presspass
filmshooter
Is anyone using the ZF or ZF.2 lenses on their film Nikon SLRs? Are they well-constructed and how is the image compared with Nikon F-mount lenses? Thanks.
35photo
Well-known
Depends which lens we talking about? I had the Zeiss 35 f2 ZF.2 which was excellent. Made really well..all metal, all the metering worked great, and accurate manual focus.. It was just too big for me I wanted something more compact so I sold it.. If size is not an issue then its a great choose.. You also might want to look at the new Sigma Art lenses heard lots of good stuff about them..
Melancholy
To grain, or not to grain
I own and use a 50mm f/1.4 zf.2, mostly on my F2, but it works just as fine on my FE2 as the F5 and F100. Solid as a brick, beautiful clicks on the aperture ring and focusing is smooth and accurate. Being a more modern lens than most of my Nikkor lenses, it gives a very sharp and "clean" image, pleasing bokeh and good contrast.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I have both the planar 50 1,4 (tested on NIKON F) and macrop;anar 50 2 (Tested on NIKON F4)
I like the macroplanar very much
But will keep the planar too for planned future video use
I like the macroplanar very much
But will keep the planar too for planned future video use
frank-grumman
Well-known
I have the ZF.2 in 35/2, 50/2MP, 85/1.4 and 135/2APO, mounted on either my FM3a, F4 when I had it, or F6. I echo what <Melancholy> said.
mfogiel
Veteran
I have the 25/2.8, 35/2, 50/2, Planar 85/1.4 and 100/2. Mechanically they are all the same: excellent. The minor issues are:
- unnecessary silver "nose", which can generate some flare at times
- lens caps which are tragically difficult to operate, and much flimsier than the standard Nikon ones
- lens shades, that are reversible and generally well thought out, but made from light metal, so are easy to bend
On the other hand, the lenses are very good indeed, particularly the 35/2, 50/2 and 100/2. The 25/2.8 has strong field curvature, but this can have its own benefits for "hollywood" effects. It also focuses as close as 7cm from the front element. The 85/1.4 wide open is on the soft side with a nice bokeh, but unless you have a proper focusing screen it can be difficult to nail it. It also has some focus shift and field curvature close up, so when you stop down, you should try to focus at the working aperture, at least up to f 2.8. All these lenses have very strong micro and macro contrast. I have never seen any Nikon lens that comes even close. On digital this comparison is largely lost, on film it stands out drastically - even the sharpest Nikon glass, like the 85/1.8G looks toothless compared to the Makro Planars or Planar 85. You might like it or not, depending on your style. In my opinion, for portraiture Nikon has some good offerings in the range between 85 and 135mm, but for 50mm or anything shorter, the Zeiss glass is much more appealing.
MP 100/2
G. by mfogiel, on Flickr
- unnecessary silver "nose", which can generate some flare at times
- lens caps which are tragically difficult to operate, and much flimsier than the standard Nikon ones
- lens shades, that are reversible and generally well thought out, but made from light metal, so are easy to bend
On the other hand, the lenses are very good indeed, particularly the 35/2, 50/2 and 100/2. The 25/2.8 has strong field curvature, but this can have its own benefits for "hollywood" effects. It also focuses as close as 7cm from the front element. The 85/1.4 wide open is on the soft side with a nice bokeh, but unless you have a proper focusing screen it can be difficult to nail it. It also has some focus shift and field curvature close up, so when you stop down, you should try to focus at the working aperture, at least up to f 2.8. All these lenses have very strong micro and macro contrast. I have never seen any Nikon lens that comes even close. On digital this comparison is largely lost, on film it stands out drastically - even the sharpest Nikon glass, like the 85/1.8G looks toothless compared to the Makro Planars or Planar 85. You might like it or not, depending on your style. In my opinion, for portraiture Nikon has some good offerings in the range between 85 and 135mm, but for 50mm or anything shorter, the Zeiss glass is much more appealing.
MP 100/2
G. by mfogiel, on Flickr
Baby of Macon
Well-known
Wonderful lenses. I have the 21, 100 and 135. Better than anything from Nikon in those focal lengths in my view. The build quality is excellent and the upside of manual focus is long term durability. I disagree that the benefits are lost with digital on a D800E, arguably they are magnified.
Anyone shoot the 21mm Distagon lens? I'd love to see some examples of this lens used with film.
presspass
filmshooter
Thanks for the replies and the sample photos. I'm looking at a three-lens kit of 25 f2.0, 50 f1.4, and 135 f2.0. The 25 would replace a 24 AIS Nikon that is out of whack and 'can no longer be repaired.' The 50 would replace a Nikon 1.2 AIS, and the 135 a Nikon AIS of the same specs. How does this sound?
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
The ZF 25mm/2 is excellent. It has some field curvature toward the camera in the corners, opposite to the 25/2.8 ZF which has curvature toward infinity in the corners, which I much prefer for near-far landscapes where foreground sharpness is important. The 25mm/2 is extremely well corrected for chromatic aberration (lateral and longitudinal). It's very sharp in the center at all apertures, with corners catching up by about f/5.6 (highly dependent on relative subject distance), but I've used it for astrophotography with decent results at f/2.8 and f/4.
25mm/2 ZF.2 triptych:
G. W. & W. C. Collins Quarry, East Blue Hill, Maine, MMXIII by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr
The 135mm/2 Apo Sonnar is incredible. All aberrations are very well controlled, and gives great results from far away right down to the 1:4 reproduction ratio at minimum focus.
