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

[chip j]

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

 

[Ai Print]

The Zeiss generally have more color saturation. But it really depends on a direct lens to lens comparison, not a broad statement. That said my 105mm 1.4 is the most spectacular Nikon lens I have ever used, simply mind blowing.

I will say with a fair degree of confidence that the Zeiss ZF, Milvus line is distinctly better overall than the Nikon AIS lenses.

 

[BMbikerider]

For what we use lenses for on our cameras, unless we are a specialist, making maximum enlargements every time every day, then I am firmly of the belief that comparing one top flight lens with another will yield no discernable discernible difference. Spending more money than you really need to is best left to those with a real need to get the ultimate results. (Which will not be able to be seen anyway).

 

[faberryman]

Well, if Ken Rockwell said it, it must be true. You might want to do a little more in depth research before making up your mind. You may or may not arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[alentine]

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

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

 

[Sirius Glass]

Well, if Ken Rockwell said it, check your shoes to see how much you stepped in. Generally I ignore him. Specifically I do not pay attention to what he says, thinks or writes, the rest of ok.

 

[chip j]

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

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

 

[jim10219]

Ai Print is right. You have to compare lens to lens, not brand to brand, since you buy lenses, and not brands (assuming you’re not a super rich investor, in which case, you’ll probably be more concerned with profitability and market share than actual lens quality).

I own a few Zeiss lenses, and they run the gamut between great and good enough. Pretty much the same as my other lenses. I have several lenses that do one thing superbly well and everything else mediocre. I have a few lenses that do everything pretty well, and nothing superbly. I used to have a few lenses that do nothing very well, so I sold them (or used different them for other projects). I’m not loyal to any brand and that attitude has rewarded me greatly.

But at the end of the day, the question isn’t which lens is better. It’s which lenses fulfill your needs.

 

[M-88]

I don't understand. Granted a man does (or used to do) a titanic job and he's a Nikon know-it-all, but whatever he says is his personal opinion, which is sometimes subjective. It's inevitable. Are we doing brand-to-brand comparison here? Because it sure seems like it.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Just my opinion, but I think most top-brand lenses are so good that you need careful testing to see differences.

You won't see a difference between different manufacturers unless you're following a careful procedure to test the lenses for resolution, contrast, color, or whatever attributes are important to you.

How often do you use a tripod, lock the mirror up, use a cable release, and select the optimal aperture for resolution? Which films will you be using? How large will the final images be and from what distance will they be viewed?

When I wanted to test my Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss) lenses, I used a tripod, pre-released the camera to bring the mirror and rear baffles up, used a cable release, an aperture of f/8, Kodak Technical Pan film, and enlarged to a 16x20 print.

I made some nice photos, but 99.9% of the time I don't make photos that way.

 

[BradS]

Just my opinion, but I think most top-brand lenses are so good that you need careful testing to see differences.
You won't see a difference between different manufacturers unless you're following a careful procedure to test the lenses for resolution, contrast, color, or whatever attributes are important to you..

I completely agree. Each of the major players (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Leica, Tokina, and even Cosina, etc) have some crummy optics and many pretty darned good optics and a few really excellent optics. Most of those in these latter "Good" categories are all so good that the differences come down to personal taste.

So, as others have said...
1) You have to determine what set of parameters are important to you and compare specific lens to specific lens

2) take what Rockwell says with a grain of salt. Yes, he does occasionally do real testing and my sense is that he used to do more testing and more meaningful testing when he still had his day job but since the web site became his job, he's just trying to drive traffic to his site and selling advertising. That said...

3) Rockwell's statement probably cannot be said to be false. Zeiss ZF lenses are probably not any better on average than Nikon....even if by completely objective measures, it is still based upon what set of parameters are most important to him. Does he supply data? Does he say what characteristics he's evaluating and how they are being weighted? What he values may not be what everybody else values.

And all that said, yes, of course, Nikon glass is better than Cosina glass....sheesh!

