New Nikon F6 VS. New Zeiss Ikon ZM (w/Zeiss 50mm f/2 Planar) - Which to purchase?

[George Mann]

Sorry, but that is wrong.
You have several times explained here on photrio that you have never used current, improved lens designs by yourself.
And that you have never used current lenses from Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss etc.

I have never stated such, so you are wrong!

The Zeiss lenses don't produce 'sterile and editorialized' images. That statement has nothing to do with reality.
The better color rendition (more rich, deep colors), the much better three-dimensional look, and much nicer, more soft and creamy bokeh alone make the Zeiss images much more attractive from an aesthetical point of view. Especially on film.

It is an inaccurate lens. The multicoated 50mm f/2 clearly beats all other 50mm lenses in both accuracy and refinement!

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on:
Folks - tone it down.
As the rules state, no "religious" arguments!
Hat off.
And on a personal note, I'm glad when people attain results from any lens - or even without any lens - that satisfies their needs and wants.

 

[MattKing]

One post deleted by the moderator, with more to follow if the arguments continue.
Both of your positions are clear - please move on.

 

[MattKing]

Another post deleted - more deletions will follow, including of earlier posts, if posters insist on continuing the argument. Your positions are already clear!

 

[JParker]

I don't recall which focusing screen is standard with the F6, but you'll likely want one with split image and/or microprism focus aids. My F100 lacks such aids and I find I miss them.

For the F6 several different focus screen are available, including one with classic split-image. But the standard screen and the focus indicator are both so good that manual focussing works really very well with the F6. Indeed better than with lots of my older screens in my manual focus Nikon SLRs.

As for lenses, again, that's largely a matter of personal choice. The 50mm f/2 Planar is a classic Gauss design, with 6 elements in 4 groups. Nikon also made a 50mm f/2 with the same basic optical design, but it was replaced in 1979 with a modified 6-element, 5-group design. In theory, that's an improvement, but given manufacturing tolerances I'd likely give the edge to the Zeiss.

Your assessment that the successor Nikkor 1.8/50 AI (long barrel) is a little bit better than the forerunner Nikkor 2/50 is confirmed by Nikon lens experts like Stafford / Hauschild / Hillebrand (see their book Nikon Compendium), B. Peterson (his book about the Nikon system) and B. Roerslett (see his webpage).
I've grown up in a photographer family, parents and all siblings are photography enthusiasts, and I've had the passibility to use dozens of lenses, including lots of Nikkors. And from my experience with the two Nikkors I can confirm the results of the above mentioned sources, that the later Nikkor has a small performance advantage compared to the forerunner.

 

[JParker]

No, that times are long gone.

If you want the best f2 50mm lens with Nikon F-mount you will go for the Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50 ZF.2.
That lens surpasses the former Nikkor 2/50 in almost all parameters:
- higher contrast
- significantly better sharpness and resolution, especially at f2 and f2.8, and outside the center towards the corners (the Zeiss has much more even performance across the frame)
- much much lower chromatic aberration, the Zeiss has no visible lateral chromatic aberration, and much lower longitudinal chromatic abberation than the Nikkor
- the Zeiss has much better separation of the in-focus elements compared to the out-of-focus parts of the photo: that leads to an excellent three-dimensional impression ("3d-Pop") modern Zeiss lenses are famous for
- the Zeiss has much better performance in the shorter range
- nicer color transmission of the Zeiss
- the Zeiss has an integrated chip and offers the Nikon AI-P standard, so more functions with modern Nikon film and digital bodies
- the Zeiss offers weather and dust sealing
- the build quality of the Zeiss is much better compared to the Nikkor
- the Zeiss offers much more versatility: Excellent performance from infinity up to macro distances.

And then there is also the Zeiss Milvus Distagon 1.4/50. It offers
- one stop more speed
- even better performance at f2 than the excellent Zeiss Milvus Makro-Planar 2/50
- even better performance towards the edges at f2, f2.8 and f4 compared to the Makro-Planar.

Been there, done that.

From my own tests with these lenses I can completely agree.

