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

[Alan Gales]

Buy used at a fair price. Test it yourself and if you find that you don't like it for some reason then sell it. You will get most of your money back and any bit you lose just consider a cheap rental fee.

One big difference between the Zeiss lenses and the Nikkors is that the Zeiss are manual focus only. If your eyes are not what they used to be then you may prefer autofocus. It doesn't matter how sharp a lens is if you miss focus it won't be sharp.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

It can be a number of things but for me, I found the move from any Nikon lens in the 50mm range to the Zeiss Milvus 50mm F2 Makro Planar was a complete revamp of the look of the image in a focal length that is really important for me to have absolute excellence in.

The Zeiss 50 is certainly more heavy than I want at times, especially on jobs out of town in which I fly to. So every time I have tried to substitute it with say a Nikon 50mm 1.8AIS, 50mm 1.8G or even my 60mm Macro, the loss of that certain pop, the incredible sharpness and separation when shot wide open and especially the contrast and color nuance, I really regret not bringing the Zeiss.

This goes for in print in any size or client deliverables that are for web-social too, it really shows and I can even tell the diffence when in the edit suite and the images are not more than 300 pixels in size.

Like I said above, you really have to compare them more lens to lens but by and large and certainly not in a absolute terms, the Zeiss lenses just seem to have more life in them.

As a point of interest, aren't these specialty lenses designed to be very effective in the larger apertures? I would not expect the standard Nikon 1.8s, of any iteration, to perform as well. It is also, though from professional application, sort of an apples and oranges comparison.

 

[BradS]

As a point of interest, aren't these specialty lenses designed to be very effective in the larger apertures? I would not expect the standard Nikon 1.8s, of any iteration, to perform as well. It is also, though from professional application, sort of an apples and oranges comparison.

The 50mm f/1.8 AF-Nikkor is one of the very best performers available period.

 

[film_man]

The 50mm f/1.8 AF-Nikkor is one of the very best performers available period.

For the price. It also lacks a click stop at f/1.2 or f/1.4. It also has low contrast till you get to f/2.8 compared to even the cheap 50/1.4D. But yeah, for $100 it is great.

 

[film_man]

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.

Amen.

 

[mnemosyne]

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.

 

[Ai Print]

As a point of interest, aren't these specialty lenses designed to be very effective in the larger apertures? I would not expect the standard Nikon 1.8s, of any iteration, to perform as well. It is also, though from professional application, sort of an apples and oranges comparison.

Yes, but so is the Nikon in some ways. The Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar is one of the best lenses I have used in any format, it outdoes the Nikon 50’s at most any aperture and is even great on stars at infinity, not something I would really expect to use it on.

My favorite lenses in the 35mm format are the Leica 35mm 1.4 FLE, Zeiss 50/2 and Nikon 105mm 1.4, just incredible glass all around.

 

[Alan Gales]

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.

I think it is funny how so many people got bent out of shape over him saying that the camera doesn't matter.

They don't realize he is actually saying that it is the photographer that is important. There are some images made with a Holga or cell phone that are better than some images made with an 8x10 or 100 megapixel back.

My daughter used to play fast pitch softball at the select level. There was a lot of argument over which $300 ball bat was the best. I used to tell people that if they only had so much to spend it was better to spend it on hitting lessons than on a top end bat.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

The 50mm f/1.8 AF-Nikkor is one of the very best performers available period.

I have heard that idea before. I was thinking in terms of wide open or near to it, not certain if it makes a difference in this case.
Bang for buck.

 

[BMbikerider]

Have you read his bio? What disqualifies him from being a photographer? He has published work....not sure how or what more would qualify him to be called "photographer"?

It is my considered thoughts that those who decry ANYONE who is successful enough, writes clearly and expresses himself or herself to give an opinion on their chosen subject and is in no way offensive, should be given a degree of respect.

Those who scorn writers/photographers such as Ken Rockwell, with no real justification except they disagree with what he writes, are possibly less qualified than that person to make that assertion.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Respect is earned or lost, never given.

The camera is important; Ken Rockwell is not. I have never taking photograph with Ken Rockwell, I would never waste the film.

 

[removed account4]

its all opinion
im glad he has strong enough believes
to start a SH#TSTORM on a site he probably has never visited.

maybe it matters what he says ?
personally i couldn't care less ...

