Zeiss 85mm 1.4 Zf

Tony Rose

Tony Rose

Sponsor
Local time
5:21 PM
Joined
Nov 18, 2005
Messages
100
View My Gallery
We have two 85mm 1.4 ZF for sale from Zeiss Direct at $1237.00 FREE shipping for REGISTERED RFF members

TR
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The Canon is also 1/2 a stop faster. A more apt comparison would be between the 85 f1.4D Nikkor and the Zeiss. As direct as you can go.

While I love my 50mm Zeiss ZF, since I have the 85mm Nikkor, I think I'll pass on this one.

JCA
 
Not the first time either. Tony is just being kind and offering RFF members first shot at these very hard to come by lenses. This is the first time I've heard it for sale in the US. The 50 ZF is very difficult to find as well.

JCA
 
Last edited:
I'd say the reviewer does indeed have an adapter that is less than perfect, they concede as much. The results of the Zeiss up close and wide open shots are not believeable IMO. A D200 with the Zeiss lens vs. a 400D with the Canon lens would be a good matchup...
 
pbjbike said:
I'd say the reviewer does indeed have an adapter that is less than perfect, they concede as much.
Click to expand...


I owned the Zeiss in Rollei mount in the 80's and shot hundreds of rolls of transparencies and B&W with it commercially. I now own the Canon and shoot 1DsmkII bodies with it and film on rare ocasions. I know it's tough for some to accept but the canon is a spectaular lens. The Zeiss is spectacular too but the canon can hold it's own agains anything I've ever shot including my 90 AA abd the 85 1.4 Zeiss. I does shine at close range where others fall apert and again absolutely destroys the 90 AA for close portraits.

You just have to face facts that canon and others like nikon make lenses that equal or exceed Leitz and Zeiss. Understand I'm not putting Zeiss or Leitz glass down. I own my share too and also own canon and nikon.
 
If the benchmark measurements are not equal, the results cannot be compared fairly. The Canon may be superior, but with an unknown in the equation, (the adaptor in this case), this test does not make a definitive statement to me.

Cheers
 
I would'nt say the canon is superior or the Zeiss either. They both perform extremely well. I also would not say the canon is superior in every respect to the 90AA. Both have their area that they perform best in. My point is no manufacturer owns the market or has the market cornered on quality or performance. The Japanese produce some of the finest glass in the worls as well as the Germans.

I have a cheap nikon to canon adapter and find it difficult to believe something this simple could be a problem. I don't see how the adapter could be much of an issue in manual focus tests. The focus is visually done not AF. More likely the eror is human when it comes to focus. I'm not saying it's not possible though.
 
Shooting on two different brands of digital cameras is less definitive than film with an adapter. Each digital camera handles image processing in a different way. Even if raw files are unsharpened there is room for question depending on the strength of the AA filter on the sensor. The electronics in canon are quite different than nikons. This makes all the difference in the world. If shooting on film the playing field is much more level.

I think the best route would be to shoot the canon on a canon film body and the Zeiss on a Nikon. Shoot KB 25 and process the same. Drum scan them together and evaluate. This way the variables are gone.
 
x-ray said:
I owned the Zeiss in Rollei mount in the 80's and shot hundreds of rolls of transparencies and B&W with it commercially. I now own the Canon and shoot 1DsmkII bodies with it and film on rare ocasions. I know it's tough for some to accept but the canon is a spectaular lens. The Zeiss is spectacular too but the canon can hold it's own agains anything I've ever shot including my 90 AA abd the 85 1.4 Zeiss. I does shine at close range where others fall apert and again absolutely destroys the 90 AA for close portraits.

You just have to face facts that canon and others like nikon make lenses that equal or exceed Leitz and Zeiss. Understand I'm not putting Zeiss or Leitz glass down. I own my share too and also own canon and nikon.
Click to expand...

- This confirms my experience.

I have had great pleasure of shooting with a lot of Carl Zeiss glas in my time with my V-series Hasselblad gear, - and my recent Zeiss Ikon. My experience with Canon's L lenses confirms that most of them are up to the task and can face competition from both Leica and Zeiss. I feel that both the old and the new 85 mm 1,2L of Canon are among the best in the Canon range.

Of the samples above; it seems that the Canon example isn't correctly focused. So where does that leave this test? Just some pritty ordinary 'subjective opinion' of the sort the whole Net is packed with. Fine enough, but I would advice everybody to make up their minds on a wider set of examples and out of several tests.

In practical life, it will be far easier to focus the Canon EF 85 mm 1,2L (one of the best lenses Canon makes) since it has AF. At best, the advantage of the Zeiss alternative is marginal, - if there is a postive difference at all.

The Canon lense would be far easier to use, since it is a in-house Canon product. You don't have to stop it down to do the light metering. It has a click stop larger aparture, it is very solidly built. I have both the old and the new 'II' variant. The first is more than 10 years old and still solid like a hand grenade. Both Canon variants are easy to focus with just a light touch. The Zeiss variant is hard & heavy to focus. Like wringing a pair of wet blue jeans.

I am not at all convinced that this Zeiss 85 mm 1,4 offers any advantages at all to the well equipped Canon user. Possilby Nikon users? I don't know.
 
Olsen:

I completely agree. There's some stiff competition from both Nikon and Canon here. The Nikkor 85 1.4 is a spectacular piece of glass too and certainly can hold it's own. I don't know what Zeiss was thinking with this lens. If Nikon made a dog of an 85 then that would be different. Using an adapter and no auto anything on the canon is a no go for me particularly with a lens of that focal length. It hardly is ideal for portraits without auto aperture.

In the Canon line the 35 1.5, 85 1.2, 135 2, 200 1.8, 400 2.8 and 600 4 are tops at any price in the market. I actually think my 135 and 200 are the sharpest lenses I've ever owned in 35 with the 85 about the same and the 35 close too. Nikon's 24 2.8, micro 50 and 105, 105 2.5, 180 2.8 and some of the long glass are spectacular as well. Their 35 1.4 is no slouch either.
 
While on a shoot today I made a quick shot of my clients with my 85 1.2 canon on my 1DsmkII. One shot is the full frame and the others are 100% crop. Very slight sharpening given and processed raw files in CS2. Aperture was f8 with speedotron studio strobes. The lens performs extremely well even wide open at f1.2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shab
A 35mm lens for a Nikon FM3A
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
Dogman
Dogman
ecowarrior
Is this really a worthwhile Leica lens upgrade?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
3K
rfaspen
rfaspen
filmtwit
California (Bay Area, Northern) New World Atlas at the Robert Koch Gallery w/Matt Black
Replies
0
Views
392
filmtwit
filmtwit
maigo
Italy Travel with Digital and Film.
2
Replies
22
Views
3K
agentlossing
agentlossing
MP Guy
I am stoked about the new Nikon ZF. So much that ....
Replies
3
Views
1K
Archiver
A
Back
Top Bottom