kjoosten
Rocket Scientist
The high end digital Nikons are only semi-friendly to non-CPU lenses. You need to manually input the max aperture value in a table. It can easily be called up later when the lens is mounted.
gavinlg
Veteran
I have a d300 at the moment, came off a 5d - main reason was to use the zeiss glass on it's native mount, as well as the ergonomics and weathersealed d300 body.
The d300 is very good, but to be honest if I could I'd trade it all back for my old 5d. Buying the d300 was a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side" for me, but it really actually wasn't. It's a very very complex camera, to the point where it's kinda silly. There are that many different settings and autofocus modes and user banks and shooting options and custom functions, when all I want are the things that allow me to take photos.
I have trouble getting good skintones with the d300, the fine detail in images isn't anywhere near that of the 5d, and I really miss expensive canon prime lenses, which are some of the best there are. The ZF lenses are really good but in the end on a camera I use for work, I really need autofocus.
The d300 is very good, but to be honest if I could I'd trade it all back for my old 5d. Buying the d300 was a case of "the grass is always greener on the other side" for me, but it really actually wasn't. It's a very very complex camera, to the point where it's kinda silly. There are that many different settings and autofocus modes and user banks and shooting options and custom functions, when all I want are the things that allow me to take photos.
I have trouble getting good skintones with the d300, the fine detail in images isn't anywhere near that of the 5d, and I really miss expensive canon prime lenses, which are some of the best there are. The ZF lenses are really good but in the end on a camera I use for work, I really need autofocus.
I haven't tried the 85/1.4, but as for the D300, it's great. I'm sure I don't use nearly all the features, but I don't have to. The options I need are easy to set. I use several manual focus prime (like a 50/1.2 which is a new favorite); a couple AF primes, and the 80-200. Most of the time the superb 24/2.8 AF is on the camera.
High ISO is great.
If I could only have one camera, this would be it.
High ISO is great.
If I could only have one camera, this would be it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Avotius
Some guy
As promised, here are a few samples. These however were taken with a D40X not a D300, which I would have enjoyed more probably. The D40X is the least capable DSLR I have ever used. Anyway whatever, here you go.
One thing using the lens that I found rather odd, there were a lot of chromatic aberration problems. It was rather shocking really, like the picture with my phone, on the chrome there is a lot of red and blue ghosts which is the strong CA. I am thinking it might be the camera not the lens because my high contrast shots with the D300 didnt show anything like this.
One thing using the lens that I found rather odd, there were a lot of chromatic aberration problems. It was rather shocking really, like the picture with my phone, on the chrome there is a lot of red and blue ghosts which is the strong CA. I am thinking it might be the camera not the lens because my high contrast shots with the D300 didnt show anything like this.
Last edited:
Sam N
Well-known
That Zeiss has a really different character than the Canon 85/1.2. I like the look of the Zeiss a lot. The CAs in out of focus areas are longitudinal CAs. Typically, highlights behind the plane of focus will have green halos and those in front of it will have magenta-ish halos. I'm pretty sure it's the lens and not the body. They occur in a lot of fast lenses, even some of the best ones. They are more troublesome in some lighting conditions than others.
Yours is the first case I've heard of anyone moving away from full frame, though the D300 is a very impressive camera. As for the Canon primes, expensive is a relative term. They're all much cheaper than competing Leica lenses. The Canon 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 are several times cheaper than the Nikon 28/1.4 (and have fast silent focusing). The 85L is pricey, but really has no competition. The majority of Canon lenses are cheaper than their counterparts from competing 1st party makers.
Yours is the first case I've heard of anyone moving away from full frame, though the D300 is a very impressive camera. As for the Canon primes, expensive is a relative term. They're all much cheaper than competing Leica lenses. The Canon 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 are several times cheaper than the Nikon 28/1.4 (and have fast silent focusing). The 85L is pricey, but really has no competition. The majority of Canon lenses are cheaper than their counterparts from competing 1st party makers.
Pascal
Member
I'll second that thought.......If you are looking to use Zeiss lenses on Canon EF mount SLR's - specifically the full frame SLR's where these lenses really shine.
So far, Conurus has been able to convert the 85mm f1.4, 17-35mm f2.8, 70-300mm f4-5.6, 100mm f2.8 Macro, and 24-85mm f3.5-4.5. I doubt if you can find any lenses that can truly match the performance and image quality of these converted Zeiss lenses on full frame digital SLR's.
You get full autofocus and auto aperture capability - just like with Canon EF lenses. Some of the N lenses also use USM for autofocus. Beats the manual focus and stop down metering which can get a bit frustrating sometimes.
These lenses can get a bit pricey and you have to ship them to Canada to get them converted. Plus finding a good copy is not easy (hit or miss on eBay).
If you are willing to spend the $$$ and wait for the conversion, you are rewarded with some of the best optics (slightly better than ZF in some cases) available today for the Canon EF mount.
Photon42
burn the box
Avotius,
as you mention the d300 ergonomics, I'm interested to hear in what sense for you they make a difference to those of the d200.
I've never used the 85/1.4, but before you go for it, check the macro planar 100/2. It's worth a look, seriously.
Rgds
Ivo
as you mention the d300 ergonomics, I'm interested to hear in what sense for you they make a difference to those of the d200.
I've never used the 85/1.4, but before you go for it, check the macro planar 100/2. It's worth a look, seriously.
Rgds
Ivo
nzeeman
Well-known
...interesting words from a noctilux user...
Ororaro
Well-known
To me, the ZI camera is just a rebadged exclusive Bessa. Quite good, but not Leica level. The Zeiss lenses are so close to Voigtlander lenses I wouldn't be surprised they just are. And by the way, I quite liked the Nokton 50 1.5, which outperformed my Nikkor 50 1.8 AF on every level.
I love the Noctilux and the cheap and defunct Summarit 5cm almost as much, among many other lenses. One is 5000$ and the other 150-500$. The only link between them is the extra unique images they produce.The noctilux wide open and for its versatility and the other because of the poetic images. You can stick any logo you wish over a Noctilux. You can call it a Holga, but the images don't lie. Same for the Summarit. The other lenses, though,
But beyond all this, what I said in my original post was simply a way to tell the OP that it would be nonsense to change SLR systems and go crazy in different directions just because of one or two lenses that seem to be rebadged voigtlander and easily equalled by Canon lenses and without going through the money spending and hassles.
gavinlg
Veteran
Zeiss Cosina lenses are most certainly through and through ZEISS LENSES, only built by cosina, which is certainly no bad thing, as they are SUPERBLY built.
Optical designs and overall design is all zeiss.
Previous SLR zeiss lenses were made by Kyocera - same deal
Optical designs and overall design is all zeiss.
Previous SLR zeiss lenses were made by Kyocera - same deal
nzeeman
Well-known
zeiss is not cosina. zeiss never stopped manufacturing optics - they just didnt make cameras and and camera lenses. but they made a lot of optics for all other things.
Avotius
Some guy
When I first used a d200 it felt bulbous and an weird and what not but I was coming from a 20D and still am but I really dont know why but the d300 fit better, I didnt have any negative thoughts about it when using it besides that I wish the finder was a little bigger. Maybe it was because I had a zeiss lens on the end of it and the thought of a digital camera with zeiss optics but a price many times less then the m8 was causing a little bit of euphoria :angel:
touché
No beef about using a noctilux, I think we use what we want. As for a possible switch to another system for a couple of lenses, did you always used the leica m cameras and is the noctilux one of the reasons that you continue to? Not to rub it in but we all have our own preferences, yous is to have this low light ultra versatile lens, mine is the be able to render images with zeiss color qualities, and you cant say that zeiss lenses dont have their own qualities the same way you cant say the noctilux doesnt either. Yes maybe canon lenses are as sharp as zeiss lenses, same goes for some cosina lenses too, but im so completely not interested in sharpness, hell, my argus 50mm lens with fungus growing all through it and shoddily modified by myself to fit on canon ef mount was sharp enough for me. At 40 inches as iso 3200 on my 20D the prints were more then acceptable by any standard, even more so considering its not a precision interment in anyway. Sharpness? Bah, who cares, im in it for the character, which I think many canon lenses are seriously lacking in what I desire.
By the way, I recently bought an m6ttl, im didnt sell my bessa because I think in many ways for a practical user the bessa is a better camera, in the back of my head I know one day I will sell the m6 but the bessa will probably never go. As for the Zeiss Ikon? It is better then the M6 (even if I have had a few problems with them) and I even considered it instead of the m6 and still am.
Yup, a lot of Zeiss optics of recent fame were not made directly by zeiss, the same way many cars are not made by the company whos badge sits on them. Nothing wrong if it works right, but zeiss lenses, even the ones made by cosina, are zeiss lenses, the way they render, the shaprness and out of focus rendering qualities, all quintacentualy zeiss for the experneced user who knows how to take advantage of such greatness. The only think I wishes is that cosina would seal the lenses better, my 50 planar has a good 6-7 things of dusts in it and also it has a wee bit of the barrel wobble, which is a big no no in my book too.
ywenz
Veteran
Looks like this Zeiss exhibit the same color artifacts as my Canon 85 1.2.. green halos behind the point of focus.. magenta halos in front of the point of focus..
jerkmam
Member
canon t90
canon t90
i love canont 90,i wood like to use zeiss lenes no it . lecia also . i have /24mm1.4,24mm2,50mm1.2 fdf 35mm 2f200mm28 .3bodys :bang::bang:
canon t90
i love canont 90,i wood like to use zeiss lenes no it . lecia also . i have /24mm1.4,24mm2,50mm1.2 fdf 35mm 2f200mm28 .3bodys :bang::bang:
fuwen
Well-known
OT a bit. Yes Zeiss has lenses made by Rollei, Kyocera and Cosina but they are Zeiss German in origin, in design.
I am not sure about recent Leica lenses but I remember Leica R 16 fisheye and 24/2.8 are Minolta design. Many leica R zooms by sigma. Once upon a time R 19mm by Schneider, also 35 and 28 shift by Schneider, 15/3.5 by Zeiss and the recent 15/2.8 by Schneider.
I am not sure about recent Leica lenses but I remember Leica R 16 fisheye and 24/2.8 are Minolta design. Many leica R zooms by sigma. Once upon a time R 19mm by Schneider, also 35 and 28 shift by Schneider, 15/3.5 by Zeiss and the recent 15/2.8 by Schneider.