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[film_man]

1. Ken says many things. Most of them should be ignored. Basically most of the things that are not things like size, weight and such factual technical specifications are best ignored.
2. Better is a subjective term. Also better than what Nikon lens? Some beat up cheap crap from the 60s or the latest and greatest from Nikon costing the price of a small car?

Personally I think there are differences which may or may not worth the trouble/price depending on what you shoot. I love the 50/1.4 Planar. Most would say it is the weakest Zeiss.

By the way, if you want to get some proper reviews of lenses, look for Ming Thein's reviews. He knows his stuff and is not a measurberator.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Just my opinion, but I think most top-brand lenses are so good that you need careful testing to see differences.

You won't see a difference between different manufacturers unless you're following a careful procedure to test the lenses for resolution, contrast, color, or whatever attributes are important to you.

How often do you use a tripod, lock the mirror up, use a cable release, and select the optimal aperture for resolution? Which films will you be using? How large will the final images be and from what distance will they be viewed?

When I wanted to test my Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss) lenses, I used a tripod, pre-released the camera to bring the mirror and rear baffles up, used a cable release, an aperture of f/8, Kodak Technical Pan film, and enlarged to a 16x20 print.

I made some nice photos, but 99.9% of the time I don't make photos that way.

I completely agree. Each of the major players (Pentax, Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, Leica, Tokina, and even Cosina, etc) have some crummy optics and many pretty darned good optics and a few really excellent optics. Most of those in these latter "Good" categories are all so good that the differences come down to personal taste.

So, as others have said...
1) You have to determine what set of parameters are important to you and compare specific lens to specific lens

2) take what Rockwell says with a grain of salt. Yes, he does occasionally do real testing and my sense is that he used to do more testing and more meaningful testing when he still had his day job but since the web site became his job, he's just trying to drive traffic to his site and selling advertising. That said...

3) Rockwell's statement probably cannot be said to be false. Zeiss ZF lenses are probably not any better on average than Nikon....even if by completely objective measures, it is still based upon what set of parameters are most important to him. Does he supply data? Does he say what characteristics he's evaluating and how they are being weighted? What he values may not be what everybody else values.

And all that said, yes, of course, Nikon glass is better than Cosina glass....sheesh!

Take Rockwell's comment with a pound of arsenic. I agree with Theo and Brad. I have a Nikon 28mm to 200mm AF zoom lens and a Tamron 28mm to 300mm AF lens, and side by side comparisons from 28mm to 200mm are virtually indistinguishable. One can put the two slides together and not see much difference between them. I doubt that many of the best here would see the difference in two prints on the wall. It is a result of computerized lens designing and improved quality in all the lens makers. In the 1970s this was not true.

 

[Dismayed]

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

Here are actual measurements.

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

At one of my dealers, there is a locked, spot-illuminated glass enclosure showcasing the Milvus lenses. The price tags are politely hidden ("if a customer asks the price, they cannot afford them!").
While aesthetically these Zeiss beauties may take some getting used to, their optical performance is definitely not under question, especially since feedback from professionals (advertising, commercial and fashion) using these lenses remains very consistent. KR is a writer, and a prolific one, not a photographer. There is a difference.

 

[AgX]

You won't see a difference between different manufacturers unless you're following a careful procedure to test the lenses for resolution, contrast, color, or whatever attributes are important to you.

How often do you use a tripod, lock the mirror up, use a cable release, and select the optimal aperture for resolution? Which films will you be using? How large will the final images be and from what distance will they be viewed?

When I wanted to test my Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss) lenses, I used a tripod, pre-released the camera to bring the mirror and rear baffles up, used a cable release, an aperture of f/8, Kodak Technical Pan film, and enlarged to a 16x20 print.

I made some nice photos, but 99.9% of the time I don't make photos that way.

Exactly.

I do read lens test. BUT these test were made with a camera bolted to ground, with internal vibration reduced as much as possible and with a flat subject parallel to the focal plane.

