james.liam
Well-known
With all the 2nd hand Zeiss ZF lenses about, a few extra dollars gets you a class-leading optic. The Nikkor 35/2 and 35/1.4 for examples, designs from the 1960’s and 70’s, cannot hold a candle to the ZF 2/35 (and the 1,4/35). Same goes for the ZF 2/100 and 2/135 APO.
If anybody wants to sell me a Zeiss F-Mount 35/2 for under $100, I'll buy it. That's what my Nikkor-O 35/2 cost. Same with a ZF 100/2 and 135/2 APO, sell it to me for the $100 paid for the Nikkor 85/2 and $60 Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3. I had the Nikkor 135/2, but like the 135/2.3 Vivitar- which has floating optics. All of my lenses perform beautifully on the Nikon Df, and Nikon F2. If someone is shooting a D850- pick up the AF-D Micro-Nikkor lenses. Not sure if anyone is getting Zeiss F-Mount lenses for around $100, most on Ebay are running several times the cost of the Nikkor lenses.
35mm F2 Nikkor-O (2nd version), wide-open at F2 on the Nikon Df, 1/30th second, ISO 12,800. Focus on the eyes, done manually- focus assist got confused, it was dark.
There used to be a saying about shooting black bears in caves at Midnight.
Nikkor 105/2.5 Planar formula lens, K-Series (multi-coated, Rubber Inset Focus Ring), Factory Ai's.
Wide-open on the Df.
Another lens under $100, off Ebay. Mint glass, user condition.
35mm F2 Nikkor-O (2nd version), wide-open at F2 on the Nikon Df, 1/30th second, ISO 12,800. Focus on the eyes, done manually- focus assist got confused, it was dark.
There used to be a saying about shooting black bears in caves at Midnight.
Nikkor 105/2.5 Planar formula lens, K-Series (multi-coated, Rubber Inset Focus Ring), Factory Ai's.
Wide-open on the Df.
Another lens under $100, off Ebay. Mint glass, user condition.
james.liam
Well-known
If $100 is your only criteria, you are correct. These were great lenses for their time and still fun to use. Have an 8/2.8 and 16/3.5 fisheyes that still are the bomb and a NOCT I’d never sell. With the exception of the 105, these old primes won’t deliver critical sharpness and the rendering on film was always too cool for my tastes.
I bought a 2,8/25 ZF for $499 and it blew the doors off of the Nikkor 24/2 I used to own; the Zeiss is sharp wide-open and beautiful colors on Ektar and Ektachrome.
I bought a 2,8/25 ZF for $499 and it blew the doors off of the Nikkor 24/2 I used to own; the Zeiss is sharp wide-open and beautiful colors on Ektar and Ektachrome.
The OP is on a budget.
My Nikkor 24/2- user condition, found for $100. Picked up a "Lens Lot" for $400 on Ebay, 105/2.5, 85/2, 35/2, and 24/2. All perfect glass.
With a high-resolution Digital camera, the differences will show. The Zeiss lenses are designed for digital sensors, meaning longer optical paths and stronger retro-focus designs for wide-angle lenses. For film: this is not as important. The OP is shooting film.
I've always preferred the 24/2.8 Nikkor-NC. Can't get Panatomic-X anymore.
My Nikkor 24/2- user condition, found for $100. Picked up a "Lens Lot" for $400 on Ebay, 105/2.5, 85/2, 35/2, and 24/2. All perfect glass.
With a high-resolution Digital camera, the differences will show. The Zeiss lenses are designed for digital sensors, meaning longer optical paths and stronger retro-focus designs for wide-angle lenses. For film: this is not as important. The OP is shooting film.
I've always preferred the 24/2.8 Nikkor-NC. Can't get Panatomic-X anymore.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
I didn't say candid portraits of active children was easy.
But I found it far more doable with an 85mm than 105mm.
