that goes into great photography, Just look at the number fantastic pictures made with rather ordinary equipment. As I remember, Robert Frank's "The Americans" was made with a rather ordinary (Leica) equipment, but those pictures will live forever.

creative block...there is a good book, cheap second hand, I am reading at the moment called the Artists Way, and its got some stuff on this mindset. Definitely won't be a book for everyone, there is a persistent religious undertone, but its a good book in my opinion

whojammyflip · Sep 3, 2018

chip j said:
I was hoping to get a set of the Zeiss, but now I'm very hesitant. Any contrary opinions, please?

Regarding knowing which lenses are 'best', I've resolved to not listen to forums, aside from avoiding dogs. There are more great lenses out there than I can afford to own, so I whittled it down by restricting myself to a brand, Pentax. When determining Pentax, price was a major consideration. Good lenses on a budget. Some scope to progress to great lenses if I should have the cash (the FA limiteds). I bought an entire Olympus line up to compare with my Pentax kit about 5 years ago, just to check. For my testing, Pentax was better than Olympus and that settled it.

If you are so persuaded, and sharpness is a concern, there is a great piece of freeware out there called MTF Mapper, and you can profile the lp/mm of a lens across the frame.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/mtfmapper/

At the time, I performed my testing using Edmund charts, tripod, TMAX 100 etc, and 25x scope under the enlarger. This picked out some significant differences between lenses, such as Pentax M 28/2.8 v 28/3.5 v 28/2.0, and 50/1.7 v 50/1.4 and 35/2 vs 35/2.8. You only need do this once, then stick with your kit. Ironically, I sold the 28/2 and 35/2 even though they were great, as I determined that the 35mm wasnt getting used, and the 28/3.5 was good enough and I didnt need to have the speed of the 28/2.

I also think ergonomics are important, and at this stage, I also mucked about comparing a Bronica ETRSi with a Pentax 645 set up....I now use Pentax 645 kit. I thought the Bronica lenses had amazing bokeh, better than the Pentax, but the Pentax 645N I have now is just so easy to use, and has two tripod mounting holes in the body, for flipping from portrait to landscape. This is entirely personal, and its because my OCD/autistic type personality likes the idea of shooting with Pan F in medium format on a tripod to get maximum resolution. Others would probably mock this, and frankly, they are welcome to 'do one'.

I am guessing you could do all this using the MTF Mapper software above, provided you dont use film. The testing I describe above takes quite some time, but it means I know my lenses, rather than rely upon heresay from a forum/blog.

wyofilm · Sep 3, 2018

I like Ken Rockwell and I like his website. Tongue and cheek comments and an easy to remember resource to scan lists of equipment. What 400 mm lenses has Nikon produced? Go to Ken Rockwell's site to find out. Does Ken Rockwell think that with the release of Nikon Z7 Fujifilm should return to making film and Sony should focus only on TVs? I doubt it, but I think it is funny.

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 3, 2018

Next thing you know, he’s going to be telling us that Miracle Whip is no better than Hellman’s.

chip j · Sep 3, 2018

Hellman's is MUCH better.

Angarian · Sep 4, 2018

GLS said:
As to ZF lenses vs Nikkors?

Nikon make some very fine lenses to be sure (I own/have owned, or used quite a few), but in my experience/opinion the Zeiss equivalents tend to outperform them optically. I own three ZF.2 lenses: the Distagon 2.8/21, the Distagon 2/35 and the Makro-Planar 2/50. They are all amazing (especially the 21mm). A commonality that all the Zeiss lenses have is greater colour saturation as well as more macro & micro contrast, and very high resolution from wide open. These differences are not subtle either; straight out of the camera a file from a Zeiss lens is obvious. Generally their only optical weakness is they tend to vignette more heavily wide open.

In 35mm I am a Nikon user for decades, with lots of different lenses from old AI-S to the current AF-S and G lenses. And I am using also several Zeiss ZF / Milvus lenses. And from my test results and experiences in daily photography I can completely agree with you. In most aspects the Zeiss lenses are significantly better, especially at open / widest aperture and slightly stopped down. Also in mechanics. I have never regretted adding the new Zeiss lenses to my Nikkors.

GLS said:
I'm talking here btw about performance on a high resolution DSLR; the differences on 35mm film are doubtless harder to appreciate.

