Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 Nikon Lenses On the Way!

[ghost]

the bokeh stinks on the zf 50/1.4. it was in february's nippon camera.

 

[Dougg]

As to the dSLR angle - I cannot agree with this argument. The ZF lenses are fully manual and will not take advantage of most of the features of a D-200 (or other D camera).

Just for instance, no data recording capabilities etc. Loss of AF matrix metering etc. Yes, I am sure there are a few who would mount these lenses on a Nikon dSLR as an "experiment" but I seriously doubt that many would do so. I certainly cannot see pro shooters forfeiting all of the auto features of their dSLRs to use a manual prime. Particularly when all the current rage for Nikon lenses is for VR zooms!

George, I agree "it's a puzzlement" as someone said. But observe the enthusiasm with which so many dSLR users adapt Pentax primes for instance to their fancy new rigs... even when it means manual diaphragm operation on top of the other disadvantages you mention. Apparently, amazingly, the optical advantages overcome all this inconvenience. I expect Zeiss has observed this phenonmenon too...

 

[einolu]

the bokeh stinks on the zf 50/1.4. it was in february's nippon camera.

Does it have that strange saw like bokeh? I remember someone posted some picture with strange bokeh, but I forget if it was for this lens or some Contax lens.

 

[varjag]

Do you think It was Zeiss who went after Mr K to have Japenese made lenses?

It well could be Zeiss. German labour is expensive.

I would never buy the Cosina made Nikkors, or Zeiss or....and to those who do, look at the resale prices on the present Cosina, oops I meant contax stuff.
Kiu

I think something like a hedge fund makes a better investment either way

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Todd: nice snap. - Ben Marks

 

[Taipei-metro]

the bokeh stinks on the zf 50/1.4. it was in february's nippon camera.

Both Feb.2006 issues of Asahi Camera and Nippon Camera has the test shots, MTF of ZF 50 1.4, MM Zeiss 50 1.4, Nikon AiAF 50 1.4D (as well as the 85s).
You could be right on the 'bokeh' thing.

$500 now, buyer be hurry!
Japanese Yen's value is rising against US Dollar as we speak...
Basicaly the MM and new ZF 50 are 'exactly' the same, same 6g 7 element layout( Nikon has the same 7 element but a little bit fifferent layout) , the new one w 9 blades, old one 6 blades, but ends up w the old one producing more 'pleasing' bokeh.
Bokek is 'almost out of consciences' in Kanji.

 

[Taipei-metro]

Huh? I guess that's why I keep getting crappy pics like this one...

(Fuji S2, Nikkor 50/1.4 @ f1.4)

1, S2 B&W output is crappy
2, You can't prove this was shot by Nikon 50 1.4.
3, Cosina made Vivitar 50 2, that's the lens you're using
4, Your Nikkor has coke(Coca cola that is) spill.
5, Are you a Nikon basher?
The guy just don't want to buy the ZF made by Mr.K for $500 big clams.
I don' t think any one of you are calling Stephen.

I have F3 and 50 AiS 1.4. Excellent lens for the money.

 

[NIKON KIU]

5, Are you a Nikon basher?

My understanding is that he was actually saying it is a nice lens with super Bokeh, you thought he was being honest...he was being sarcastic....NICE PIX.
Kiu

 

[Trius]

Why do you think it's nonsense? Pls explain. Thank you.

And also they are his views as he states clearly here.

Hugo: What jvx (Jonas) said. His "logic" was not, i.e. not logical. It wasn't even comparing apples to oranges, it was more like comparing a fine bicycle to a Ferrari and saying "No Zeiss bike can go as fast as a Ferrari, and no self-respecting bling-wearing, self-important rooster would ever be seen on a bike."

 

[Todd.Hanz]

My understanding is that he was actually saying it is a nice lens with super Bokeh, you thought he was being honest...he was being sarcastic....NICE PIX.
Kiu

precisely, thanks Kiu!

Todd

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Sorry but 500 bucks isnt bad value when you compare it to a new Leica 50mm f1.4 for example. At one point I used Nikon everything and still have 15 manual focus Nikkors. BUT their 50mm f1.4 was never up there with other top brands in this lens catagory. Actually their slower 50mm f2 has always had a much better reputation. The MF Canon and Minolta 50mm f1.4 lenses always bhwah bhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwahbhwahbhwah bhwah bhwah bhwahbhwahbhwah bhwahbhwah bhwahbhwah bhwahbhwah bhwah bhwah are excellent.

Whenever somebody talks about Häagen-Dazs chocolate ice cream, it's really fun to always get the id...individual, that reminds everybody that Dairy Queen vanilla is the best value for their money, and that anybody that pays extra to have the super-expensive Häagen-Dazs ice cream, I mean, "sorry guys", but my vanilla ice cream always has a better reputation, and it'll melt faster (or slower --depending on my mood) blah blah blah blah. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No soup for you!

 

[back alley]

so saving and then paying 600 bucks for the zm 50/2 is not a good idea??

i'm gonna do it anyway!

joe

 

[SDK]

Cosina does not deserve bashing (and neither does Zeiss)

Cosina does not deserve bashing (and neither does Zeiss)

Never...not untill they change the sign on top of the factory
Do you think It was Zeiss who went after Mr K to have Japenese made lenses? Or do you thonk It was Voitlander?
I would never buy the Cosina made Nikkors, or Zeiss or....and to those who do, look at the resale prices on the present Cosina, oops I meant contax stuff.
Kiu

Kiu, I now have all five of the Cosina made Zeiss ZM lenses. The worst of them optically is the 28mm/2,8, and it blows any Nikon SLR 28mm or 24mm lens ever made, especially the AF Nikkor 28mm/2.8, which was just terrible wide open. All the Cosina built Zeiss ZF lenses are great optically, and mechanically as well finished as my best Leica M lenses. So the Cosina factory is clearly capable of producing the highest quality lenses for Zeiss.

Meanwhile Nikon's QC for AF lenses not what it was in their AI/AIs heyday, and Nikon is producing very few interesting prime lenses these days. I sold or gave away (to Rice University) a bunch of OK but disappointing Nikon lenses, and now I have a few very nice Nikkors and a wonderful well worn F4. But I more often find myself using the Zeiss ZM lenses a lot on my M7. The optical quality of my Biogons is clearly better than any of my Nikkor wideangles in my enlargements. I'm much madder at Nikon for cutting their MF camera and lens line to the bone and producing lots of lenses that are incompatible with the F4 (the G-type and DX-types). I expected better from them, when their early AF lenses were fully compatible with the AI type F-mount cameras, and the Nikon company was bragging about how they maintained lens compatibility while Canon did not. :bang:

Contax lenses in the Yashica mount had nothing to do with Cosina, but were made by Kyocera. If you are worried about resale price, why would you buy anything? Most lenses are not going to go up in price except for collectibles, LHSA or Black paint Leica lenses. Old Manual focus Nikkors and non-D AF lenses are very cheap now and have plummeted in price similarly to the Contax SLR lenses.

That being said, I've little interest in the 50mm/1.4 Planar ZF, mainly because I don't feel the need for another 50mm. The 85mm/1.4 Planar ZF is something I may be interested in getting, and perhaps the Distagon 28mm/2 they seem to be readying to release in the fall. If I get those, I may be using the old F4 (and my backup FM2) more. They certainly are terrific camera bodies, very well designed ergonomically.

 

[ch1]

so saving and then paying 600 bucks for the zm 50/2 is not a good idea??

i'm gonna do it anyway!

joe

Don't think that's what folks are saying.

$600 for a ZM 50/2 is a "bargain" when compared to a Leica/Leitz equivalent.

$500 for a ZF 50/1.4 is not a "bargain" when compared to a Nikkor equivalent.

 

[telenous]

Slightly OT and going a few steps back with some thoughts on Ken Rockwell's writing. He is pragmatic verging to the cynical (stylewise), not what most people frequenting this forum often are. I have often followed his advice when it comes to manual Nikkor lenses and I respect his knowledge on Nikons but I am potentially interested in the ZF lens. I never use autofocus lenses like he suggests but then I am not solely interested in 'getting the shot' as he says nor am I into the business of advancing the art of photography as he presumambly is. Enjoying the process of photography is much more what I 'm after and any manual lens (not just ZF) will make you feel you 're in the driving seat, so to speak. His photos are not my cup of tea, but, surely they must be someone's because he is succesful. He is a bad writer and sometimes it feels you are reading in circles but he has done the shooting and it's a net gain to have his site to consult.

If I have the money and my FM3A is still around I will buy the ZF lens.

 

[Trius]

Alkis: The problem with Ken's writing is that not only is he not a very good writer, but he comes across as an authority. Of course, the net is full of such stuff, so I'm not picking on him alone.

 

[ljclark]

Slightly OT and going a few steps back with some thoughts on Ken Rockwell's writing. He is pragmatic verging to the cynical (stylewise), not what most people frequenting this forum often are. I have often followed his advice when it comes to manual Nikkor lenses and I respect his knowledge on Nikons but I am potentially interested in the ZF lens. I never use autofocus lenses like he suggests but then I am not solely interested in 'getting the shot' as he says nor am I into the business of advancing the art of photography as he presumambly is. Enjoying the process of photography is much more what I 'm after and any manual lens (not just ZF) will make you feel you 're in the driving seat, so to speak. His photos are not my cup of tea, but, surely they must be someone's because he is succesful. He is a bad writer and sometimes it feels you are reading in circles but he has done the shooting and it's a net gain to have his site to consult.

If I have the money and my FM3A is still around I will buy the ZF lens.

One of the wonderful things about Rockwell is his ability to "review" a lens without ever using it (not the first time this has happened).

His whole pan on the ZF 50mm lens is based on its threat to his dearly-held views on photography. It is obvious that there is no way that he could like the lens, since it must be used in a manner that he has already declared irrelevant. Put another way, if he actually tested it and evaluated it on performance, he would have to acknowledge other forms of photography than his own. Does this sound like a professional photographer? Perhaps more like a guy living on a trust fund.

Anybody gets to have opinions, but we are really a bunch of "wrongos" here. Using film. Using manual focus lenses (and RF to boot!). Some of us probably commit the sin of using Windows-based computers (no need to confess anything -- nobody is going to check up on you).

However, all that said -- if there are cases where, on his site, he actually commits an act of analysis, that analysis should stand on its own merit. Remember that intro course in college where they reminded us that a person’s incompetence does not negate his argument?

 

[leafy]

Does it have that strange saw like bokeh? I remember someone posted some picture with strange bokeh, but I forget if it was for this lens or some Contax lens.

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

Look under Nisen-bokeh (double lined bokeh). That picture was taken with a MM 50/1.4, wide open IIRC.

 

[neilsphoto]

OK but here's a what if. What if this old style MF Zeiss lens has a great "look". We don't know do we. Some magazine posted if I remember some really poor shots of a flower. They were crap. And from those we decide the lens must also be crap?

It may just be great on TriX. Might be great on my D2HS. I'd like to find out.

For the last 3 years I've shot nothing but Leica Ms. Owned them for over 20 years with a varying lens collection. I used to shoot for a living but rarely with M's for paying work.

Since loosing my darkroom to a move I've been scanning and Epson printing. I'm very happy. My best M lenses still have the "look" I love.

But I had to try digital didn't I. I had 7 Nikon lenses I used very little as I also used SLRs very little. IMO the biggest let down of Nikon digital is Nikon lenses. BORING. I have good Nikon lenses too. I've also owned and used Canon. They just bore me, BUT they aren't junk either.

I'm not even all that thrilled with the Nikon 17-35 2.8 AFS lens. And it IS very good.

I don't want to open up a Nikon lens thread but maybe this Ziess will have some great look. The 50mm Summicron I've had for decades still kicks ass over most other lenses. It just has something special. On TX printed wet or scanned and ink sprayed on paper it is just a gem. My 75mm Summilux also the same. The Voit 75mm 2.5 was nice but had nothing special.

I know I know these are some ex$pensive pieces of M glass. Maybe no comparison to Nikon should be done.

But why don't we wait till someone does a review, Sean Reid is going to, someone else will too.

I for one would love a lens for my DSLR that has some character. Some of you know what I mean. It ain't all Bokeh and MTF charts.

Neil

 

[back alley]

'I now have all five of the Cosina made Zeiss ZM lenses....'

i am sooo jealous!
i have 2 and they are lovely to look at, to use and to fondle!

****

'Don't think that's what folks are saying.'

i know, i was trying to be 'cute' (as my dearly departed step-dad liked to say)

joe