 

[alentine]

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

Interested to know how and why?
Can you bring quotation and link?
Thanks.

Google "Ken Rockwell" and go to Zeiss ZF lenses.

I see the thread has been skewed toward KR!
The thread subject in someway, is about Zeiss lenses Vs Nikkor lenses, regardless who prefers which.
Specially, if there is no quotation so far or specific link, to what KR reported!
Went to ZF lenses in KR site, found around 6 ZF lenses, each has been reviewed in several pages. Have read the reviews of 2 lenses, did not find any similar statement. KR has praised the performance of Zeiss lenses specifically against Canon lenses.
I'm really interested to know which context KR reported that ZF lenses are not better than Nikkor lenses?
Chip, if you have something to quote or to link to, please provide it.
Thanks.

 

[RattyMouse]

I always wanted to get a set of Zeiss ZF lenses for my Nikon FM2n. Never did because I had a nice set of Nikkors. I did test a 21mm f/2.8 Distagon once on my FM2n and the difference was profound.

 

[removedacct1]

Sorry - who is Ken Rockwell, and should I care?

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

I really don't get why any time Ken Rockwell is mentioned a huge mass of hate is vomitated against him here. It's really revolting, and the spectacle of people who doesn't even know what's going on but just jump on the insult bandwagon is really disgusting.

I remember Ken Rockwell's site among the first giving any kind of advice about lenses' quality, when the internet was still at the beginning and there was not much information at all, especially about lenses. He's a nice guy and his reviews are usually amusing and informative. He has his own tastes and requirements, just like all of us, so I don't necessarily agree with every conclusion that he draws, but again I see no reason to hate him or despise him for this. We can also argue if his way of testing lenses and/or his whole website may be considered surpassed now, but again that's no good reason to hate him, and on the other hand I seriously doubt that more than 1% of the subscribers here would be really able to read an MTF chart.

Here are actual measurements.
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff

While people was vomiting hate against Ken Rockwell, user Dismayed linked to a very interesting website, which of course was completely ignored by the haters. A side-by-side comparison between the Nikkor 50mm f:1.4 and Zeiss Planar 50mm F:1.4 is quite interesting and tells us that the Zeiss has slightly more distortion, but in turn is more sharp at center especially at mid apertures, but again in turn the Nikkor is more equally sharp at corners, but once again the Planar helds sharpness a bit better at closer apertures. So we end once again (surprise surprise!) with the classic adagio: you gain some, you loose some. None of the two wins hands down.

Buy used at a fair price. Test it yourself and if you find that you don't like it for some reason then sell it. You will get most of your money back and any bit you lose just consider a cheap rental fee.
One big difference between the Zeiss lenses and the Nikkors is that the Zeiss are manual focus only. If your eyes are not what they used to be then you may prefer autofocus. It doesn't matter how sharp a lens is if you miss focus it won't be sharp.

Alan has a good point here: if you need/want autofocus, there is basically no question. (The point in which he says to buy both and resell - that's instead just for wealthy people for which a Zeiss lens is just a small fraction of his/her salary; by the way I'm having a very hard time in reselling photo gear that I don't need anymore).

I would also add that Zeiss lenses usually have a high quality 9-blades nearly-circular diaphragm, while Nikkors typically have 7 or less. This makes a HUGE difference in how defocused point-linghts are rendered on the image. If you like to see heptagons all over your picture, as it was almost "cool" in the '70s and the '80s, the Nikkor will be your obvious choice. If you consider a polygon appearing on the image anywhere a defect of the image rather than a "cool effect", than you might seriously want to reconsider the Zeiss.

 

[Alan Gales]

Alan has a good point here: if you need/want autofocus, there is basically no question. (The point in which he says to buy both and resell - that's instead just for wealthy people for which a Zeiss lens is just a small fraction of his/her salary; by the way I'm having a very hard time in reselling photo gear that I don't need anymore).

Hi Marco!

Yes, it may be a large bit of coin to lay out depending upon which Zeiss ZF lens the OP buys. He mentioned that he is looking for a set of Zeiss ZF lenses so I assume he has the money to purchase them. They are out of my league too!

I see that you live in Italy and I realize that in some other countries it can be harder to resell photo gear. Here in the United States you can buy used lenses off eBay and if you bought at a fair price lose very little if you resell them on eBay. I've done this myself with medium and large format lenses. My advice was for the OP who also lives here. You are correct though that it may be bad advice for people living in other countries. Thanks for bringing this up!

