Zeiss ZF Nikon 50 - opinions?

Jerevan

Jerevan

Recycled User
Local time
10:51 AM
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
1,118
What are the opinions of the Nikon ZF? Worth getting or overpiced for what it is? I am specifically pondering the 50 1.4 versus a Nikkor 50 1.4. Trying to find a 50 1.2 would be nice but I've had two slip out of my hands due to low funds at the time.
 
I really like this lens, I know people complain about the bokeh on it but I think that under certain condition any lens can be made to look bad.
I've had the 50 1.4, distagon 35/2 and the 85.
The 50 to me had the best feel, the focus was smooth not stiff like the others and I really miss this lens.
The Nikkor 50 1.4 is ok but I think the Zeiss is better and the 50 1.2 is also nice but at 1.2 everything looks soft, you really need to stop it down and it's wonderful.
I believe KEH has a few 1.2's in stock and for not much more than they go on ebay.
Hope this helps
 
i believe photozone tested it, worth to check out their review
if you're a subscriber to reid reviews, he's tested it out recently against the voigtlander 58mm 1.4 which you should also consider, many pentax users love the 58mm. for nikon it's also chipped for full metering capability
 
I did a test of the ZF 50f1.4 and the Nikon 50f1.4 and the results in sharpness and color were the same. I did a close focus test on my friends face, which I will post the results later. I used a Nikon AI 50f1.4 which from KEH you can get for around $100. So IMHO I do not think it is worth it to spend 5 times the price for the same lens performance.
 
Jerevan said:
What are the opinions of the Nikon ZF? Worth getting or overpiced for what it is? I am specifically pondering the 50 1.4 versus a Nikkor 50 1.4. Trying to find a 50 1.2 would be nice but I've had two slip out of my hands due to low funds at the time.
Click to expand...

Matsuiyastore has two used 50/1.2 lenses for sale here. I have bought a few lenses from them and can highly recommend them.
 
It probably depends, what you're looking for exactly. I haven't heard people rave about this lens, but then - who cares. I've got two Nikkors, a 1.8 AF and a 1.2 MF. Both deserve to be there. the 1.2 MF is a very nice lens, though a bit flare prone and a bit soft wide open. Keep direct light sources out of the image frame. The image attached was done with the 1.2MF.

Cheers
Ivo
 
In my opinion the reason to buy the zeiss lens is not for any reason stated here. The reason to have the zeiss lens is to have that nice zeiss rendering of colors and the certain qualities that you just dont get with other glass. Many people say they cant see the difference between the colors the zeiss and nikon lenses produce but im not one of them as I have actually had the chance to deeply compare and contrast different lens lines and the characteristics they have.
 
I completely agree with this


Avotius said:
In my opinion the reason to buy the zeiss lens is not for any reason stated here. The reason to have the zeiss lens is to have that nice zeiss rendering of colors and the certain qualities that you just dont get with other glass. Many people say they cant see the difference between the colors the zeiss and nikon lenses produce but im not one of them as I have actually had the chance to deeply compare and contrast different lens lines and the characteristics they have.
Click to expand...
 
Avotius said:
In my opinion the reason to buy the zeiss lens is not for any reason stated here. The reason to have the zeiss lens is to have that nice zeiss rendering of colors and the certain qualities that you just dont get with other glass. Many people say they cant see the difference between the colors the zeiss and nikon lenses produce but im not one of them as I have actually had the chance to deeply compare and contrast different lens lines and the characteristics they have.
Click to expand...

Nikon changed their multicoating around 2000 to 2001 from Nikon Integrated Coating (NIC) to Nikon Super Integrated Coating (SIC). Lenses, including the MF lens range, manufactured from then have the new multicoating. The difference is clearly visible when the NIC and SIC coatings are compared side by side. I find the SIC coating renders colours slightly warmer than the earlier NIC coating, and actually very similar to the Zeiss lenses.

I once tested an AIS 50/1.2, AIS 50/1.4, and ZF 50/1.4 and found the best lens for me to be the AIS 50/1.2. At 1.4, all these lenses are on the soft side, but from about f1.8 to f2.8 I found the AIS 50/1.2 to be better across the entire field than the other lenses. I also prefer the bokeh of the AIS 50/1.2 over the ZF 50/1.4 and AIS 50/1.4.
 
Thanks for your information! I have been drooling over the Matsuiya ads and looking at the Zeiss, too, but I am holding out at the moment, waiting for the holidays to pass before I do anything more.
 
Jerevan said:
What are the opinions of the Nikon ZF? Worth getting or overpiced for what it is? I am specifically pondering the 50 1.4 versus a Nikkor 50 1.4. Trying to find a 50 1.2 would be nice but I've had two slip out of my hands due to low funds at the time.
Click to expand...

The 50/1.2 AIS is about the price of the Zeiss 50/1.4.
 
Not to make your decision more difficult but my modest advice is to buy the macroplanar instead and without hesitation.
The story of the ZF 1,4 50 is somewhat strange. I bought one on the wake of Zeiss stating that it is the best lens they ever tested.
Certainly a serious lens, but, in my opinion it has some idiosyncrasies that make it a difficult lens: it is hard to have an a priori feeling of the results.
I have a paper by a Zeiss engineer that between the lines seems to give some justification (perhaps an indirect answer to deluded customers?) to what I say in terms of focus shift. The performance at the center is lower and this is not quite usual (perhaps in some wide angle)
I lost the link to Zeiss paper but I can send you a copy by mail. It is a divulgative paper on MTF
Cheers
Paul
 
The zf planar 1.4 is a brutally brutally sharp lens at around f4-f8 - the sharpest I've ever tried. Wide open it is very average, much worse than say - a canon ef 50mm 1.4 or a nikon AFD 50mm 1.8 and it's bokeh can vary wildly from horrible to really nice.

It's build quality is gorgeous, it's handling is gorgeous, it's beautiful looking, but unless you plan on shooting it from f2.8 up I can't recommend it. The makro planar 50mm f2 on the other hand is typical zeiss. Exceptional optically.
 
I googled the author H. H. Nasse and retrieved the link.
Here it is foe anyone interested:
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_30_MTF_en/$File/CLN_MTF_Kurven_EN.pdf
 
Well, I bought a Nikkor non-AI 50/.14 in the meantime, with the economic situation being what it is. I know it is no bokeh king but better than nothing. I'll have to put the future 50/1.2 on hold but thanks for some very useful information in this thread,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom