Zeiss Planar T* 50mm 1.4 lens in Nikon F mount?

Steve Mack · Apr 11, 2011

I would like to own at least ONE piece of Zeiss glass, and the price for the Nikon mount 50mm is very attractive. Since I own an N80 and an F100, I think this would go very nicely with them. (I think it would even work on my Nikkormat!)

So what has been your collective experience with this lens? Any gotcha's about it?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen

Rol_Lei Nut · Apr 11, 2011

Can't say anything about the new ZF lens, but if it's the same as the older Rollei mount one I have, its general look, 3d effect and bokeh are far better than its MTF (contrast/sharpness) measurements would indicate.

Makten · Apr 11, 2011

I can't recommend the 50/1.4 for most people, since it's quite different from other fast 50 mm lenses for Nikon (I've had them all, sort of, and I prefer the Zeiss).

The ZF is very soft at close distances and/or wide open, while it's totally superb stopped down to f/2.8 and on. The bokeh characteristics are also "backwards"; harsh at close distances and very soft and nice at larger distances.

So, don't buy this lens for closeups wide open, but for stellar "3D" looking images with nice colors and subtle bokeh at a few meters away.

Here are a few examples of what I think it's best for; medium apertures and medium distances, or well stopped down. They are all shot on digital (D700), but that's a good way to rule out the film characteristics if you want to "know" the lens. I hope you forgive me for that.

Now, if you want a Zeiss lens that is more spectacular and evenly good across the range, the 35/2 is a better choice.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Apr 11, 2011

I read somewhere about difference of Leica and Zeiss lenses and spatial resolution told focused on lower frequency at Zeiss lenses , higher frequency on Leica lenses.

I used oldest to 1990s Leicas and I can say You can have more good photographs count with Leica lenses. I am using Rollei 35 S and with Sonnar lens and my photography quality very lowered.

If you want a good advise and do yourself your lifes favor , Buy a R3 for 100 dollars from keh and buy an Elmarit for 350 dollars , any 35 mm camera cant beat this couple.

I have thoughts on Elmarit , these lenses are based on inverted galile telescope and all leica rangefinders uses inverted galile telescope at their viewfinders. These viewfinders are the most human friendly finders and they see closest to most distance sharp.

I think may be the elmarit success depends on it , it sees as eye sees at leica viewfinder.

And if you look to the drawing of the lenses , elmarit lenses are compact and everything placed without obscure the plan.

You dont want to photograph blue rocks , do you ?

Best ,

Umut

Makten · Apr 11, 2011

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
I read somewhere about difference of Leica and Zeiss lenses and spatial resolution told focused on lower frequency at Zeiss lenses , higher frequency on Leica lenses.

That's true, and it's the reason I would never, ever choose Leica over Zeiss.

Let's not start a war here, it's all about taste. But, higher MTF at lower frequencies means higher local contrast, which in many ways have a greater impact on image quality than resolution.

So, if one wants Zeiss rendering, buying a Leica lens will let you down. And vice versa of course.

sandholm · Apr 11, 2011

Makten said:
That's true, and it's the reason I would never, ever choose Leica over Zeiss.

Let's not start a war here, it's all about taste. But, higher MTF at lower frequencies means higher local contrast, which in many ways have a greater impact on image quality than resolution.

So, if one wants Zeiss rendering, buying a Leica lens will let you down. And vice versa of course.

Ingen ide, det är inte glaset som är avgörande för honnom utan den röda punkten på kameran... Jag blev själv lite sugen på det där Zeiss objektivet...

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Apr 11, 2011

Makten ,

I loved your Tintin avatar Yes , if you like zeiss , you must go for it and it has lots more color on the print. But I fallen love Leica one time and can not think another girl. Leica have a more natural colors , more depth of field and success on little details. I took some pictures with Leica and Zeiss at the same lighting condition , Leica gave even the vains and skin details but Zeiss gave it like a butter.
And I dont get extreme sharp pictures close range full open with Zeiss but Leica.

BUT I saw some extreme sunny day portraits with zeiss and it was like a sculpture , that good , excellent , bw.

I think two brands have strong sides but I prefer Leica for dark.
I must go bw with Sonnar.

