Help me think through a lens choice--50mm Zeiss for Nikon

[jljohn]

I'm making a lens change, and I would love a little help thinking through the decision.

I use a Nikon D3S most of the time, and I shoot a range of AF-S G f/1.4 primes on it. At the 50mm FL, I've used every Nikon AF made, and, frankly, I dislike all of them. I find that when I'm editing images, the 50mm AF-D f/1.4 images stick out like a sore thumb when viewed next to images coming from the 85mm, 35mm, or 24mm f/1.4 lenses, all of which render gorgeous images. The result is that I avoid the lens in most paid contexts. It's not a problem, because between the 35 and the 85 I can do what I need, but for personal use I love a 50mm.

Since I've adapted to not using a 50mm in paid contexts, I don't feel like I need an autofocus 50mm anymore. For personal use, a manual focus lens would be fine. Enter Zeiss. (For the record, I have considered the new Nikon 58mm f/1.4, but the samples that I have seen and the test results so far are simply unimpressive.) The three characteristics that I value most in looking for a new 50mm lens are contrast at full aperture, attractiveness of bokeh, and sharpness at full aperture. Based on the samples I've seen, the 50mm Planar f/1.4 ZF.2 is out. What I've seen that I really like are the 50mm Makro-Planar f/2 ZF.2 and the 50mm f/1.4 OTUS ZF.2. The $2,700 difference between these two lenses is pretty big. Is there anyone out there who has had hands on both of these lenses or who feels like they could offer some insightful analysis between the two?

Here are my considerations: First, I would like to have the f/1.4, but the reality is, that focusing f/1.4 in dim light on a Nikon DSLR will be a challenge, and I would imagine that most of the large aperture use will be a closer to f/2. Still, there will be times when I might want to choose f/1.4.

Second, because the Makro-Planar is, well, a Makro, the focus throw for normal working distances appears to be awful small. For those who have use it on non-katzeye (or other MF-oriented) screens, has this presented a challenge?

Third, 55mm fits between 35mm and 85mm every ever-so-slightly better than 50mm, but that's not much of a difference.

Fourth, the OTUS is undoubtedly a sharper lens, but I'm not entirely sure the D3S has the resolution to utilize the difference over the makro-planar.

So, how would you assess or approach a decision between these two lenses? I'd appreciate your thoughts and insight. Thanks!

Jeremy

 

[kbb]

I have used the ZF 50/2 since early 2008, first on the 12MP D3, and now on the D800(E).
It's the best reflex 50mm I've used at all distances and f stops.
Yes, the focus stroke is compressed in the 'normal' range due to it's being a macro lens.
If I were you, I'd at least do a quick camera store test on the new Nikon 58mm before ruling it out.

 

[mfogiel]

Makro Planar 50 is a big and heavy lens. On film ( which is what I only shoot) it certainly is difficult to beat:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137012.
On digital, people were reporting some fringing issues, etc. However, if you have never tried a modern Zeiss lens, you should at least borrow one, to see the differences in contrast, colour rendering, micro contrast and 3D look. MP in a way is a boring lens - great across apertures and distances, it will excel in general purpose work. The 55-58/1.4 lenses are kings of portraiture.

 

[jarski]

consider also Sigma 50? many choose it over Canon and Nikon equivalents.

 

[jljohn]

Thanks for the replies so far. I probably will do a quick camera store test on the Nikon 58mm before ruling it out, but, I doubt I'll get an opportunity to test the Zeiss options. While Sigma has produced some great performers recently, I am still just hesitant regarding their QC and durability.

Has the compressed focus throw on the Mikro-Planar made focusing accurately any more difficult when compared to lenses with a longer throw?

Thanks!

 

[hans voralberg]

Thanks for the replies so far. I probably will do a quick camera store test on the Nikon 58mm before ruling it out, but, I doubt I'll get an opportunity to test the Zeiss options. While Sigma has produced some great performers recently, I am still just hesitant regarding their QC and durability.

Has the compressed focus throw on the Mikro-Planar made focusing accurately any more difficult when compared to lenses with a longer throw?

Thanks!

Durability is fine, their EX range is actually better built than most Nikon. And since they release the Art range the Pro lens now comes with free calibration service at Sigma service centres in case new cameras come out and things go south, or not working correctly to begin with.

 

[redisburning]

MP is fine, but has a very long transition to OoF. it's a part of the design.

the 55/1.4 is literally the best production SLR lens. is it worth the extra 2700? if you have the money, it really is. it's HUGE, but you're shooting a D3s and you already use 85/1.4 and I assume you've seen a 24-70 before it's like that size, though lighter.

I like my 50MP, a lot. But if I could afford the Otus right now, I'd already have sold the MP.

 

[mfogiel]

I also use the Sigma 50/1.4, mainly for its bokeh. Howewer, it is a 45mm fl in reality, and in comparison with the MP it does even appear on the radar.