Just finished testing my new ZF 35/2 on 5D. Very, very nice. Well built, outstandingly sharp, natural color, nice contrast.
Like it so much am tempted to sell my Leica 90/2 Apo to fund the ZF 100/2. I have an Fe2 and like idea of cross-using lenses.
Scarey thought - considering switching to D300 ;o if it lives up to paper. No adapters, extra 'reach', higher pixel density and sports ability with the well-regarded Nikon 70-200 VR. Bad thought, bad thought....
Oh, before any Leicaphiles start spitting-up their coffee, I want to make it clear that:
a) I LOVE the 90/2 Apo (there is sharp and then there is SHARP ...and...
b) I'm not implying the ZF 100 would be as sharp as the 90/2 APO - it would be simply a matter of cross-platform compatability - assuming the 100 is as sharp as anecdotal reviews (haven't seen an official one yet) imply.
The D300 thing is likely gear acquisition syndrome sympton that will pass. The Leica switch may happen though.
No experience with CZ 35/2.8. Have CZ 60/2.8 MP S, 50/1.7 and 28/2.8 MM that I'm selling.
I'd say the ZF is sharper 9to the mark 1 eyeball) than the 60 MP in the center. No ever-so-slight pinkish cast (a symptom of some CZ lenses that really only became noticable to me when I compared a shot from my 60 MP to the same from my 90 Apo) that I can see so far.
Bought ZF from Popflash.com.
This is third lens I've bought from them (this was new, prior two were used). Quick service, lots of communication., etc. Have become my on-line vendor of choice.
Never buy in-country. Tired of paying undue markups ( latest example - D3 C$6000 vs US$5000 with on-par $$$). I donate to charities, not to distributors. This is also a reason why I am unlikely to make the Nikon switch - their warranty is country-of-purchase-specific.
As an owner of Leica, Zeiss and Nikon. I can honestly tell you that the Zeiss 100 f2 is as good as the Leica 90 Apo f2. I should know. I have both. I don't remember the last time i put the 90 on the MP or M8.
Both are indeed stellar lenses! Come to think of it, with many lenses in Nikon mount, I think it might be better off for me to buy a 'universal mount' - Nikon full frame DSLR instead of adapters.
Conner - You're a stickler for handling if I recall correctly. WHat do you think of the handling of the ZF 35? The aperture ring really sucks for mine - will take a lot of getting used to.
I agree on the 35mmm F2. I got one at the Camera Store and since the purchase it has replaced my Canon 35L in the camera bag. I like the color, contrast and detail from end to end. I also like carrying just one lens to use on both the 5D and Fujifilms (likely Nikon D700 soon). Though for IR work I have to go back to the Canon 35L as the Zeiss hotspots. I like how the Zeiss's focus, nice and smooth and exact to where I set it. I'm trying to decvide if the 100mmm or 85mm or upcoming 18mm will be next Zeiss purchase.
It's been awhile since I visited this thread, but on the question of handling, if you don't 'take' to a lens you'll refrain from using it and then it's just wasted money.
As much as the IQ was amazing in most situations, on the handling front, I found the 35 ok. The focus is smooth (unlike some very stiff 100/2 focus rings), but a little 'fast' - very easy to throw your focus point off with just a touch on the focus ring. Aperture is ok - the usual Nikon 'wrong' direction, but a bit notchy. Pointer - re-check focus after you stop-down.
Unlike older CZ lenses, I got the impression the ZF line is built to a price point by Cosina. I returned by VERY sharp and otherwise stellar 100 ZF due to an intolerably stiff (as in in stick in cement) focus ring. In short, optical formulas set in Germany, body designed and manufactured to a standard by Zeiss's new holding company that I think falls a little short of old school Zeiss.
I eventually (reluctantly) sold my 35 - sharp, great color, but didn't like the way it would show color fringing at the drop of a hat in high contrast sits (I used, for now, the 1Ds2, it may behave differently with other sensors).
Am tempted by the 50/2 as it is reported to be well corrected for CA, sharp and with no stiff focus mechs reported, but it does have that #$%^&* "aperture ring in a narrow valley" design shared with the 100/ZF (see www.pebbleplace.com for more details) and I think the 85/1.4...
