I have the same issue with my Voigtlander 90/3.5 SL on my D200 when I am using the green dot for focus-confirmation. I can't blame the lens, because it can focus correctly to infinity. So there is nothing to adjust on the lens. The problem is the mechanism in my (and your) camera that assists you with the green dot. Somehow it is not working fine with this lens. All my other lenses (ZF 21, 35, 50 macro and 100 macro and Voigtlander 180 SL) are doing fine with the green dot.
A person I know had the same issue with his ZF 100. He sent a mail to Zeiss and this is what he got back:
thanks for supplying the pictures.
Yes, of course, the best focus is always behind the point you marked.
As long as accurate focusing in live view mode (max. zoom in) delivers perfectly focused results, there canīt be anything wrong with the lens itself.
Focusing on the screen without further magnification aids (magnifying loupes) with a 100mm lens at f/2 is not accurate enough for a 24MP camera.
Normally, these are the limitations of the adjustment accuracy of mirror, screen and the AF system of modern cameras, as well as the resolution of the human eye (without additional magnifying aids).
When using the green AF confirmation dot of the camera for focusing, an individual adjustment in the cameraīs menu is possible. Unfortunately, this does not show any effect at all unless you are using lenses with CPU (e.g. our ZF.2 lenses) in Nikon camera bodies.
Regarding accurate focusing with AF cameras, you can find many aspects in our CLN article (CLN No 32):
You can always send your lens to us for checking, but focusing accuracy cannot be influenced by adjusting the lens in any way (except at infinity: flange focal distance).
theSuede wrote:
You can at least count on the focus confirmation dot to behave CONSISTENTLY, which really is the main criteria for "learning" to manually focus a lens with it. That's why using the front on/off, middle or back on/off of the dot can help a lot. Wait for the return of your own D3, and do some controlled testing - it only takes a few minutes. Static subject, normal daylight, take three pictures - first on the front on/off, then middle, then back on/off. To ensure that no freak mistakes affects the test too much - Change angle a bit, do over. Move the tripod again, do over. From just those nine pics you will be able to see where your focus "aim" with the 100/2 and your D3 ideally should be. ...Show more →
I will do this as soon as the D3 is out of it's shipping box. I will also do it today, with the D2x, hopefully. I understand your point about consistency. If I can just find a method which will work consistently, that will allow me to have the confidence to use this lens in my sessions. So I will update you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to type all the info you provided in your clarification. I will be digging into that later, as well as more technical info about focus shift and spherical aberration. I am fairly new to manual focusing, and I am a pretty simple guy: I have always worked under the assumption that whatever gear I am using (except my PC lens, of course), there is a perfect "plane" of focus at some distance from the lens, that it's depth and front vs. back shift are dependent only on aperture, and that a simple online DOF calculator will tell me everything I need to know. It's apparent now that things are not so simple, and that I need to become more optically educated.
Wiseguy, thanks so much for that relevant post. It helps me a lot.
Keith B. wrote:
There may be optical design differences between the Nikon lenses you've been using and the Zeiss 100 which may subtly contribute to your focusing error using the D700, such as the LACK of a focus shift between viewing wide open and stopping down to expose, or vice-versa(though I'd bet on the former, except in the case of the ZF 85).
Keith, thank you. Between the first sentence of your post and theSuede's post preceding it, I may be starting to get a grip on this!
Someone tell me if I am following the right thought path here: since my cameras are fairly optimized for Nikkor lenses, I am easily nailing focus, even at wide apertures (where I almost always shoot) simply by using the confirmation dot. But due to the spherical aberration of the Nikkor 135, if I were to stop down significantly, say f/8 or so, and use the green dot, the plane of best focus would be moved back some, so I would find myself back-focusing a little bit relative to when I was shooting at f/2. Is that correct??
Philber, thank you as well, your post is absolutely helpful.
Andi and Jonas, you went above my head. But I am interested. What is "PDAF?"
Keith B. wrote:
I have the Nikon 135/2, and the ZF100, and I'm using the D3 camera which has a noticeably contrastier finder. I'm able to successfully focus either lens by eye. Assuming your eyesight is decent(mine is, with glasses), couldn't you use your eyes to focus instead of relying on the green dot? Maybe reset the diopter adjustment more often(several times in a day if necessary), or try the Nikon focusing magnifier(DK-17A, I think) for this camera. All pro-level cameras need to have a internal, flip-in 6X magnifier built-in, but it would increase the size by 1.5 cubic inches or so and raise the cost by $40, so the profit-addled manufacturers won't do it....Show more →
Keith, my eyes are not horrible, but not that great. I cannot trust myself to focus by sight only with the stock focusing screen. I wish I could. Perhaps I will try that magnifier. Are there better, snappier focusing screens available from Nikon, which I could install? Or just the KatzEye and other 3rd party options? A friend just had a split screen installed by them in his D200. I haven't played with it much, but it was perplexing to me at first. Maybe with time I would find it to be the ideal solution, but I am hesitant, since it was difficult at first.