Chris
AlexBG
Well-known
I did get excited about this as I love zeiss glass but the price difference is huge. If I ever sell my leica (I won't) a zeiss 50mm f1.4 on a Nikon FH3P or something like that would be what I would have.
AlexBG
Well-known
You are right about all of this Sonnar Brian, £100 ebay mint glass user lenses I love to play around with. For what i shoot with film cameras I don't need perfect sharpness, I still love my jupiter 8 on my M3 even though it feels a bit wrong to shoot with a lens so cheap. Any of my older lenses that I adapt to digital cameras can give lovely glows or softness but for pixel peeping they are useless.
There was a recent thread on here about peoples favourite photo that they had taken from this year, not one had in the description about sharpness and some were really soft or even out of focus.
There was a recent thread on here about peoples favourite photo that they had taken from this year, not one had in the description about sharpness and some were really soft or even out of focus.
These are with the Nikkor 85/1.8, last version- factory Ai converted. This lens is Multicoated, rubber inset focus ring.
Another "user-Condition" perfect glass lens, was ~$125.
DSC_0699 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Nikkor 85/1.8, wide-open on the Nikon Df, ISO 12,800.
DSC_0672 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
At F2.
ISO 3200, 85/1.8 at F2-
DSC_0657 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Another "user-Condition" perfect glass lens, was ~$125.
DSC_0699 by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrNikkor 85/1.8, wide-open on the Nikon Df, ISO 12,800.
DSC_0672 by fiftyonepointsix, on FlickrAt F2.
ISO 3200, 85/1.8 at F2-
DSC_0657 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Love ZFs, I have a couple (25/2.8 and 50/2 Makro.)
But they aren't exactly a 'few extra dollars.' More like, a 'lot of extra dollars' at least compared to the common Nikkors. And I bought mine at good used prices, one of them from RFF classifieds.
pluton
Well-known
Good suggestion. I can confirm that, lens for like-lens (Nikon 35/2 vs. ZF 35/2, etc), you can expect superior detail resolution on the APS-C sensor from the typical Zeiss ZF lens. Plus... the ZF lenses are, in general, much younger than the typical Nikon Manual focus lens. Also, they use classic dissimilar metal helicoids, so are not likely to self-destruct if the grease dries out.
shawn
Veteran
85mm is good for skating...
D700 85 f1.4D 1/100 f1.4 ISO 2800
D700 85 f1.4D 1/100 f1.4 ISO 1600
Just a great lens.
For a lower cost option the Rokinon (read the name backwards) 85mm f1.4 MF lens is actually really nice too.
Shawn
D700 85 f1.4D 1/100 f1.4 ISO 2800
D700 85 f1.4D 1/100 f1.4 ISO 1600
Just a great lens.
For a lower cost option the Rokinon (read the name backwards) 85mm f1.4 MF lens is actually really nice too.
Shawn
james.liam
Well-known
All depends what you're buying. A new Nikkor 24/2.8 AIS is just under $600, 2nd-hand for $150-200 (condition dependent). I bought the mint ZF 2,8/25 for $490. Is it a few hundred more? Yes. Is it a superior optic to the Nikkor? Very much so. Spend thousands on a camera, why would you rely on a $20 lens? I've got a Nikkor E 75-150 that's fun and not bad for a single-coated zoom. Used to use it on a D700 as a walkabout. It is not what I'd be shooting at an important family event or on a trip to a new place. I'm now even loathe risking a costly roll of Ektachrome on it.
Never understood the glee from Leica shooters who spent $7000 on a body and ramble on about the wondrous $199.99 Chinese lens they just bought for it. Like putting non-radial Goodyear whitewalls on a Porsche.
Exactly. The combined ZF and CV SL-series cover the FL gamut from 15 to 180mm. Some are definitely pricey, even collector's items while others like the affordable CV 2/40 or 1,4/58 and ZF 2,8/21, 2,8/25 or 2/28 are a generation or two ahead of their AIS Nikkor counterparts in design though for admittedly more--what you get in return are lenses that are remarkably sharp wide-open. Any good lens is great by f/5.6. You get what you pay for.