Does that resemble ones manner of photography?

Personal lens test (granted one got lenses in hand to test) would be testing the same time lenses on the same subject in the same manner.

"Granted one got lenses in hand to test": those standardized test are a means to depict lenses faults or even rank lenses oneself does not have in hand. If such ranking has visual effect within ones own photography is something else.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

save your money;Nikkors are hard to top.

 

[Mick Fagan]

It probably depends upon which camera body you have and what you wish to do with your photography.

I have owned and used quite a lot, my Nikkor 85 f/1.4 lens for the last 24 years, it is really brilliant, just brilliant; I bought it second hand.

When Zeiss released their Nikon compatabile lenses (I think there were two at the time) I happened to be at a photographic fair where they were on display. I actually had my F3 body with my 85 f/1.4 lens attached and was asked by someone whether I could come to the stand where the two new Zeiss lenses were on display. Arriving at the display there was a Nikon F3 with a Zeiss 85 f/1.4 lens attached on a tripod displayed in a manner to allow punters to look through the viewfinder to see what they would be getting, or missing out on.

We found another tripod and with my camera alongside and loaded with film, we shot a roll off, swapping between the Nikkor and Zeiss lenses on my body. After developing the film that evening I thought there were some differences, but really not that great. As luck would have it a friend purchased one of the small amount of Zeiss 85 f/1.4 lenses brought into the country. He had been looking for a Nikkor lens of the same length and aperture and couldn't find one, so a Zeiss one it was.

We did some seat of the pants comparisons, which would not stand up to scientific scrutiny, but was sufficient for us to get a handle on things. My personal take was that the difference between the two lenses was very much like the difference between Hasselblad and Mamiya RB/RZ lenses. Colour saturation was slightly different and contrast was slightly different, but in the scheme of things, they were reasonably the same. We used E6 film, which I think is the last time I used E6 film, developed in my Jobo processor.

Anything you purchase now, if it is brand new that is, should be as good as, or better than, the Nikkor range of AI-s lenses. But within reason I wouldn't say they were going to be worth what they could cost over a slowly acquired range of prime Nikkor high end lenses.

Mick.

 

[slackercrurster]

Zeiss are good if you want manual controls. Buy them used if on a budget. some Leica lenses are not as good for controls. Some of the Leica lenses have huge focus knobs that get in the way and the aperture is loose as a goose and moves while street shooting. Some Zeiss have grease oozing out the back near the rear element. God forbid any of these cam companies ask me to review their stuff. I will give you the lowdown, not bullshit.

 

[pentaxuser]

Just out of interest, at what point and in whatever terms you care to specify will the Zeiss lens have a clear and noticeable edge over the Nikkors such that most viewers would be able to see the difference in the print? Yes I have read all the posts and I appreciate opinion will be divided on such matters but I am simply looking for information on known or demonstrable differences of the kind that most people could appreciate.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[darkosaric]

I know that it is tempting to buy more expensive lens, looking for a silver bullet. I have done this as well more than once. But the truth is that cheapest Nikkors like 50mm f2 (manual HC version for example), of f1.8 (AF or manual), or micro nikkor f3.5 are top of the top in sharpness. Zeiss that costs 10x or 20x or 30x more is not sharper.

But sharpness is overrated anyhow, Kenn Rockwell says that as well. You don't need anything better than 40$ nikkor 50mm/1.8. But if you want it - then go for whatever you can. I have Leica lenses - not because I need them - only because I want them, and I can afford them.

 

[Ai Print]

Just out of interest, at what point and in whatever terms you care to specify will the Zeiss lens have a clear and noticeable edge over the Nikkors such that most viewers would be able to see the difference in the print? Yes I have read all the posts and I appreciate opinion will be divided on such matters but I am simply looking for information on known or demonstrable differences of the kind that most people could appreciate.

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.

 

[BradS]

Ken Rockwell is a writer, and a prolific one, not a photographer. There is a difference.

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