1. Start with the live view. Focus using live view at max magnification. Is the result sharp? If not, your lens may need replacement or repair
2. With the lens focused using the live view, check the viewfinder. Does it look sharp? If not, your focusing screen may need some shimming. I don't know anything about Nikons, but if your camera can use focusing screens designed for manual focusing, get it. The AF screens are usually designed to be bright, but do not give good representation of blur and are difficult to use for focusing with apertures under f/2.8
3. Look at the micro adjust/fine focus tuning if you want to ensure the focus confirmation works correctly
1. Start with the live view. Focus using live view at max magnification. Is the result sharp? If not, your lens may need replacement or repair
Will do. Later in the week.
Mirek Elsner wrote:
2. With the lens focused using the live view, check the viewfinder. Does it look sharp? If not, your focusing screen may need some shimming.
"Shimming" Don't say things like this. It makes me nervous!
Mirek Elsner wrote:
3. Look at the micro adjust/fine focus tuning if you want to ensure the focus confirmation works correctly
As noted, this is not a possibility with the ZF version of the lens.
edwardkaraa wrote:
What an idiotic post. Are you his lawyer or his brother? He clearly says his lens has focusing issues. Sheeesh
dude which side of the freaking bed did you wake up on? offer something , anything to this thread other than your bickering and condescension. We generally are live and let live here in this corner of the web, either get with the program of actually contributing something useful or get the hell out
frankly in my opinion it is not worth the hoops to jump thru if a lens has issues. I mean it isn't "that" special of a lens. I think the nikkors of this focal length have no second class status to any brand out there , now if we were talking a zeiss wide or a macro then perhaps the story would be different but for a commercial shooter where time is Always money I would Never take the chance of second guessing this crap for one minute, it simply does not justify the entropy
philber wrote:
Todd, an MF lens cannot have focusing issues unless it is mechanically broken.
Perhaps someone later in the thread already pointed this out, but this is only the case for lenses which have a rigid optical unit (and even then, there is always a possibility that one or more lenses are not at the right position), not for lenses with floating elements, which can indeed have issues.
p.2 #10 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
jmcfadden wrote:
Todd,
frankly in my opinion it is not worth the hoops to jump thru if a lens has issues. I mean it isn't "that" special of a lens. I think the nikkors of this focal length have no second class status to any brand out there , now if we were talking a zeiss wide or a macro then perhaps the story would be different but for a commercial shooter where time is Always money I would Never take the chance of second guessing this crap for one minute, it simply does not justify the entropy
J
John, I completely agree that time is money, and that the images aren't different enough to be worth a lot of fiddling on a long-term and consistent basis. BUT, I believe it should be possible for me to focus with the Makro-Planar just as quickly and dependably as with my Nikkors, given some input up front. If it turns out not to be the case, I'll ditch it.
But I have been doing a lot of gazing recently at images from this lens, and I reeally like the presence it has. Although it's subtle enough that most clients would not recognize it in a print, I love it, and definitely see the difference. Here's a recent shot with the Nikkor 135/2:
The liveliness and dimensionality are amazing to me. Sure, this isn't a critical test....the difference is surely due in part to focal-length compression and a difference in subject magnification. But it's representative of the kind of work I have seen from this lens.
p.2 #11 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
I agree Todd, but can it be Reliable? for me that would outweigh all other factors. if you can reign it in and get it to be consistent then there is a case for it
p.2 #12 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
jmcfadden wrote:
I agree Todd, but can it be Reliable? for me that would outweigh all other factors. if you can reign it in and get it to be consistent then there is a case for it
J
Exactly. Like I said, if I can't depend on it, it's not a keeper. But I am willing to invest some time trying for now.
p.2 #13 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
jmcfadden wrote:
dude which side of the freaking bed did you wake up on? offer something , anything to this thread other than your bickering and condescension. We generally are live and let live here in this corner of the web, either get with the program of actually contributing something useful or get the hell out
J
Dude, this is the alt forum here not Nikon's. You seem to have lost your way. If you didn't like my provoked post why don't you go back to post in your forum?
p.2 #14 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
Todd Adamson wrote:
BUT, I believe it should be possible for me to focus with the Makro-Planar just as quickly and dependably as with my Nikkors, given some input up front. If it turns out not to be the case, I'll ditch it.
You are asking for the impossible, I'm afraid. The Makro-Planar has such a well defined and "steep" DOF that you'll never be able to focus it as fast (sloppy) as any Nikkor near that focal length.