Not disagreeing with the sentiment that the ZF lenses are fabulous, and that they are worth the used market value. Just saying that they are not just ‘a few extra dollars.’ 
Similar to the pricey Leica with the cheap lens attached, how about the pricey used Zeiss on a $20 Nikon film body?
But ultimately that’s neither here nor there. I can get just as much satisfaction from a cheaply acquired Nikkor as with a pricey Zeiss. Used market value has nothing to do with photographic performance, it has to do with supply and demand. Nikon made millions of lenses and many of their finest sell for very little.
Similar to the pricey Leica with the cheap lens attached, how about the pricey used Zeiss on a $20 Nikon film body?
But ultimately that’s neither here nor there. I can get just as much satisfaction from a cheaply acquired Nikkor as with a pricey Zeiss. Used market value has nothing to do with photographic performance, it has to do with supply and demand. Nikon made millions of lenses and many of their finest sell for very little.
james.liam
Well-known
The $20 Nikon body is the perfect carrier for a juicy $20 roll of Velvia and a high-performance tasty Zeiss lens.
Agreed!
...
...
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
I really liked the ZF 25mm f/2.8, despite it being a bit of a flunk in the scientific tests, it makes a great landscape lens and balanced fine on a D850/F6 size camera. Unfortunately, I found the lenses of this size, including 28mm f/2 and 35mm f/2, to balance quite badly on older SLR cameras like the F. They are very large and front heavy compared to a normal Nikkor prime lens. The other lenses, especially those like the 25mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2 (a Sonnar lens BTW!), are freaking huge and completely unwieldy on a traditional SLR camera. The same is true with the newer Milvus series of lenses - they went even larger with the 25mm f/1.4!
The only manageable lens, the 50mm f/1.4, is not a very distinguised performer. I think they improved it with the Milvus series. Anyway, I would much rather have the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar for a normal lens.
The only manageable lens, the 50mm f/1.4, is not a very distinguised performer. I think they improved it with the Milvus series. Anyway, I would much rather have the Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar for a normal lens.
AlexBG
Well-known
I inherited my M3 else probably would not have that as my main film camera, the Nikon FA was £150 with the 50mm 1.4 and then the 28mm was £120. Selling the 50mm and 28mm will allow me to buy one of the lenses I asked about. I don't understand people that shoot film and use old lenses but try and get ultimate resolution and sharpness by finding 'the one.' If you want that type of photo newer lenses and digital will nearly always win.
Zeiss lenses are great but don't give the look I am going for on film.
madNbad
Well-known
If you're only going to use the Nikon occasionally, the Nikon Series E 100 2.8 has been mentioned. It's small, light and the focus throw is fairly short. Here in the U.S. they sell for around a hundred dollars. It's a good portrait length and it seems to be in the price range you are looking for.
Chinese lens on my $7000 Leica.
75mm 7Artisans Wide-Open at F1.25, 1/90th sec, ISO2500.
75mm 7Artisans Wide-Open at F1.25, 1/90th sec, ISO2500.
"Back in the day"- fast lenses for an SLR were bought for easy-focusing, the bright image produced in the viewfinder and narrow-DOF helped focus. Wide-Open use, "in reserve". We all knew to stop down to F5.6 or F8 for maximum sharpness. This test of Nikkor normal lenses- the test is done at 50LP/mm. Note the performance of the inexpensive Nikkor 50/2 at F5.6- the top of the bar is a Leica Summicron. You can pick up a Nikkor 50/2 easily for $25, i've received a pair of them as body caps.
My most used lens in the 1970s was the Zoom-Nikkor 43~86/3.5, Ai version.
Nikon F Photomic, Panatomic-X. I showed the 10 year old in the picture how to use my brand-new F2a. 43 years later, still have the lens and camera. But no Panatomic-X.