Updated Zeiss ZF Page with ZF Bokeh

leafy said:
The Contax 100/2 Planar is one lens that is really really sharp even wide open (don't shoot portraits with it stopped down, you will be shot instead), and yet has the smoothest bokeh to me, ever. Now only if I can put this thing on a rangefinder....
Click to expand...

In the USA, I think Ken Ruth takes on that kind of work. At one point, after looking at the prices of a 75 lux, I thought about picking up a Nikon or Contaxt 85/1.4 and having Ken Ruth adapt it to M mount - it would still be cheaper than buying the lux.
 
If I were the distributor of those ZF lenses I wouldn'be very proud of the bokeh they produce. It's rather disturbing. But from a 500 bucks lens one would expect it to be sharp AND with smooth bokeh.
I love my Zuikos for their bokeh. They may not be so sharp wide open, but the bokeh is really nice. Stop it down by 2 stops and the sharpness equals or outperforms similar lenses from other manufacturers. And I can get Zuikos really cheap. I can get a complete set of body plus some lenses for 500 dollars!
Is the sharpness of ZF really that important to you that you would pay 500 bucks for a standard lens? Just don't understand why anyone would pay such money for a standard lens...
 
beethamd said:
The Planar is not a retrofocus design (the lens-film distance for the Nikon Bajonet mount is 46.5mm)
Click to expand...

Aha, that is one thing I have been quite curious about. The 46.5mm register length means that no lens element should be in shorter distance than the register, so that the rear element is at about 45mm the most if my assumption is correct. Given that the 50mm focal length is only 5mm away from this shortest distance when focused at infinity, wouldn't it mean that the symmetrical centre of the lens is further from the film plane than 50mm? Is it still a retro-focus design compared to the RF Planar?
 
Lenses with a focal length greater than 46.5 mm are OK, they don't need to be retrofocus in design - it's the lenses that have a shorter focal length than the film-to-lens distance which need to be retrofucus designs.

BTW how does your 25mm CY compare to your ZM 25?
 
The Zeiss Tessar is nice too. They have non-flat image fields which helps with OOF areas beyond the focus point.
 
Those bokeh samples made me even happier that I got a Summicron :)
 
beethamd said:
Lenses with a focal length greater than 46.5 mm are OK, they don't need to be retrofocus in design - it's the lenses that have a shorter focal length than the film-to-lens distance which need to be retrofucus designs.

BTW how does your 25mm CY compare to your ZM 25?
Click to expand...

Some differences

1. Size and weight: The Distagon is obviously much bigger than the Biogon, which is my primary concern when choosing what to take with me on a trip. If I have to take my Aria, it will be for the Planar 100.

2. Distortion: The Distagon has more noticeable pincushion and comet (SIC) effect at the edge of the picture. The Biogon had very little such distortion, to my biggest surprise. Some shots taken with the Bigon do not even look like been shot with a wide-angle. This reduces the exaggeration of the lens and gives a more pleasant and natural view to the photos.

3. Fall-off: I do not know if this is the result of the highly corrected Biogon design, but the Biogon shows much stronger edge fall-off at F4 compared to the Distagon, especially when shooting under bright sunlight.

4. Sharpness: The centre sharpness of both lenses are excellent. With the Biogon, edget sharpness is better at f4 and wide-open, but for f5.6 and beyond, I think there is not too much difference in this aspect.

5. Colour and contrast: The Biogon is a bit "light" compared to the Distagon, which produced very saturated colour, and a bit "thick" to my taste. Contrast seems to be a bit higher with the Biogon.

But to be honest, I did not shoot the very same scene with both lenses, and the above comparison are derived from my several years shooting with the Distagon and recent acquisition of the Biogon. Your milelage may vary.

Cheers,
 
I 'm not impressed by the bokeh of the Planar ZF. Nor am I particularly put off. The direct competitor of this lens is the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AI, reputedly a very unremarkable lens when it comes to bokeh.
 
The 50mm/1.4 Planar ZF is less symmetrical than the 50mm/2 Planar ZM, so this may be part of compromising its wide open out of focus character. The f/1.4 SLR version may actually be a bit retrofocal. Apparently the rear element of the M-mount 50mm is so far back that it would not clear the Nikon mirror box, so Zeiss could not just swap barrels with that design.
 
In my experience the bokeh of the Planar ZM is quite good, certainly better than the sample images of the Planar ZF. That may very well be for the reasons SDK gives above.
 
The ZM and ZF lenses have very different lens to film distances so you could never just swap mounts on the ZM to make it a ZF lens. If the lens-to-image distance of the camera was longer than the focal length of the lens, that that would make it a retrofocus design, not the other way round.
 
>>The f/1.4 SLR version may actually be a bit retrofocal. Apparently the rear element of the M-mount 50mm is so far back that it would not clear the Nikon mirror box, so Zeiss could not just swap barrels with that design.<<

When Nikon introduced the F mount, it had to redesign all of its 50mm lenses so their rear elements would clear the mirror box.
 
So the F-mount SLR 50mms are all retrofocal then. It's not the flange to film distance 46.5mm that counts so much as the film plane to rear nodal point, right? If the nodal point is further than the focal length from the film plane, then it is a retrofocal design. Nodal points are usually close to the iris, not the rear element.

The 50mm/2 ZM design is very nice, performing well even wide open. One 50mm is enough for me. I'll pass on the Zeiss 50mm/1.4 ZF, but I'm anticipating the 85mm/1.4 ZF will be better, and will be interested to see what comes next.
 
Spyderman said:
If I were the distributor of those ZF lenses I wouldn'be very proud of the bokeh they produce. It's rather disturbing. But from a 500 bucks lens one would expect it to be sharp AND with smooth bokeh.
I love my Zuikos for their bokeh. They may not be so sharp wide open, but the bokeh is really nice. Stop it down by 2 stops and the sharpness equals or outperforms similar lenses from other manufacturers. And I can get Zuikos really cheap. I can get a complete set of body plus some lenses for 500 dollars!
Is the sharpness of ZF really that important to you that you would pay 500 bucks for a standard lens? Just don't understand why anyone would pay such money for a standard lens...
Click to expand...

Amen brother. The 100/2.8 has such lovely bokeh, and many of the others as well, including the lowly 35/2.8. Haven't looked at the 28s yet, but this shot with a 28 (28/2.8 I think, though I also have the 28/3.5) looks nice to me.
 
Sean Reid has just published a comparative review of the Zeiss Planar 50 1.4 ZF and the Nikon 50 1.4 D AF in his website.


The Zeiss appears to have a (very slight) edge in terms of performance, the Nikon in terms of value for money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom