Nikon Zeiss lenses
Mar 29, 2016 16:55:36 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
Juan santos wrote:
need information on how good the Zeiss lenses are compare to the nikon lenses. do they worth the extra money you will expend on the Zeiss lenses.
I bought a new Zeiss 55 f/1.4 three weeks ago and consider it to be enough better than my 55 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor at normal distances that the price was worth it to me. The Micro-Nikkor is now used for close-up and macro work only. I've not yet tried any of the other new Zeiss lenses, but the 135 f/2.0 is enticing, especially since B&H has a $400 rebate now.
Mar 29, 2016 17:11:41 #
RichieC
Loc: Adirondacks
Yep, Izaak Perelman can make world class music out of a student grade fiddle. But that isn't his choice when performing...
I have been very careful choosing my primes, they include Zeiss and Nikons. Next weekend I am upgrading my 25mm Distagon to the Zeiss 21 Milvus and strapping it onto my D800e... - then I am going to show it Italy. I am lucky enough to make money commercially using them- they have all paid forthemsleves long ago. But I like things of quality, and find in the long run, they aren't more expensive at all.
I have been very careful choosing my primes, they include Zeiss and Nikons. Next weekend I am upgrading my 25mm Distagon to the Zeiss 21 Milvus and strapping it onto my D800e... - then I am going to show it Italy. I am lucky enough to make money commercially using them- they have all paid forthemsleves long ago. But I like things of quality, and find in the long run, they aren't more expensive at all.
Mar 29, 2016 18:38:39 #
Interesting and I am wondering why as I have several variants of the Nikkors.
RWR wrote:
I bought a new Zeiss 55 f/1.4 three weeks ago and consider it to be enough better than my 55 f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor at normal distances that the price was worth it to me. The Micro-Nikkor is now used for close-up and macro work only. I've not yet tried any of the other new Zeiss lenses, but the 135 f/2.0 is enticing, especially since B&H has a $400 rebate now.
Mar 29, 2016 20:04:58 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
forjava wrote:
Interesting and I am wondering why as I have several variants of the Nikkors.
55mm is shorter than I like for close-ups in the field, and I was only using my f/3.5 lens at longer distances (2 feet to infinity). I like the f/1.4 speed for ease of focusing in low-light and for low contrast subjects, but was not impressed with the Nikkors I tried. I rejected the 58 f/1.4 Nikkor because it's a G lens, can't use it on my F3, F4E or F4S. So, I decided on the 55 f/1.4 Zeiss, which I "think" may even be a bit sharper than my 50 f/2.0 Summicron-R. Before buying, I wrapped a bit of sheet lead in a rag around my 55 Micro-Nikkor to equal the weight of the Zeiss, and decided it would be perfect for low shutter speed hand-held shots. It's only been three weeks, but I'm not disappointed.
Mar 29, 2016 20:35:55 #
Juan santos wrote:
need information on how good the Zeiss lenses are compare to the nikon lenses. do they worth the extra money you will expend on the Zeiss lenses.
I have two for my D800e, a 21mm ZF.2 and a 28mm ZF.2 I love them both. I love the feel, construction, and manual focus.
Mar 29, 2016 20:49:11 #
Thanks guys for your reply, years ago I compared the Hasselblad
the Mamiya, Bronica and Rolliflex lenses, also a Nikon 300mm 2.8, and 90mm Leica lens.
The Hasselblad had better results that the Mamiya, Bronica and Rolliflex. I was surprised that the Nikon 300mm 2.8 did so well against the Hasselblad, the Leica 90mm lens also did well, it seems that every manufacture has a some lenses that are very good, and for what I'm reading the Zeiss 35mm are as good as the 2-1/4 Zeiss lenses.
the Mamiya, Bronica and Rolliflex lenses, also a Nikon 300mm 2.8, and 90mm Leica lens.
The Hasselblad had better results that the Mamiya, Bronica and Rolliflex. I was surprised that the Nikon 300mm 2.8 did so well against the Hasselblad, the Leica 90mm lens also did well, it seems that every manufacture has a some lenses that are very good, and for what I'm reading the Zeiss 35mm are as good as the 2-1/4 Zeiss lenses.
Mar 30, 2016 01:25:27 #
Thanks. I see you shoot in a wide range of conditions. I am mostly in my small home studio, managed lighting, MF, high contrast. I can see the 1.4 would do well with low contrast. Looking forward to getting a Zeiss or a Voigtlander in due course. I need to learn more first, using what I have.
RWR wrote:
55mm is shorter than I like for close-ups in the f... (show quote)
Mar 31, 2016 10:16:03 #
Juan santos wrote:
need information on how good the Zeiss lenses are compare to the nikon lenses. do they worth the extra money you will expend on the Zeiss lenses.
I think it would depend on the lens. Zeiss makes some top notch lenses but then so does Nikon (Canon and others too).
Years ago in the film era I had three f2.8 Zeiss lenses. I don't think they were the sharpest but there was a quality about them that was extremely pleasing.
If Zeiss made auto focus lenses that were competitively priced I would have some today.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.