135mm/2 ZF.2 Distant Triptychs:
Whetmore & Morse Quarry, Graniteville, Barre, Vermont, MMXIV by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr
Flat Ledge Quarry, Rockport, Massachusetts, MMXIV by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr
135mm/2 ZF.2 Close Up Triptychs:
Granite and Lichen, G. W. & W. C. Collins Quarry, East Blue Hill, Maine, MMXIII by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr
Chase Quarry, East Blue Hill, Maine, MMXIV by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr
25mm/2 ZF.2 triptych:
G. W. & W. C. Collins Quarry, East Blue Hill, Maine, MMXIII by Steven Keirstead, on FlickrThe 135mm/2 Apo Sonnar is incredible. All aberrations are very well controlled, and gives great results from far away right down to the 1:4 reproduction ratio at minimum focus.
135mm/2 ZF.2 Distant Triptychs:
Whetmore & Morse Quarry, Graniteville, Barre, Vermont, MMXIV by Steven Keirstead, on FlickrFlat Ledge Quarry, Rockport, Massachusetts, MMXIV by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr135mm/2 ZF.2 Close Up Triptychs:
Granite and Lichen, G. W. & W. C. Collins Quarry, East Blue Hill, Maine, MMXIII by Steven Keirstead, on FlickrChase Quarry, East Blue Hill, Maine, MMXIV by Steven Keirstead, on Flickr
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
ZF Distagon 35mm f2.0 on a F3. Arista Premium 400 in Adox MQ. I borrowed this lens for a visit to Disney Sea in Tokyo. Really like it - but my Nikon SLR's are mostly used for Macro work. However, this would be the 35 I would get for them, when I decide to 'expand" the system.
I have the ZF Macro Planar 50mm f2.0 - probably the best macro lens I have ever used - and I have tried a lot of them over the years. It is BIG - but it is a Macro and it is f2.0 (makes it easy to focus).
marcr1230
Well-known
I have the ZF.2 50/1.4 - amazing lens - love it, so sharp
tell your subjects to clean the dust off their glasses when you use it:
tell your subjects to clean the dust off their glasses when you use it:
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
Also excellent are the 50mm/2 and 100mm/2 Makro Planar ZF lenses. The 50mm is an excellent general purpose normal lens as well as a good close up one. I probably use the 35mm/2 ZF.2 lens the most though. It's got very good depth of field by f/11, but also gorgeous out of focus qualities at f/4 and close up.
I also have the Zeiss 28mm/2, but don't like it all that much due to the strong field curvature toward infinity in the corners, which can render foreground corners in vertical landscape images a bit soft, even at f/11 if the foreground is close. I prefer the 28mm/1.8 AFS G Nikkor for landscape work, but I can see how people doing reportage might prefer the Zeiss 28mm for environmental portraits and other photojournalistic applications, where it could bring distant objects at the sides of a horizontal frame into better definition with a close center subject, to give a person context while softening the background at the center to make them pop. As this is not something I do, I use the lens rarely and should probably sell it. It is awfully well made though, as all the Zeiss ZF lenses are, with perfectly damped focus and optimally planned for manual focus, so I may keep it. I'd love it if Zeiss made a new 28mm/2.8 design with a flat field, low aberrations, and compact size, that would be ideal to me.
I also have the Zeiss 28mm/2, but don't like it all that much due to the strong field curvature toward infinity in the corners, which can render foreground corners in vertical landscape images a bit soft, even at f/11 if the foreground is close. I prefer the 28mm/1.8 AFS G Nikkor for landscape work, but I can see how people doing reportage might prefer the Zeiss 28mm for environmental portraits and other photojournalistic applications, where it could bring distant objects at the sides of a horizontal frame into better definition with a close center subject, to give a person context while softening the background at the center to make them pop. As this is not something I do, I use the lens rarely and should probably sell it. It is awfully well made though, as all the Zeiss ZF lenses are, with perfectly damped focus and optimally planned for manual focus, so I may keep it. I'd love it if Zeiss made a new 28mm/2.8 design with a flat field, low aberrations, and compact size, that would be ideal to me.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I have a ZF 35mm f2 Distagon that I used exclusively for gallery openings on my D700 ... a truly fabulous lens IMO.
Skiff
Well-known
Yes, I do.
Have the 2/50 Makro-Planar. It is
- better constructed compared to my 50mm Nikkors
- delivers much better contrast and resolution wide open and at f2,8
- has better, more even performance over the whole frame
- much better bokeh with the Zeiss.
Vignetting at f2 is a bit worse with the Zeiss.
Friends of mine are using the Zeiss ZF 2,8/21; 2/25; 1,4/35; 2/35; 2/100 and 2/135.
And they are absolutely satiesfied with these lenses.
I have only heard and read excellent reports about the 2,8/15; 2,8/21; 2/25; 2/50; 2/100 and 2/135.
Looks like these lenses are the absolute "marvels" in the Zeiss lens programme.
Kent
Finally at home...
The Zeiss ZF lenses are absolutely amazing!
I was able to shoot with a 2/28 and 2/35 and both lenses felt and performed just great.
The only flaw I found was som tendency for CAs at high contrast edges.
I also know the 1.4/50 and the 1.4/85 but in EOS mount. Also fantastic!
(I used them on my former EOD 5D.)
Today I would love to have thatset (28/35/50/85) for my Df. But they are too expensive, because I alread have those focal lenghts covered by Nikkor (50/85), Sigma (28) and MIR (35) and don't have a real reason for a more expensive replacement.
I was able to shoot with a 2/28 and 2/35 and both lenses felt and performed just great.
The only flaw I found was som tendency for CAs at high contrast edges.
I also know the 1.4/50 and the 1.4/85 but in EOS mount. Also fantastic!
(I used them on my former EOD 5D.)
Today I would love to have thatset (28/35/50/85) for my Df. But they are too expensive, because I alread have those focal lenghts covered by Nikkor (50/85), Sigma (28) and MIR (35) and don't have a real reason for a more expensive replacement.