Zeiss glass on Nikon SLR's

[RattyMouse]

Anyone here shoot Nikon SLR's using Zeiss lenses? If yes, do you have a gallery that shows off these combo's? I'm interested in possibly picking up some Zeiss lenses for my FM2, rather than abandon Nikon for a Contax SLR. I'm not sure which way is best but keeping my Nikon FM2 would at least be the simplest way, if not the best.

Thanks!

 

[Xmas]

I've just bought my FM2 a series E...

GAS is bad, hope better soon.

 

[darkosaric]

I have once seen in live Zeiss 100mm macro. It is huge and heavy beast! I think you will not see so much of those Zeiss lenses in nikon mount because the price is high, and old nikkor lenses are equally good (more - less).

The guy who had this macro lens was a Leica fun as well - he told me that this Zeiss is better than any nikkor he had.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

+1 for old Nikkor glass;low cost and beautifully madeas well as high quality.I still use and won't part with my 1970s Nikkors

 

[BrianShaw]

When a friend once showed me images he made using Zeiss lens on Nikon 35mm SLR, I couldn't really see much of a difference. But I was very impressed by the cost, relative rarity, and prestige associated with the Zeiss glass.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I was all Nikon in the 80's with an FE2 and FM2, mostly zooms and a 105/4 Micro. Then after using a Contax G2 kit for a while and being blown away with the G Zeiss lenses I sold off my Nikon kits and went Contax SLR with an RX at first. Have since added RTS, RTSII and an AX bodies all of which were not acquired based in need but because they were found at screaming bargains ($75, $115, $275). I have a nice collection of terrific earlier Zeiss glass from the 90's and it's all amazing. I was happy.

Then seeing an FM2 for $75 one day a few years ago and then cheap F3 and F2 ($75, $125), and then a few months ago a beater but working FE2 ($20 shipped) I once again dove back into Nikon.

I still have all the Contax kits too. With Nikon this time though I've gone with mostly classic old "F" primes from the 60's and early 70's. Love the signature I get with those classic lens on B&W which is 95% of my shooting now. The Contax lenses were built up when I mostly shot color slides. I have not used the modern new Zeiss glass except for a 35/2 Biogon for Leica mount which I much prefer over the 35/2 Planar for my G2.

As others have mentioned I doubt you'll see a huge difference from modern Nikon to Zeiss but many including myself love the Zeiss signature so you cannot go wrong either.

Frankly I think you got GAS bad and simply want more lenses!!

 

[RattyMouse]

I was all Nikon in the 80's with an FE2 and FM2, mostly zooms and a 105/4 Micro. Then after using a Contax G2 kit for a while and being blown away with the G Zeiss lenses I sold off my Nikon kits and went Contax SLR with an RX at first. Have since added RTS, RTSII and an AX bodies all of which were not acquired based in need but because they were found at screaming bargains ($75, $115, $275). I have a nice collection of terrific earlier Zeiss glass from the 90's and it's all amazing. I was happy.

Then seeing an FM2 for $75 one day a few years ago and then cheap F3 and F2 ($75, $125), and then a few months ago a beater but working FE2 ($20 shipped) I once again dove back into Nikon.

I still have all the Contax kits too. With Nikon this time though I've gone with mostly classic old "F" primes from the 60's and early 70's. Love the signature I get with those classic lens on B&W which is 95% of my shooting now. The Contax lenses were built up when I mostly shot color slides. I have not used the modern new Zeiss glass except for a 35/2 Biogon for Leica mount which I much prefer over the 35/2 Planar for my G2.

As others have mentioned I doubt you'll see a huge difference from modern Nikon to Zeiss but many including myself love the Zeiss signature so you cannot go wrong either.

Frankly I think you got GAS bad and simply want more lenses!!

Interesting posts everyone, thank you.

I think the Zeiss signature is very visible, at least on digital cameras and if that translates over to 35mm film (I'm not sure if it does or not), then I think this is more than a small difference between the two sets of lenses.

Yes, I do have GAS. I've always wanted to shoot with Carl Zeiss lenses and that is tough to fight off.

Right now I shoot with 24mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.2, 55mm f/2.8 Micro, and 85mm f/2.0 all AIS Nikkors.

 

[benjiboy]

Interesting posts everyone, thank you.

I think the Zeiss signature is very visible, at least on digital cameras and if that translates over to 35mm film (I'm not sure if it does or not), then I think this is more than a small difference between the two sets of lenses.

Yes, I do have GAS. I've always wanted to shoot with Carl Zeiss lenses and that is tough to fight off.

Right now I shoot with 24mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.2, 55mm f/2.8 Micro, and 85mm f/2.0 all AIS Nikkors.

If you can't make brilliant pictures with the Nikon lenses you have, Zeiss lenses aren't going to be the magic bullet, you aren't going improve your photography by throwing money at the problem.