Umut

lns · Apr 11, 2011

Steve Mack said:
I would like to own at least ONE piece of Zeiss glass, and the price for the Nikon mount 50mm is very attractive. Since I own an N80 and an F100, I think this would go very nicely with them. (I think it would even work on my Nikkormat!)

So what has been your collective experience with this lens? Any gotcha's about it?

Thanks to all who reply.

With best regards,

Stephen

There's a lot on the internet about this lens, which I urge you to read before you buy it. I stayed away from it because of those reviews, because its problem areas (bokeh, close-ups, wide-open performance) were exactly the things I wanted to be good. I instead bought the Zeiss 35mm f2 ZF, which I recommend heartily. It's big and heavy, but it's a wonderful lens, and much better than the Nikkor 35mm f2 alternative. It will balance nicely on the F100.

-Laura

Pumalite · Apr 11, 2011

I have a couple of Zeiss for my Nikons and I have a couple of Leicas. My Leicas are more pleasant in general.

Mustafa Umut Sarac · Apr 11, 2011

There is immense difference between f.1.4 or lower than f.2 lenses and higher than f.2 lenses.
I always prefer darker lenses because their MTF and Color Correction curves are not wiggle like crazy and separeted. Before buying any lens , visit www.imx.nl and read Zeiss versus Leica tests.

And find the Leica M Lenses free pdf book and compare darker lenses MTF curves to the lighter.
here is an link .en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1750.pdf

It has never been successful to get a decent MTF curve from even 10000 dollars f.1 Leitz Noctilux.

No , lower f factor does not means better lens always the reverse.

Umut

Rol_Lei Nut · Apr 11, 2011

Re the Leica vs Zeiss debate:

I find that later Leica lenses (circa post-1980) tend to be technically better (sharper in corners, better distortion control), but the better Zeiss lenses still have a nicer look, which I can best describe as a 3D look.

ic-racer · Apr 11, 2011

Here are the MFTs for comparison between the Summilux and Planar 50mm 1.4 lenses.

Makten · Apr 12, 2011

ic-racer said:
Here are the MFTs for comparison between the Summilux and Planar 50mm 1.4 lenses.

That's a Summilux M, which is a rangefinder lens. Apples and oranges.

sandermarijn · Apr 12, 2011

Makten said:
The ZF is very soft at close distances and/or wide open, while it's totally superb stopped down to f/2.8 and on. The bokeh characteristics are also "backwards"; harsh at close distances and very soft and nice at larger distances.

I have the ZE-version (Canon EOS mount) and agree completely with Makten's observations.

ic-racer · Apr 12, 2011

Makten said:
That's a Summilux M, which is a rangefinder lens. Apples and oranges.

Yes, but it is the only 50mm 1.4 in the link posted by Umut.

ooze · Apr 12, 2011

Since reading the Zeiss white paper about MTF curves I have pretty much stopped worrying about MTF. A couple of excerpts:

"The MTF values are nowhere near the whole truth about the correction state of a lens. But no-one should really be surprised that a system as complex as a lens cannot be completely described by only these few numbers. The performance data of a lens, irrespective of whether it is calculated by computer or measured in the laboratory, fill a small file. "

or

"It is possible that two lenses which have the same MTF data produce quite different images of one detail of the subject, not randomly, but systematically"

Here's the link to the paper: http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf

ooze · Apr 12, 2011

And by the way, I use a ZM 28/2.8 with a Leica M, in addition to Leica's 35 and 50 Summicrons. I find that it's all much of a muchness really.

Makten · Apr 12, 2011

Ooze, that's my conclusion as well after having owned waaaay too many lenses. An interesting thing though, is that Zeiss actually measures MTF from real lenses, when most other manufacturers are calculating MTF based on the design of the lens. Needless to say, the latter will give more spectacular curves, but won't tell the truth.

Even rigorous testing cannot tell everything about a lens from everyones perspective. For example, the MTF charts are almost always representing only one distance, which often is a short one. But even CA, SA, vignetting, field curvature, bokeh and everything else needs to be looked at from the buyers perspective. – How do you use the lens? At what apertures? In what lighting conditions? At what distances? And so on.

My best advice is to try out the lens for yourself, if there is a possibility. After having owned ~50 Nikkors I tried the ZF 35/2 out of curiosity, and I was blown away. Yes, now I'm a "Zeiss fanboy", but I wasn't then.