 

[miha]

Hardly surprising. One would expect some advancements in optical design over the last 50 years. A slow 50mm lens is not one of the more difficult lenses to design, anyway, and the Nikkor should be perfectly adequate. Due to its rendering, it may even be preferred by some users. However, under rigid lab testing, the Zeiss undoubtedly comes out on top.

 

[JParker]

Hardly surprising. One would expect some advancements in optical design over the last 50 years.

Yes of course.
But from my own experiences, the experiences of my family members and photographer friends who have used the modern improved lenses in comparison to the older lenses, I have to say that it is more than "some" advancements: In several important parameters the improvements are very significant and clearly visible. And in certain areas they are quite huge.

However, under rigid lab testing, the Zeiss undoubtedly comes out on top.

For me it is important that I see the progress in lens design in my daily photography, in my photos. And that is absolutely the case with my modern lenses, including the curent Zeiss Milvus lenses.
And it is not only clearly visible improvement in contrast, sharpness, even performance across the frame, flare resistance, less coma.....and so on.
As already explained here by other members who use them, Zeiss really cared for the aesthetic factors as well. The very smooth bokeh, the excellent differentiation between sharp and unsharp details, which gives the photos an additional depth, the outstanding colour rendition of the lenses.

And another very important factor for me, which has also been explained here on photrio in the recent past: These modern high-performance lenses offer very good, fully usable quality performance already at open aperture, and outstanding performance already with only 1-2 stops stopped down.
Whereas older lenses have to be stopped down further to get to their sweet spot.
In general I get a 2-stop performance gain / advantage with my new lenses. Which means that I can often use ISO 100 film instead of ISO 400 film. And that makes of course a huge difference, whether I can shoot with Acros, TMX or Delta 100 instead of Delta 400, Tri-X etc.
or with Portra 160 instead of Portra 400.
The slower film advantage is clearly visible even at lower to moderate enlargements.

 

[miha]

Observing progress in daily use is largely subjective. For example, the Canon EF 28-80mm f/2.8-4.0L, a design from the late '80s, remains my favorite lens for rendering and color. While the L-series zooms that followed (28-70, 24-70, etc.) likely have better technical specs in lab tests, I couldn’t care less. I also appreciate other lenses, like the Elmarit-R 35mm, which may be outpaced by the latest offerings from Sigma and Zeiss. In visual arts, much is subjective, and I don't lose sleep trying to convince others of my preferences.

 

[JParker]

Observing progress in daily use is largely subjective.

Definitely not in my case, I can ensure you.
The results in my daily photography I have written in my post above are 100% objective. Because every time when I have used a new lens I have compared it to the older lens directly in 1:1 identical conditions first.
I keep a new lens only if it gives me significantly, clearly visible improvements compared to the older ones.
So far I have never been disappointed by an improved lens design.

Therefore in every case I have seen the better sharpness, higher resolution, better contrast, more even performance across the frame, less distortion, less coma, better flare resistance, nicer bokeh, better sharp-to-unsharp transition (3d-pop), better color transmission and so on.....in my photos.
The differences are easily visible in the photos. Proven also in many blind tests I've done with me, my family members and photographer friends. Therefore the significant differences are objectively there.
I would not spend any money for subjective impressions, I need hard facts.

 

[miha]

Definitely not in my case

But we are all different.

For instance, I would never choose a film based on the lens I plan to use for a particular photo application. In contrast, your point in post #133 seems to suggest that lens choice should strongly influence the film selection, which is an interesting perspective, but it's not something I typically consider when planning my shots.

 

[George Mann]

Due to its rendering, it may even be preferred by some users.

Which is what I have been saying from the get-go!

 

[miha]

Which is what I have been saying from the get-go!

Well, you did say it's King, it allowed for interpretation and led to some debate.

 

[George Mann]

Well, you did say it's King, it allowed for interpretation and led to some debate.

Between f4 and f11, I have not seen a better rendering lens.

 

[JParker]

In contrast, your point in post #133 seems to suggest that lens choice should strongly influence the film selection, which is an interesting perspective, but it's not something I typically consider when planning my shots.