Edited by Conner999 on Jul 02, 2008 at 12:24 PM GMT
I had some time to use the ZF 35 f2.0 recently and spent an entire day with nothing else attached to the camera. If there was one lens that I was allowed to have, this one might just be it. Handling was great, focus was smooth with excellent resistance (All 4 ZF lenses that I now have are the similarly excellent in this respect -- price point or not) . But perhaps the most startling thing about the lens is how sharp it is. God forbid we do a little pixel peeping, but the 100% crops are better than anything I've seen. It's images need much less sharpening. It is incredibly flare resistant and so far I've yet to come across any CA. Build quality and performance make this an incredibly value at it's modest price. I've posted a few images recently with this lens in the Alternative Image thread, but here are a couple more -- both using the ZF 35 f2.0 on a 5D: http://boncratious.com/images/SanGeronimoRiver.jpg http://boncratious.com/images/TaosPuelboDoor.jpg
Nice shots. That said, shooting this winter with my 35/2 sealed it's fate. As much as I loved the resolution, contrast and color, the CA exhibited in the classic (and nightmarish) trees against snow CA-acid test shots compelled me to look for a better solution.
To JustinD:
The 'backwards' operation is the reality of using a Nikon mount. You do get used to it after awhile, but if you have multiple lenses from various manufacturers it can throw you off in quicker shooting when switching back and forth.
I do find the Cosina design of the mechanics a little more wanting on the ZFs than I would have expected from a Zeiss lens. QC could also use some work as Arne mentioned and as I and others have seen.
The aperture ring being too close to the body is irritating - as much as we have to allow for the fact that Cosina didn't design the lenses for stop-down work.
On the 35 I didn't find it too bad but on the 100 it was a real pain because in addition to be snug against the body of the camera, it also sits in a very narrow valley between the body and the much larger diameter main barrel of the lens.
For true macro work it would probably not be that big a deal. However, when used as a high-res standard 100mm lens (as many of us would use it) on a Canon body, design considerations like the aperture mechanics start to become a factor.
In short, the IQ of the 35 (and 100) lenses, when a good and smooth copy is obtained are great - nice color, resolution and Zeiss contrast. That said, the ergonomics could use some re-work - as could the consistency of the QC given the price points - and the Zeiss name on the front.
For anyone looking at ZF I'd look over as many differing opinions as I could and pony up to Lloyd Chambers detailed review of the ZF line so you know what you're getting, the good and the not so great, up front.
A few things some should be aware of. I have seen several comments with "Cosina design". One must realize that the ZF lenses are NOT designed by cosina. These lenses are 100% designed by Zeiss. It is unfair and misleading to state they are cosina designed. Zeiss is basically using the cosina facility for producing the lenses.
The 35 is incredible. I read your comments on the CA and have posted an image in this group http://www.nikoncamerauser.com/forums/showpost.php?p=361&postcount=1 that shows the CA against harsh contrast area. It is the 100% crop with a street clock. Besides that, the lens is untouchable.
MY comments re: Cosina design pertain to the mechanics/barrel, NOT the optics.
Having owned the Cosina-Voigtlander 125 APO Lanthar, the (non-IQ) similarities between that lens and the 100/2 (and ZF line overall) are VERY striking. The 100 ZF, as I've mentioned in a much, much earlier thread comes across as a (much better constructed) higher-end big sister/brother to the CZ 125 APO in appearance and handling.
Now, the 125 was truly a lens designed for a price point - which is fair as it's (original, not current) market price reflected that. You were buying the lens for it's macro IQ, not it's 'last 3 generations', etc mechanics.
As much as Zeiss may state the ZF units as 100% their design, Cosina HQ (or some carry over folks from CV) had a more than slight influence on the design of the mechanics of the lenses - potentially for ease and/or cost of manufacture.
What the engineers want to wrap around their optics are not necessarily what can easily and cost-effectively be built on a production line for a given price point. More often than not, specially in the high-tech sector (my background), prototypes actually have to be re-designed with input from manufacturing and process engineers for manufacturability.
Anyway, somewhere in the design discussions made between Zeiss and Cosina, some corners (on the mechanics and ergos), in my mind were cut, that should not have been - for some of the ZF line.
As for CA - all was fine for me (hey, I actually started this thread praising the 35) until I started doing outdoor winter shots and started getting frequent and nasty CA from F2-4 (remember am using stopped down on 1Ds2) in such uber-contrast situations. Other than that, the lens is superb.
Edit - just saw your pics. They do show what the lens is capable of in terms of IQ. IIRC is considered one of the sharpest lenses every tested. Great color, strong contrast.
Note, the CA I was seeing was far worse than your clock photo - which I would consider more than acceptable. I'd post samples if I still had them, but I do not.
We also have to bear in mind that lenses behave differently on different sensors. Suffice it to say that for the 35, on a 1DS2 in some high contrast situations you can get some nasty CA. It isn't the end of the world by any means, but worth bearing in mind as a buyer if that matters to you/your shooting circumstances.
Too much information.