 

[ic-racer]

Why no threads about mirrobox flocking, pressure plate material, strap eyelet location and other things that have the same effects on your photographs as changing lens brands...

 

[gone]

If you're looking to improve your IQ, put a Leica R Summicron or Elmarit lens w/ an adapter on your Nikon and shoot in stop down metering mode. Big difference, and yes, better than the best of Nikon's line up. My 50 H Nikkor is very, very good, but at shorter or longer focal lengths the Leica is really special. I never "got" the Zeiss thing, and I've owned a few. Sharp enough, but bokeh is not your friend. I don't think you can improve on Leica's bokeh and 3-D imaging unless you somehow managed to adapt an old Heliar lens to your Nikon SLR.

I also tried one of those 85 1.4 Bower/Samsung/Rokinon lenses and was not impressed. Very good bokeh, but that was about it. The pics had no snap to them. Very flat, even w/ Tri-X and a yellow filter. One roll of film and I saw right away that it wasn't going to work.

 

[Alan Gales]

I'm a big Contax/Zeiss fan. I have owned the Contax 139 and a couple 167 MT's and 5 Zeiss lenses (25mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm and 180mm).

I have had friends who owned Nikon.

Like Brian said, "You are not going to see a whole lot of difference".

If you really want to see a difference, shoot a Hasselblad or Rollei SL66 with Zeiss glass. Of course the Schneiders on the Rollei are just as good.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've stuck with my Nikon 84/1.4 Ais, which gets far more use than any other 35mm lens I own. The current Nikon 85's might be superb optical
performers, but mechanically they look downright flimsy. And I have zero interest in autofocus, or anything "auto", for that matter. So I find it refreshing that someone else is in fact making good solid manual lenses for Nikon. I'd buy a Cosina Zeiss in a heartbeat if I really needed it. And they do seem to be rather popular lenses with a superb reputation, despite the chitchat here. But just how much better are ya gonna get, to justify the expense? The whole idea of a Nikon F-whatever is to have a dependable handheld camera. Once I set up a tripod, there's an absolute quantum leap quality with MF, then again to 4x5, then again to 8x10. But then, there's nothing quite like an all-mechanical Nikon tucked under the parka for a pleasant walk on a rainy day!

 

[Xmas]

Cosina make LTM lenses with a Voighlander nameplate and they are superb but 1/10 the price of Leica lenses.

They do M mount too.

Cosina also make lenses with Zeiss nameplate which are more expensive then their Voighlanders.

The English expression is 'mug punter'.

 

[elekm]

The Zeiss lenses are made under contract for Zeiss and I believe were supervised by Zeiss in the initial runs. It's not like lenses roll off the same line, and some get a Voigtlander name ring and some get a Zeiss name ring.

Cosina is merely a contract manufacturer but must adhere to Zeiss specifications. Much in the same way that Yashica and then Kyocera were contract manufacturers for Zeiss.

The bodies were Yashica and Kyocera products and licensed the Contax name. You never saw the Zeiss name on the Contax bodies, boxes or literature (except in reference to Zeiss lenses or Zeiss trademarks).

And I agree that if you're getting good photos with your Nikkor lenses, you'll get equally good photos with a Zeiss lens. However, sometimes shooting with a new/different camera and lens does give you a fresh approach to photography.

 

[Xmas]

But I bought my cosina lenses cause

- they were made to a Cosina spec
- and they did not have a Zeiss markup

Zeiss have not been good at design.

 

[RattyMouse]

Zeiss have not been good at design.

This is just an odd post. Carl Zeiss lenses are clearly of extremely high quality. I have examined photographs made with the 21mm f/2.8 Distagon and am always exceedingly impressed with the quality of images produced. Extremely sharp, all the way down into the corners. The 35mm f/2.0 Distagon is another wonderful lens. The 35mm f/1.4 has lovely bokeh as does the 85mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 Makro.

It is inexplicable to me how someone can state that Zeiss lenses are not well designed.

 

[RattyMouse]

If you can't make brilliant pictures with the Nikon lenses you have, Zeiss lenses aren't going to be the magic bullet, you aren't going improve your photography by throwing money at the problem.

I am not looking to solve any problem. Thanks.

 

[Xmas]

This is just an odd post. Carl Zeiss lenses are clearly of extremely high quality. I have examined photographs made with the 21mm f/2.8 Distagon and am always exceedingly impressed with the quality of images produced. Extremely sharp, all the way down into the corners. The 35mm f/2.0 Distagon is another wonderful lens. The 35mm f/1.4 has lovely bokeh as does the 85mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 Makro.

It is inexplicable to me how someone can state that Zeiss lenses are not well designed.

Design is about optimizing the product so it sells.

Zeiss seem to design for 100% optical at whatever cost.