But again, the 50/1.4 is not for everyone. That lens and the 85/1.4 is probably the ones in the Z* line that is causing the worst trouble for people, with focus shift and softness at some circumstances where other much cheaper 50:s are way better.

To much talk now! Can you resist it?

elekm · Apr 12, 2011

The only f/1.4 Planar that I own is from the Rolleiflex SL 35 cameras. I can't recall where I got this one. It's the German made lens. There also are Singapore-made f/1.4 Planars.

I've been very pleased with the rendition of the lens. I've shot it wide open and stopped down.

Here are a couple of shots:

Shot at f/1.4

Shot at f/1.4

Shot at f/5.6

sandholm · Apr 12, 2011

ooze said:
Since reading the Zeiss white paper about MTF curves I have pretty much stopped worrying about MTF. A couple of excerpts:

I once meet a photo teacher who said something in the way "MTF is for people who want to argue that his/her equipment is superior but dont have the images to back it up"

I never look any of that crap, borrow the lens, shoot 1-2 rolls develop and see if the lens fits your way of shooting.

cheers

Thingy · Apr 12, 2011

You might find reading the link below interesting.

Dead Link Removed

Basically it recommends buying the 50mm f2 Makro-Planar in preference to the Planar f1.4 lens as a standard lens as it appears to be a much better lens with the bonus that it can be used for macrophotography as well. If you are seriously contemplating buying a Zeiss (I love my rangefinder ones) I would recommend paying the subs to read these reviews. Indeed my love of Zeiss lenses is one of the things that has made me decide to replace my Olympus DSLR with a Nikon FX one, once the D700 is upgraded, plus the fact that I prefer the larger format for DoF reasons and the Zeiss Makro lens is available in my preferred 50mm focal length as well as the 100mm.

Makten · Apr 12, 2011

Thingy said:
Basically it recommends buying the 50mm f2 Makro-Planar in preference to the Planar f1.4 lens as a standard lens as it appears to be a much better lens with the bonus that it can be used for macrophotography as well.

Well, "much better" isn't the whole truth either. The Makro-Planar is much sharper at short distances, but it also gives much harsher bokeh at larger distances. It renders sort of the same way as the 35/2. But yes, it's a lens that is more likely to suit any random picked photographer, whatever their skill and purpose is.

Again, it's all about what you're gonna shoot. Twice the price doesn't make the lens twice as good. For me the MP makes less sense than the Planar.

Edit: And I really hope that I don't seem like a snob here. I'm just very interested in the technical properties of lenses!

Thingy · Apr 12, 2011

Makten said:
Well, "much better" isn't the whole truth either. The Makro-Planar is much sharper at short distances, but it also gives much harsher bokeh at larger distances. It renders sort of the same way as the 35/2.

Again, it's all about what you're gonna shoot. Twice the price doesn't make the lens twice as good. For me the MP makes less sense than the Planar.

I must admit that, with the exception of my LF photography, most of my work is macro.... so I'm a bit biased. It's interesting to see your sample images though. If money was no object I'd opt for BOTH.

brucemuir · Apr 12, 2011

Is the C/Y 50 1.4 (MM)Planar the same optical formula as the new ones offered is Nikon F mount and EOS mount?

Makten · Apr 12, 2011

Thingy said:
I must admit that, with the exception of my LF photography, most of my work is macro.... so I'm a bit biased. It's interesting to see your sample images though. If money was no object I'd opt for BOTH.

Heh, that's a bit too far! I have the 100/2 for closeups though. Now that's a stupid lens to buy if you're not a freak like me, because the Nikkor 105/2.5 is almost as good.

I rarely shoot 135 film these days, so unfortunately I have nothing to show with the 50/1.4 on film. But I have to say that it does make less sense to use Zeiss glass on film if you don't shoot color and/or have a very, very good scanner. For film (only B&W in my case) I actually prefer the Nikkor 50/1.2 which is cheaper and one hell of a lens. My second best rated choice among 50:s for Nikon digital too. :wub:

brucemuir said:
Is the C/Y 50 1.4 (MM)Planar the same optical formula as the new ones offered is Nikon F mount and EOS mount?

Not sure, but they seem to be very close in rendering. You also have the 50/1.7 there, that is even better according to some people.

Zeiss Planar T* 50mm 1.4 lens in Nikon F mount?

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency