So on a personal project I am getting ready to start, I am looking at using my Nikon F3 and a 50mm. Kinda where I started my journey lens wise. I have a couple of Nikkor 50mm, but am kinda intrigued by some of the more high end glass. Is the Zeiss worth the price of admission in terms of IQ or should I just stick to my AIS 50mm 1.8?
Talk to me about the Zeiss 50mm Nikon mount lens.
-
A
- Thread starter 90s Photog
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Huge filter collection for sale!
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale FS: Yamasaki Tele-Congo 240mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale E6 and Color Chemicals, Stainless Steel Tanks Reels and film storage sleeves.
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale SILVESTRI RING N 1
- Started by Philippe-Georges
-
For Sale LINHOF AERO TECHNIKA 45 LENS COVER
- Started by Philippe-Georges
Forum statistics
I had the Loxia 50 2.0 for my Sony and it was a really nice lens. I don’t know if you would see a huge improvement over your 50 1.8. I had a Df and used a bunch of different Ai-S glass and it was all good. Having said that, if you really want a Zeiss lens, get a 21, they’re spectacular.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 528
- Format
- Multi Format
Which Zeiss 50mm lens are you thinking of using?
The Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 50mm f/1.4 lenses use a very similar 7 element/6 group design as the 50mm f/1.4 AI, AI-s, AF, and AF-D. It does use a 9 bladed aperture instead of a 7. The 50mm f/1.4 Milvus uses an updated design and tests seem to show it's considerably sharper at wider apertures than the older lens.
The Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro lenses for Nikon all use an 8-element/6-group design, although at least one comparison preferred the Milvus. There's really no comparable lenses to these; Nikon's 55mm and 60mm "micro" lenses are limited to f/2.8, and the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro is designed for APS format dSLRs.
Finally, there's the 55mm f/1.4 Otus, which is one of the best optics out there. You get what you pay for.
Whether any of these lenses are worth the price is between you and your wallet. Based on how I use a 50mm lens, the value isn't there for me. I do own a Voigtländer 58mm f/1.4, which is also built by Cosina. Like the Zeiss lenses, it extremely well built mechanically, but I'm less impressed with the rendition of the out-of-focus areas. I also refused to pay the ~$90 for the "correct" lens hood and use a generic instead. My other two 50mm lenses are a 50mm f/1.8 AI "long nose" I've owned for almost 40 years, and a 50mm f/1.8G. Neither one of those lenses will win "high score of the day" on test charts, but I'm okay with that. The two Zeiss ZF.2 lenses I do own, an 18mm f/3.5 and a 25mm f/2, I feel are better than their Nikon counterparts.
The Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 50mm f/1.4 lenses use a very similar 7 element/6 group design as the 50mm f/1.4 AI, AI-s, AF, and AF-D. It does use a 9 bladed aperture instead of a 7. The 50mm f/1.4 Milvus uses an updated design and tests seem to show it's considerably sharper at wider apertures than the older lens.
The Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro lenses for Nikon all use an 8-element/6-group design, although at least one comparison preferred the Milvus. There's really no comparable lenses to these; Nikon's 55mm and 60mm "micro" lenses are limited to f/2.8, and the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro is designed for APS format dSLRs.
Finally, there's the 55mm f/1.4 Otus, which is one of the best optics out there. You get what you pay for.
Whether any of these lenses are worth the price is between you and your wallet. Based on how I use a 50mm lens, the value isn't there for me. I do own a Voigtländer 58mm f/1.4, which is also built by Cosina. Like the Zeiss lenses, it extremely well built mechanically, but I'm less impressed with the rendition of the out-of-focus areas. I also refused to pay the ~$90 for the "correct" lens hood and use a generic instead. My other two 50mm lenses are a 50mm f/1.8 AI "long nose" I've owned for almost 40 years, and a 50mm f/1.8G. Neither one of those lenses will win "high score of the day" on test charts, but I'm okay with that. The two Zeiss ZF.2 lenses I do own, an 18mm f/3.5 and a 25mm f/2, I feel are better than their Nikon counterparts.
I'd get a Leica R lens and use it in stop down metering mode w/ an adapter. The 50 Summicrons are amazingly good. Zeiss glass is sharp, but the Leica lenses will give 3-D imaging and smooth bokeh. Probably cheaper than the Zeiss glass as well.
I have the Leica R lenses and would not do this. They are excellent - of course - but replacing the mount with the Leitax removes the auto aperture indexing as you have indicated. Frankly this makes the user experience miserable. The Zeiss lenses (Cosina made of course) that I have - 50 1.4 and Makro Planar 50 f2 are excellent, with the Makro Planar being superb. It easily matches my Summicron 50. Plus you do not lose any conveniences.