I tried two ZM, three Leica M, ten Voiglander each lens over more than one years service.
No detectable difference optically on film cameras, chum got more flare with one of the Leica ones on his digital, and could tell the ZM wide 24mm was better in corners than the Voiglander again on digital
the three Leica lenses had one mechanical problem
the two ZM three mechanical problems
the ten Voiglander no problems
kept the Voighlanders for long term use sold the others to brick shops.
So the shop would only sell the 24mm ZM after a service, as boxed as new,...' they all do that after use '.
One of my series E SLR lenses has 35 years of similar use and has a similar problem.
You don't need to listen to advice if you got GAS...

 

[Soeren]

I can easily tell my ZF25 f/2.8 from my AIS and AFD lenses. And It makes great pics too.
Wheather there is a difference in image quality is hard to tell since I have no equivalent but I have the feeling there is a touch more overall clarity and punch in the colors.
I have no gallery sorry
Best regards

 

[film_man]

When I had a FM2n I had a ZF2 35/2 and 50/1.4 When it comes to 35mm cameras and lenses the 35/2 was probably the sharpest lens I have ever used. The 50/1.4 produced the most favourite images I ever got from a 35m camera. Now that I have a Canon system the only reason I haven't bought one yet is that I tried a CV 40/2 and it seems to be a wonderful compromise between the two focal lengths. Otherwise the 50/1.4 would be the first lens I'd buy. In fact, I regularly find my self one click away from completing the checkout on a ZE 50/1.4 It is special wide open and it is outstanding from f/2.8 down. By the way, I can't say I ever noticed the focus shift digital people talk about.

 

[markaudacity]

That's because you aren't using autofocus. At f/1.4, your DoF is often thinner than the QA margin for AF sensor accuracy.

 

[alinnman]

I am currently using a Zeiss Distagon 35/2 ZF and it sits quite often on my F3. I also have a Nikkor 35/2 AF-D which I use on my F5 for autofocus, and sometimes on my F when I just want a tiny and discreet lens.

The Zeiss 35mm is slightly better on large apertures, the Nikkor 35mm is a wonderful street lens and has lightning-fast autofocus.
Picture quality depends on so many other factors, especially when you shoot on film. Steadyness of hand, choice of film, how you develop your film etc etc.. The lens is just a tool and a not-so-important part of the chain. The Zeiss 35 however is very nice to handle. Smooth focus and heavy-metal feel. Adds some "joy and satisfaction" ;-)

 

[oneANT]

Of course I use them Ratty. 21/2.8, 28/2, 35,2 , 50/2Makro, 100/2Makro, 135apo and 21/2.8Biogon, 35/2.8Biogon
On D700, F100, FM3a and M7
400TX(Arista Premium) / Provia 160/400/800

I dont scan the negs and my website pics only show my first 72days as a street photographer. I have other work but cannot show it yet, its for somewhere else and not on this foolish internet. All the pics on my site are Zeiss. Am upgrading the website soon, its in flash and needs a min to load and then is fast, music is optional (grin). My pics are not for peepers and I dont have any of those just as these guys dont have anything to show. The one that called the 100makro huge and heavy is odd, its 660grams (105 is 750grams) and the cosina expert is something my daddy would have smacked me for being, they have no idea and its so in-your-face-obvious.

The signature is of course distinct from any nikkor/nikon, nothing alike in colour or contrast but you already know this. The only lens that comes close (contrast) is the 35/1.4 ais but it was too nervous for close work in the street. The nikon 200mm has a similar colour but thats all and was beyond my promise (and my finances) to myself that 100mm was my limit for street but the 135/2apo was too hard to resist and my favourite zeiss.
On FM a blind test was done about 2years ago, was a complex test too and much work was put into it and we all picked the zeiss. Maybe go find that, someone there will likely have a link to it, I think there was even 100makro - 105nikon tests I think.
I honestly dont know where these guys come from ratty, there is no end to them and yet they all sound the same, one of them even sounds familiar to me from dpr. For your own understanding, go to FM and load the nikon pics thread and then go to alt and load the zeiss pic threads. Get a coffee, put some music on and it will not be long before you understand and with your own eyes. Watch each thread backwards from last post and you will even see that the canon/nikon mix makes no difference and of course with the same lens it shouldn't ...not for web pics.

What do I prefer the zeiss on ...Film or Digital?
Film absolutely, is my best work too.

Oh and just a quick edit, the voigtlanders are not zeiss either, had the 20 and the 40 and the 58, 40 is fun, 58 is the best of them but they are not substitutes and I like them less than the Nikons that at least give you AF.

 

[chip j]

My 2c--I compared the Zeiss Triotar & Leica 5X loupes side by side. T he Zeiss had spectacular, classy color, and the Leica was half-a-hair sharper. And my Zeiss G lenses add a sparkle to my color slides that my Nikkors just dont.

 

[oneANT]

Its odd ...we all know these lenses come in different boxes and yet here they tell us they are all the same. I wonder why they bother to talk about lenses at all when they are all the same. Oh except that some are German and some are not and yet it seems the Chinese ones are never called the Chinese ones.

...how odd.