where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Just wondering if anyone on the forums has any experience with them.
I met a classmate with a D700 yesterday and he had a 50mm 1.8 (Nikkor) and a 28mm Zeiss prime on it. I don't know how fast the Zeiss is, but that got me wondering, do any of you guys shoot with Zeiss lenses?
The D700 is a wonderful camera, you FX guys are so spoiled. :D
I was so excited to see that DSLR that it distracted me from my work. :D
I have a Rolleiflex with a T (not star) coated 75mm/3.5 Tessar which seems to render beautifully. I use the CF series of zeiss lenses on my Hasselblad and find the images gorgeous. Zeiss makes some amazing optics, but the cost is high, and the difference is not -that- much. I also have an old beat up russian lens for my nikons that can spit out a sharp image without any qualms, so don't get too fussed about it.
Yeah, I see your point. I wish Nikon didn't make G versions of every lens. Yeah, it's nice that it focuses quickly, but what about those who like manual focusing and also like choosing their own aperture values, you know manually?
And I know Nikon has a lot of old lenses around, and I can probably pick some used Nikkors for a relatively cheap amount, but there's also the reassurance of buying something new.
Hi,
While a chunk of me lusts after the name "Zeiss", I doubt there's nickel's worth of difference for it.
One could probably spend the same money on a good course in Photoshop (hey I teach those!), or attend a good workshop for some old fashion inspiration and do more good - then it would apply to all your lenses. ;-)
My best,
Mike
I've been using a ZEISS Distagon 28mm f2 for two years. The 28mm f2,8 Nikkor is not sharp. The ZEISS is a lot better: outstanding colors, very sharp; some field curvature wide open. Focus is manual but mechanically outstanding.
Lloyd Chamber has a very good review of this lens.
my Zeiss 2.0/35 arrived a few weeks ago, have only been using it for under a week but I'm blown away. I haven't tried the Nikon 35mm f/2 but I wasn't impressed reading the reviews about it, some say its good, some say its not. But with Zeiss's 2/35, all the reviews have been positive. I haven't seen any serious drawbacks of this lens. Yes its manual focus, but I'm having a blast with it ! The images produced are also outstanding, there's really no need for adjustments or tweaking later unless you want a different look. so far, best lens I ever had :)
JLS78 said:
I've been using a ZEISS Distagon 28mm f2 for two years. The 28mm f2,8 Nikkor is not sharp. The ZEISS is a lot better: outstanding colors, very sharp; some field curvature wide open. Focus is manual but mechanically outstanding.Lloyd Chamber has a very good review of this lens.
Nice. Is it fair to compare a $275 lens to $1300 lens? Me thinks no. Otherwise you should be comparing the Zeiss to the Nikkor 28mm 1.4 while you're at it. ;]
The Nikkor 28mm 1.4 is an outstanding lens not produced any more. And on after market it costs twice as much as the Zeiss. Everything is compromise. May be one day Nikon will manufacture a 28f1,4 AF-S G etc. not as bulky as the recent f1,4 lenses (I know large aperture = large glasses!) But today Nikon's 28mm Prime lens offer is short
JLS78 said:
I've been using a ZEISS Distagon 28mm f2 for two years. The 28mm f2,8 Nikkor is not sharp. The ZEISS is a lot better: outstanding colors, very sharp; some field curvature wide open. Focus is manual but mechanically outstanding.Lloyd Chamber has a very good review of this lens.
Hmm.... too bad I need to pay to see his review.
It's odd that there are not too many Zeiss lens reviews, except perhaps on the M mount.
JLS78 said:
The Nikkor 28mm 1.4 is an outstanding lens not produced any more. And on after market it costs twice as much as the Zeiss. Everything is compromise. May be one day Nikon will manufacture a 28f1,4 AF-S G etc. not as bulky as the recent f1,4 lenses (I know large aperture = large glasses!) But today Nikon's 28mm Prime lens offer is short
Sometimes you get what you pay for. the 35mm F/2 I heard wasn't that sharp.
Mike Gunter said:
Hi,While a chunk of me lusts after the name "Zeiss", I doubt there's nickel's worth of difference for it.
One could probably spend the same money on a good course in Photoshop (hey I teach those!), or attend a good workshop for some old fashion inspiration and do more good - then it would apply to all your lenses. ;-)
My best,
Mike
Haha, I think this advice is the most practical- there's no way I'm dropping $800 plus on a manual focus lens.
Besides, I can get a 105mm macro for almost that amount. Nikkor all the way!
the 28/2.8af is notoriously poor. My 35/2 (an old Nikkor-O that has been AI'd), shoots just fine.
Still can't lay a finger on the Rollei or Hasselblad though.
Hey, I use the older 35mm F2 ZF that you have to manually adjust the aperature and I feel its my best lense. I also use a 18mm ZM on my Leica. I love Zeiss lenses and would love to use the 85mm or 100mm but its hard for me to spend that much for another prime. They are extra sharp and give outstanding color rendition I feel.
You must log in to post.