Taken with the Zeiss 50 1.4 on a Nikon F3. @ 1.4. Love this lens.
For any lens, which acquisition oneself considers monetary substantial, one should try to borrow, rent it or buy it with return option. Then take photos of the expected kind and follow the whole expected workflow (e.g. printing), doing the same in parallel with a lens one already got to be substituted (if so).
Then look at the final photographs and decide if the gain (if visible at all) is worthwhile.
Then look at the final photographs and decide if the gain (if visible at all) is worthwhile.
For the money get a F100 and Sigma 1.4 Art. Shutterbug tested the Nikon, Zeiss, and Sigma Art and found the art to out perform both the Nikon and Zeiss. Of course SB tested with full frame digital and pixel peeked, what mattered was somewhat less distortion with the Sigma. All will resolve Tmax 100 without issue.
Th OP says he will be using his Nikon F3.
If you want to really take high image quality, you'll first need to make sure you're getting top quality scanning (or printing)
The 50/1.8 long-nose Nikkor is IMO pretty much unbeatable. Made in japan "Zeiss" is not comparable to real Zeiss IMO.
Some people are suggesting Leica R lenses, these are great of course. But if you really are obsessed with ultimate image quality, just jump to medium format. Any 6x4.5 camera with a decent lens (pentax, bronica, zeiss, mamiya) will completely obliterate 35mm, even if you put the most mint Summicron-R signed by Walter Mandler you can find.
Abandon 35mm if ultimate image quality is your goal. 35mm has a ton of benefits otherwise.
I have an F100 already (my least favorite camera I own). Also have an F4, F5, D700 and a D800. The idea with this personal project is to get back to where I started with a manual focus camera and 35mm black and white film. I have picked my F3 and FE2 for this project. The FE2 is really for nostalgia- as it is the first Nikon camera I bought in the early 90s while in college for my photojournalism degree. (Yes... that seems like a waste of money now...lol!) I have an old AIS 50 1.8 and a 35 2.8. I have always read that the Zeiss lenses were to die for. I think the suggestion to rent one is probably some really good advise.
That is actually one of the 50mm lenses that I own. It has always been one of my favorite to use.
I picked up a 50mm f2 Nikkor, made in the early 50's, screw mount for a Leica, the lens has had a recent CLA, six element, coated, brass and chrome. Fantastic lens.
The 50mm 1.8 you have is amazing too. If you don't have a Nikkor 85mm f 1.4 AF-D, look for one of those. MHOFWIW
The 50mm 1.8 you have is amazing too. If you don't have a Nikkor 85mm f 1.4 AF-D, look for one of those. MHOFWIW
Here you go- a Zeiss 50mm f1.8 Ultron, converted to Nikon mount (this vendor has 3 of them):
Holy moly that's a lot of clams!
I have seen these sold in the US also. They cost more than an M42 Ultron. I guess someone had to buy M42 or bayonet then convert it. It is priced between the Zeiss Planar ZF and the Zeiss Milvus in price. I am sure the Milvus or Planar are technically better lenses in any objective measure.
Last edited:
I have some Cosina made Voigtlander lenses. I purchased new, a Cosina made Zeiss 35mm f2.8 M mount lens, these are all nice lenses.
I have the Voigtlander [Cosina] SC [Nikon rangefinder] Skopar 21mm f4, and it is a really nice lens (on my Contax iia, and recently I used it on a Kiev 4a).
50mmf/1,8 all the way
But which Zeiss? The 50/1.4 ZF, the 50/2 ZF, the 55/1.4 ZF or some of the older contax mount ones adapted? They are all very different lenses.
I have the 50/1.4 ZF on my F3 right now and have used that lens in both Nikon and Canon mount. It is a great lens and I prefer it to the 1.8 and 1.4 Nikon offerings. I also had the 50/1.2 AIS which is another amazing optic. For various reasons I ended up with the Zeiss again this year, it is a great lens if you know how to use it and similar in behaviour to the 50/1.2, ie both are dreamy wide open and sharp from f/2 down if you nail focus.
If you are talking about the 50/2 Makro-Planar then that's a whole different thing.
Personally my all time favourite Nikon standard is the 58/1.4 but sadly that doesn't work with the F3. I thought briefly about the Otus but at that price/size/weight I might as well get a medium format camera.
In the end, the Nikon 50/1.8 is a competent lens and for the price fantastic. You get more with the other lenses, from the 1.4 to the 1.2 to Zeiss and whatever else but is it worth it? The Otus is 15-20x the price of your 50/1.8. The 50/1.2 is 3-4x times. How much money do you have...
How does the 50 1.8 AIS compare optically to the 50 1.8G? The 1.8G does not match up wide open to my Zeiss 50s in Nikon mount.
| 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:  |