So, you'll be ditching the lens because it's so sharp that it reveals any misfocus that the Nikkors wouldn't have shown, because of their spherical aberration.
My advice is that you get a focusing screen optimized for MF, and then you just calm down. You will never get the same results from a Nikkor. But you will have to practice a lot and learn how the lens works. Stop it down to ~f/3.2 or so for a bit deeper DOF, and you will probably find that the background isn't distracting at all, because what's sharp is so sharp that your eye won't be drawn to the background anyway.
I've said it before: Don't blame the lens. You have one of the finest pieces of technical art in your hands. It takes skill to make it work alright.
p.2 #15 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
edwardkaraa wrote:
Dude, this is the alt forum here not Nikon's. You seem to have lost your way. If you didn't like my provoked post why don't you go back to post in your forum?
so what if it is not the nikon forum? does that mean that someone seeking some advise and some help and information should be treated with disrespect? this has never been the case in any forum here at FM. Disagreements are fine , debate and discussion are too but not what you were offering. You even described yourself well above when you included the "provoked" verbage to describe your behavior.
p.2 #17 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
I regret using coarse language and actually was going to edit my reply earlier but a reply came in after mine so i left it. To use my own provocative language to get you to modify yours isn't right. For you to not see it on your own perhaps says enough.
My avatar is of the flower : Datura, i see no resemblance to any political symbol
p.2 #18 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
I had similar experience before. I also had problem focusing with my ZF 50mm and D700. I thought something was wrong with the lens. So, I contacted Zeiss and they sent me another lens to compare. Mine was ZF and the lens that they sent me the ZF.2 but they said the optics were the same. After I got it, I compared it with mine using tripod and lifeview at maximum magnification as they recommended. No different in terms of picture quality. So, I learned that the problem was my manual focusing ability with that specific lens.
The strange thing was that I could get a right focus easily with other MF lenses such as the ZF 35mm, 25mm, 100mm Makro, and Nikkor 105mm F2.5. That's why I thought it was the 50mm lens. But it's not. I could not explain it technically but may be you just need some practice. I did and after a while I got better and better focusing with the 50mm. It got better everyday.
The 100mm Makro is one of the best lenses there is. It is better than any Nikon's similar focal length (yes I have the DCs, the 105mm 2.5, and used to have the creamy 85mm 1.4AF-D and 105mm VR). There is something magical about the pictures from that lens. Whether it's 3D or the color rendering hard to explain. It's just so beautiful. Don't let it go
It's very well built and each lens is tested and examined before sent out (the inspection card should be included if you buy new). So, it's not likely that it's a defect lens (although it's possible).
p.2 #19 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
Todd Adamson wrote:
..../snip/.... confirmation dot. But due to the spherical aberration of the Nikkor 135, if I were to stop down significantly, say f/8 or so, and use the green dot, the plane of best focus would be moved back some, so I would find myself back-focusing a little bit relative to when I was shooting at f/2. Is that correct??
The "back-focusing" here (the 135) is quite insignificant, since the "sharp enough" zone of depth grows towards you as well as towards infinity when you stop down.
Lenses with SEVERE spherical aberration can push the "sharp enough" focus depth so far backwards that the front of the focus zone actually moves away from you when you stop down - but that's rather unusual. The Canon 50L1.2 is one of the very few modern lenses that does this, and only between F/1.2 and F/2.5.
Normally constructed lenses (with moderate amounts of SA) do in most cases at least keep the front of the acceptable focus at the same distance when you stop down the first step, and they start to "grow" the DoF towards you after that.
p.2 #20 · My new Zeiss ZF 100 f/2 has focus issues
fsiagian wrote:
The 100mm Makro is one of the best lenses there is.
Indeed. I've had ~50 lenses in Nikon mount (check my profile), and the ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar is THE best of them. No contest, really.
Don't let it go
Yeah (no), just don't! It might be one of the hardest-to-focus lenses, but when it gets right, it's so much worth it. And don't be afraid to stop it down. It has a large maximum aperture, but that's not all. You will NOT get this result from a Nikkor...
I will also do it today, with the D2x, hopefully. I understand your point about consistency. If I can just find a method which will work consistently, that will allow me to have the confidence to use this lens in my sessions. So I will update you. I very much appreciate you taking the time to type all the info you provided in your clarification. I will be digging into that later, as well as more technical info about focus shift and spherical aberration. I am fairly new to manual focusing, and I am a pretty simple guy: I have always worked under the assumption that whatever gear I am using (except my PC lens, of course), there is a perfect "plane" of focus at some distance from the lens, that it's depth and front vs. back shift are dependent only on aperture, and that a simple online DOF calculator will tell me everything I need to know. It's apparent now that things are not so simple, and that I need to become more optically educated. 
" Don't say things like this. It makes me nervous! 