Alan

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry - who is Ken Rockwell, and should I care?

You did not miss anything of value. Your life and health are much better without knowledge about Ken Rockwell.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I really don't get why any time Ken Rockwell is mentioned a huge mass of hate is vomitated against him here. It's really revolting, and the spectacle of people who doesn't even know what's going on but just jump on the insult bandwagon is really disgusting.

I remember Ken Rockwell's site among the first giving any kind of advice about lenses' quality, when the internet was still at the beginning and there was not much information at all, especially about lenses. He's a nice guy and his reviews are usually amusing and informative. He has his own tastes and requirements, just like all of us, so I don't necessarily agree with every conclusion that he draws, but again I see no reason to hate him or despise him for this. We can also argue if his way of testing lenses and/or his whole website may be considered surpassed now, but again that's no good reason to hate him, and on the other hand I seriously doubt that more than 1% of the subscribers here would be really able to read an MTF chart.


While people was vomiting hate against Ken Rockwell, user Dismayed linked to a very interesting website, which of course was completely ignored by the haters. A side-by-side comparison between the Nikkor 50mm f:1.4 and Zeiss Planar 50mm F:1.4 is quite interesting and tells us that the Zeiss has slightly more distortion, but in turn is more sharp at center especially at mid apertures, but again in turn the Nikkor is more equally sharp at corners, but once again the Planar helds sharpness a bit better at closer apertures. So we end once again (surprise surprise!) with the classic adagio: you gain some, you loose some. None of the two wins hands down.


Alan has a good point here: if you need/want autofocus, there is basically no question. (The point in which he says to buy both and resell - that's instead just for wealthy people for which a Zeiss lens is just a small fraction of his/her salary; by the way I'm having a very hard time in reselling photo gear that I don't need anymore).

I would also add that Zeiss lenses usually have a high quality 9-blades nearly-circular diaphragm, while Nikkors typically have 7 or less. This makes a HUGE difference in how defocused point-linghts are rendered on the image. If you like to see heptagons all over your picture, as it was almost "cool" in the '70s and the '80s, the Nikkor will be your obvious choice. If you consider a polygon appearing on the image anywhere a defect of the image rather than a "cool effect", than you might seriously want to reconsider the Zeiss.

Ken Rockwell has a well deserved reputation for publishing outlandish and at times very inaccurate conclusions. Sometimes I take one of his articles to the bathroom with me, because he moves me.

 

[faberryman]

His usual opening gambit: "The [insert name of lens/camera] is the best [insert nine qualifiers] lens/camera period." If what you are looking for fits the nine qualifiers, you are in business. Usually it doesn't, so you are left to scratch your head. Fortunately, the manufacturers specifications he lists are encyclopedic, so you can usually find out all you need to know from one of his reviews.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Equipment is scientifically testable and one wants to get the best they can for their money. As you pointed out a sense of composition and perception cannot be purchased only learned. Since learning composition and perception takes more time and work than buying equipment, the emphasis is on the least path of resistance, much like an electron seeking a path to ground.

 

[removed account4]

Sorry - who is Ken Rockwell, and should I care?

it seems he is some guy that writes reviews for gear
and "everyone" pays attention to what he likes and doesn't like
kind of like an photography infomercial on the internet but
different. i guess there are a lot of people all bent out of shape
i think its kind of funny ... give someone a lens they will be hungry tomorrow
give someone a new lens every week and a blog he fishes for a lifetime. or something like that..

 

[Sirius Glass]

it seems he is some guy that writes reviews for gear
and "everyone" pays attention to what he likes and doesn't like
kind of like an photography infomercial on the internet but
different. i guess there are a lot of people all bent out of shape
i think its kind of funny ... give someone a lens they will be hungry tomorrow
give someone a new lens every week and a blog he fishes for a lifetime. or something like that..

I would modify "everyone" to "everyone who wants a quick answer and is not knowledgeable enough to do more research", which is what John probably meant with the quotation marks.

 

[Martin Rickards]

A manufacturer's brand of lens may have differing quality for the same focal length/aperture. Some manufacturers may have different standards of quality control. I'd hazard a guess that there could be as much difference between one brand as there is when comparing two or more brands.