Maybe you have misunderstood me, or I have explained it badly. What I wanted to say is:
When I go outside for a photo tour, I first look at the weather and the light situation. And choose my film(s) accordingly (needed light sensitivity).
Older lens designs have their best performance / sweet spot in most cases at f5.6-f8 (prime lenses).
My modern lens design lenses give optimal performance already at f2.8-f4. So I have two stops more gain and flexibility.

In not so good light conditions I often have to use higher speed film for using my older lenses at their sweet spot, if a I want a short enough shutter speed to avoid blur.
In the same light situation I can use slower speed, higher quality film with my modern high-quality lenses with optimal optical performance.

My choice for film is at first based mainly on the light situation. But the light situation is often not perfect, and gives limitations. And in such cases my higher quality lenses offer an important advantage.

 

[JParker]

Between f4 and f11, I have not seen a better rendering lens.

And many other photographers (including me) have seen better rendering lenses.

 

[miha]

@JParker, It seems my understanding was correct based on your reply. Anyway, as I mentioned, we approach things differently. I don’t choose the f-stop based on the lens’s sweet spot but rather on the desired depth of field.

 

[George Mann]

And many other photographers (including me) have seen better rendering lenses.

I have tested them all against real world scenes using the most accurate color medium currently available (Ektachrome plus B+W KR1.5).

The multicoated Nikkor 50mm f/2 was the only lens that delivered indistinguishable results.

 

[JParker]

@JParker, It seems my understanding was correct based on your reply. Anyway, as I mentioned, we approach things differently. I don’t choose the f-stop based on the lens’s sweet spot but rather on the desired depth of field.

Of course, that is also always an extremely important factor I consider.
But here again I have the advantage with the modern high-quality lenses:
When I need more depth of field and use f5.6 to f11, I have a slight performance advantage in sharpness and resolution, and a bigger in factors like coma, flare resistance, sometimes distortion.
And when I need shallow(er) depth of field and wider or full open aperture in the f1.4 to f4 range, then I get in addition the superior performance in contrast, resolution, sharpness, bokeh and 3d-pop with my modern lenses (and of course also less coma, better flare resistance, sometimes less distortion).

 

[miha]

See, George Mann achieves all of this with his old Nikkor, so everything is good.

 

[JParker]

I have tested them all against real world scenes using the most accurate color medium currently available (Ektachrome plus B+W KR1.5).

The multicoated Nikkor 50mm f/2 was the only lens that delivered indistinguishable results.

You are not the only one who has tested it intensively. I have given some very well reputed sources (see in my post above) that have got different results. And as already explained, in my personal environment there are many others, too, who disagree with your claim based on their own tests.
And if the old 2/50 Nikkor would be the magical wonder lens you claim, then it would be used as a benchmark by all professional lens test sources. But fact is that none of them is using it as a benchmark.

 

[JParker]

See, George Mann achieves all of this with his old Nikkor, so everything is good.

Probably for him, and I feel happy for him .
But I have moved on, and I am much much more satiesfied with the improved lens designs I am meanwhile using.
Much better results.
And I am only one of millions of photographers who have in the last 20-30 years upgraded to more sophisticated and improved lens designs.
Lens designers are not idiots, they know what they are doing.

 

[MattKing]

Moderator hat on:
Move on, your positions are clear on this.
Otherwise we will have to close the thread or exclude a number of people from it.

 

[George Mann]

You are not the only one who has tested it intensively. I have given some very well reputed sources (see in my post above) that have got different results. And as already explained, in my personal environment there are many others, too, who disagree with your claim based on their own tests.
And if the old 2/50 Nikkor would be the magical wonder lens you claim, then it would be used as a benchmark by all professional lens test sources. But fact is that none of them is using it as a benchmark.

You are comparing their technical tests to my real world tests involving real-time comparisons with complex real world scenes.

In the audio world, we have the same dilemma between those who are obsessed with the way a component measures vs those who actually listen to said components.

Technical laboratory grade tests fail to tell you the whole story.

 

[George Mann]

Moderator hat on:
Move on, your positions are clear on this.
Otherwise we will have to close the thread or exclude a number of people from it.

I am through here if they are.