With this point I have to disagree: I've compared the lenses both on 35 MP digital D800E/D810 and on film with the F6. On film, especially on reversal film and low speed BW film (which both show the full potential of excellent lenses) the differences are clearly visible. For example the superior performance of the Zeiss Milvus 2/50 at f2 and f2.8 compared to all f1.8 Nikkors at the same apertures is already visible on reversal film on a light box side-by-side without any magnification (by a loupe or projector).
Enlarged with loupe or projector the differences then become extremely big and obvious.
Of course the Zeiss lenses are in most cases more expensive than comparable Nikkor lenses. But in my experience they are really worth the higher price. And because of their excellent build quality, they are a "once in a lifetime" purchase, which can certainly also be used by the next generation / your childs.

flavio81 · Sep 4, 2018

Paul Howell said:
Don't know in general, but as I recall either Shutterbug or Popular compared the Nikon, Zeiss, and Sigma 50 1.4A and found the Sigma be sharper with less distortion than either the Nikon or Zeiss. I think you need to drill down lens by lens. Also vaguely recall again either Shutterbug or Popular test 85s and gave Zeiss 85 1.4 a slight edge over Nikon but the sharpest was the Pentax 85 limited edition.

Note that this would be relevant if sharpness is everything that matters to the photographer. I, personally, also value low distortion, smooth bokeh, smooth focusing... For example I personally value a LOT a lens whose front element is very recessed and thus protected from impact without needs of hood or filter. For example the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8.

AgX said:
Features not covered in resolution tests:

-) bokeh
-) minumum focusing distance
-) position and grip of focus/aperture ring
-) damping
-) pitch of the helicoid
-) orientation of the helicoid
-) weight
-) readability of figures
etc.

Exactly.

As for Zeiss ZF lenses, I understand they are built in japan by Tomioka (?) or Cosina. Why should they be superior to the best of Nikon lenses, if we compare apples to apples (i.e. same focal length, both in manual focus, both of similar weight or dimensions)?

GLS · Sep 4, 2018

Angarian said:
With this point I have to disagree: I've compared the lenses both on 35 MP digital D800E/D810 and on film with the F6. On film, especially on reversal film and low speed BW film (which both show the full potential of excellent lenses) the differences are clearly visible. For example the superior performance of the Zeiss Milvus 2/50 at f2 and f2.8 compared to all f1.8 Nikkors at the same apertures is already visible on reversal film on a light box side-by-side without any magnification (by a loupe or projector).

Yes I imagined it would still be visible on high resolution 35mm films. Good to know. However, a 36+ megapixel DSLR will still out-resolve even the sharpest film in 35mm by a considerable margin, and are quite merciless in revealing optical flaws (or flaws in technique for that matter).

flavio81 said:
For example I personally value a LOT a lens whose front element is very recessed and thus protected from impact without needs of hood or filter. For example the Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8.

The 2/50 Makro-Planar has this feature.

flavio81 said:
As for Zeiss ZF lenses, I understand they are built in japan by Tomioka (?) or Cosina. Why should they be superior to the best of Nikon lenses, if we compare apples to apples (i.e. same focal length, both in manual focus, both of similar weight or dimensions)?

They are built by Cosina. Why are they superior? I could name a few reasons: often better optical formulae, better build quality, tighter tolerances, and better coatings. Don't forget that most of the manual focus Nikkors are pretty old designs at this point. Is this to say that Nikon couldn't produce similar lenses if they wanted to? No, I'm sure they could, but they have a different target audience, and I can't see them ever making a new manual focus lens at this point.

This isn't to say that Zeiss lenses are universally great either; there are a few which are quite average in performance. The best ones, however, are clearly superior to their Nikon equivalents IMO.

chip j · Sep 4, 2018

It's been my experience that Nikkors capture the "smell" of the world rather than "pretty it up" like Zeiss & Leica.

AgX · Sep 5, 2018

Now please translate that into engineer's speech, for me to understand.

Theo Sulphate · Sep 5, 2018

Nikkors capture the smell? Not pretty?

But if you've got a Nikon camera, you love to take a photograph, and you want to make all the world a sunny day (and can't afford Zeiss or Leica ), what can you do? What? What?

chip j · Sep 5, 2018

Use a Leica or Komuranon S enlarging lens.

chip j · Sep 5, 2018

AgX, It's about ART, not engineering.

faberryman · Sep 5, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
But if you've got a Nikon camera, you love to take a photograph, and you want to make all the world a sunny day (and can't afford Zeiss or Leica ), what can you do? What? What?

If you can't make excellent images with Nikon lenses, you have a different set of problems.

btaylor · Sep 5, 2018

chip j said:
Use a Leica or Komuranon S enlarging lens.

And then what happens to the Nikkor “smell?” chip j, you just won’t let this die!

Ken Rockwell says Zeiss ZF lenses are no better than Nikkors?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency