There's been some interest in the Diglloyd ZF lens line review here and I thought I'd share some thoughts on it after giving it a read. I'm going to try and be careful here to not share the results of the review so much as give everyone an overview of the review and what it contains.

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/ReviewInfo.html

The review comes as an almost 300mb download with reviews on the ZF 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50 Planar, 50 Makro, 85mm, and 100 Makro. As updated lenses are added to the review the additional material will apparently be available to previous purchasers for a small fee.

The information as it's presented is publication worthy. I'm talking dead tree's here; however it's infinitely easier to navigate being HTML based. These are some of the most thorough well presented lens tests I've ever had the pleasure of reading.


-----------------
Each lens is compared to a few of its available siblings

ZF 25mm compared to Canon 24-70L (with resolution testing against 24-105L, Nikkor 24mm f/2 AI-S, and 24-70L)

ZF 28mm compared to Nikkor 28mm f/2 AI-S, Nikkor 24-70, 24-70L

ZF 35mm compared to 35L, Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-S (excellent boke comparison done with these lenses)

ZF 50mm Planar compared to EF 50 f/1.4. Boke comparision with Nikkor AF 50 f/1.4, 50L f/1.2, and EF 50 f/1.4. Resolution testing with the EF f/1.2, f/1.4, & f/1.8.

ZF 50mm Makro compared to EF compact 50 Macro.

ZF 85mm compared to EF f/1.8 and 85L f/1.2 II (the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor is included in boke comparison.)

ZF 100mm Makro compared to EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro (resolution tested against the 105mm f/4 Nikkor as well)
-----------------


Each lens test has sections on Examples, Comparisons, Boke(h), Resolution, and MTF. The 25mm and 28mm have section on curvature of field while the 85mm has a section on focus shift.

The Example images have the look of being taken by a real photographer actually using the lens and many include 100% crops.

If I can find a nit-pick with the reviews it would be that the boke pages don't include that destroyer of lenses that is light coming through OOF tree leaves in the background. It's a small thing, but something important to my understanding of a lenses character. (Super high contrast busy OOF areas)

The reviews contain actual correspondence from Zeiss which is very telling, such as the little gem where they flat out state MTF OF EACH LENS IS MEASURED BEFORE LEAVING THE FACTORY (sorry for yelling) they also say QC records are kept for each lens that goes out the door. ( I hammer on this point simply because it has been said on this board that no modern manufacturer would do such testing)

He generally has test two samples of each lens, one a loaner from Zeiss and another he has purchased. Any difference between the two is noted in the review. He also shares his thoughts with QC issues compared to Canon and Nikon offering.

From the review the ZF 35 and ZF 100 Makro are absolute standouts. The ZF 35 simply has a gorgeous luminous rendering and incredible performance across the frame, it made fairly short work of all the competition he threw at it.

The 100 Makro is the only <150mm lens I've ever seen that can come close to or surpass the boke of the Canon 90mm TS-E lens with its incredibly gaussian blur characteristic. (see: http://www.fredmiranda.com/TS-E90/ ) The examples from this lens are just magical and it could be enough to dethrone the 125mm f/2.5 Lanthar.

Anyways, if you're into lens connoisseurship (which is basically what the ZF lenses are, albeit not at the highest end of the market) I recommend buying the review. It paints a very wide and very detailed image of the current ZF line as it exists today.

Well done digLloyd.

If anyone has any questions feel free to ask, or just go buy the darn thing it's less that $50.

Thanks for the info Jammy! If anything it sounds like some fun reading though it may lead to some very expensive ZF purchases.

The bokeh comparisons between 50mm's will be interesting. Many people claim that the 50mm ZF has issues in regards to bokeh. As far as the 100mm makro true it has an excellent bokeh but are you thinking it is better than say the Canon 85mm f/1.2 or Nikon 85mm f/1.4 or 105mm f/2 DC or f/2.5 AIS. I noticed you put a caveat of "<150mm". Are we thinking Canon 200mm f/1.8 or Nikon 200mm f/2 VR as the champs? Just fun speculations, kind of subjective in the end though there are some general properties to a good bokeh.

While the 50/1.4 may have "bokeh issues", the 50/2 makro definitely does not! It has exquisite bokeh and stellar performance. As to the 100/2 makro, I have the 85/1.4, and the 105/2 DC and the zeiss is the bokeh king, and taking nothing away from the nikkors, the better lens, imo. best...Peter

The 50's boke comparison is very interesting. I'm in the crowd that finds the ZF 50 less than pleasant in that regard. It does do very nicely to my eyes when you can keep busy background elements to a minimum, I've seen amazing studio portraits with it.

The ZF 85's boke is something of an oddity. It's very lively, not much like the 85L or Nikon 85 f/1.4. Lloyd seems to really like it's rendering and he's god a few examples where it works well.

I really was considering all of SLR the lenses I've ever seen below 150mm when I made that statement about the Makro. The reason I limit it to that range is as focal length increases the challenges of designing in nice boke become less and less difficult. The 200 f/2's & f/1.8's and the 400 f/2.8's are stunning, but it's not hard to be stunning at those lengths. Even designing a 100mm lens with gorgeous boke is significantly less difficult than doing a 50 or 35mm, especially for an SLR.

The 90mm TS-E's boke seems unique to me in that it appears very gaussian, very smooth, it's ridiculously smooth in most circumstances combined with it's incredible resolution, high micro contrast, and high saturation, for me the 90 TS-E stands out.

The fast 85's have a beautiful rendering, but they don't look like the 90 TS-E, it's something strange in its design. Canon calls it 'Gaussian Optics' I have no idea what they're talking about

In truth they are all so close, it's difficult to make any sort of argument as to best, It's just my favorite. The ZF 100 Makro just has a look to it's boke that puts it up there.

Man I'm wordy today.

---------------

There was an interesting thing mentioned repeatedly in the review I forgot to mention. There's apparently a difference in color temperature when using the ZF lenses on a D3 versus a 1Ds MkIII that doesn't seem apparent with other lenses. I believe he speculates its some sort of strange interaction with the lens and the sensors. Nothing troublesome, just interesting.

innerimager wrote:
While the 50/1.4 may have "bokeh issues", the 50/2 makro definitely does not! It has exquisite bokeh and stellar performance. As to the 100/2 makro, I have the 85/1.4, and the 105/2 DC and the zeiss is the bokeh king, and taking nothing away from the nikkors, the better lens, imo. best...Peter

Yeah, the 50 Makro probably makes a better standard lens than the 50 Planar.

It's good to hear I'm not imagining things about how incredible the boke is on the 100 Makro compared to everything else. Thank you for telling me I'm not crazy

White, Jack wrote:
...Are we thinking Canon 200mm f/1.8 or Nikon 200mm f/2 VR as the champs?

[CUT]

Having used the Leica 180/2 APO-Summicron in the past and, now, the 200/2VR AND the ZF 100/2, all I can say is that the OOF areas are WONDERFULLY rendered by all three of them. Moreover the in-focus areas of the image are VERY shaply pictured obtaining the "3D punch" everyone notices looking at. This is a "do not try it" situation: if you try one of those lenses, u'll end up buying them... but... if you can afford one, just grab it because you'll never regret. Suffice to say that when I've switched to Nikon months ago, the FIRST lens I've acquired was the 200/2VR to replace the Leica 180...


Ciao,

Emanuele

I think Lloyd's paid reviews, and this one in particular, are exceptional value. I had the Mk I version (pre the 28/2) and now the Mk II and I already owned all the ZFs, except the ƒ1.4 lenses, and I knew how good they were. Nonetheless, I learned a lot.

Re. Emmanuele's comments: my ZF 100/2 and my 50/2 are two lenses I feel I will never sell. I may augment with the 45 and 85 TS Nikkors when they become available (the tilting is soooo useful for product shooting) but the OOF areas of the 100/2 in particular are just so 'painterly' and beautiful, I just could not sell them.

Make sure you get a 100/2 that is light-weight in the focus department, though. Some are very stiff, I have heard.

Kit Laughlin wrote:
Make sure you get a 100/2 that is light-weight in the focus department, though. Some are very stiff, I have heard.

I too have heard about such issue but my 100/2 focus ring is buttery smooth and is undoubtely the easiest lens to (manual)focus that I've used so far.

Emanuele

Kit Laughlin wrote:
Make sure you get a 100/2 that is light-weight in the focus department, though. Some are very stiff, I have heard.
Could you say more about this? I have both the 50 and 100 makros and the 100 is stiffer than the 50, not by a lot, but stiffer nonetheless.

On a bunch of other forums (see getdpi.com for examples) some members have returned their 100/2s because the focussing was too stiff. My 100/2 is a bit stiffer than the 50/2, but for me seems better for the application (I use this lens on a tripod, usually).

Both Leica and Zeiss have four grades of grease (light to heavy) for the focussing helicoids, and it can be changed by their servicing departments easily. hth, kl

Thanks Kit- I agree that it males sense for the 100 to be stiffer than the 50, it goes with the longer throw and need for very fine focus moves. I Appreciate the info here...Peter

By the way Kit, given your avatar, I thought you might like one of the 1st shots I took with the Zeiss 100....Peter

Hey, Peter—that's great. My avatar is my old cat Zoot—who has the longest tongue in the feline world. It's so long that an inch or so is always on display, as you can see.

I like your shot very much. Could you send me a computer-screen version? I will post it to my girlfriend who (truth be told) is cat-mad! Cheers, KL

I have the 35/2 and 85/1.4 ZF lenses. Both are well worth the money I paid with the 35 simply pulling ahead of any 35mm lens I have ever used except for my Leica M 35mm 1.4 Asph.

While I think it would be interesting reading, generally as a full time shooter, I don't have time to test or read tests, so no matter what is written, I will not be selling my glass as my needs are more than met.

Besides, I am about to sign my name to a check for $500 to a fellow photographer friend who's wife in her 30's has advanced cancer. He has two young kids and has not worked for a couple months now....

Personally I don't think $50 spent on lens testing is money well spent.

Just ask people if the lens is good or not. If you are a good photographer, you will make 99% of the "Magic" happen anyway.

Kit- Hate to admit it, but despite 1000s of hours processing digital images, I've never made a screen shot. Tell me what size you want and I'll send it to you.....Peter

I just came across this thread today (June 28, 2008). I thank you Jammy and Kit for posting your impressions. I own all 7 of the ZF lenses, and expect to have one of the very first samples of the new new 18mm f/3.5 Distagon. I shoot the ZF lenses preferentially much of the time, in spite of owning 50 Nikkors or so. That's not to say that Zeiss ZF lenses are always better in every way—they’re not. But some of them are simply gems that can’t be bettered for the types of shooting I do.

One of the reasons I began writing reviews is my own personal frustration at not being able to find lens assessments that I can trust. My goal is to present enough information, based on studio and field shooting and vast past experience with many brands and formats (35mm, 617, 6X6, 6X7, 4X5, etc), so that the reader can make an informed purchasing decison, knowing in advance what can be expected.

Providing value is key: if the reviews aren’t worth it, I lose business (and I would disappoint myself). I have a very high percentage of repeat business. Once in a long while, someone wishes for something I didn’t think of (I'm a pretty thorough guy). Typically I address that in a subsequent update.

Part of the value is that my reviews teach along the way, offering all sorts of related ideas, tips and techniques; such things can take months of shooting to learn, if not more. I’m pretty quick on the uptake, but it has taken many years to “put it all together”. I want to share that with others, and that is value above and beyond review of any particular lens(es). Bottom line: my Zeiss ZF Lenses review costs about what a quality filter costs for just one lens.

I take considerable care in my reviews to check and cross check my findings. So much of what is read on the web today is erroneous, misleading, or simply wrong (fortunately fredmiranda.com maintains a much higher standard). The latest trend is computer-based testing (eg dpreview), which would have thrilled me in the past, but now I realize how misleading some of those tests really are, because they are based on invalid assumptions (eg a perfectly flat image field). Real-world images dispel the nonsense conclusions that arise with such testing (with some lenses). I spell out these areas in my review, with real images that don’t just persuade, but convince.

When done reading Zeiss ZF Lenses (for example), the reader should be able to pick up any of the lenses and <em>immediately</em> have a good idea of how to use them at their best—that’s a huge timesaver. And even if you never intend to buy/own a ZF lens, reading my Zeiss ZF Lenses review offers a great deal of material on lens performance and behavior that will be invaluable with any brand of lens. And of course there is the money saved by buying just those lens(es) that serve the reader’s goals, not to be underestimated when they range in price from $500 to $1500 each.

I have deliberately chosen the HTML format because it allows much higher quality examples and navigation than any other format. Unfortunately, the choice of an intangible medium triggers the reaction that because it’s not printed it’s not worth paying for. This is a “hit” I don't like, and sadly the truth is quite the reverse: in printed form the review would be less useful, couldn't be updated, etc.

—Lloyd

Kit Laughlin wrote:
On a bunch of other forums (see getdpi.com for examples) some members have returned their 100/2s because the focussing was too stiff. My 100/2 is a bit stiffer than the 50/2, but for me seems better for the application (I use this lens on a tripod, usually).

Both Leica and Zeiss have four grades of grease (light to heavy) for the focussing helicoids, and it can be changed by their servicing departments easily. hth, kl

I've heard the same complaints from users, including one of my readers. But I've not encountered this issue; I have used 3 samples of the ZF 100/2 Makro-Planar, and all have silky-smooth focusing. It makes me wonder if the issue could be a combination of factors: (a) colder temperatures and (b) expectations. In particular, I don't feel the need to rack the lens from infinity to close-up instantly; others might want that but it's way too "light" for me.

My 3-sample experience is that the ZF focusing is very smooth and well damped. I have two Leica lenses (90/2 APO and 180/2.8 APO), and I think the ZF focusing action is superior. But that's where we get into subjective likes and dislikes. The Coastal Optics 60/4 UV-VIS-IR APO macro has "stiff" focusing. But I wouldn't like it less stiff; it's very progressive and predictable, just what I want.

One issue not mentioned is focus creep and/or inadvertently moving focus. I like the ZF lenses because they offer enough resistance so that I can't accidentally move the focusing ring, it won't creep when the lens is pointed down, is not easily nudged out of position, etc. Most Canon and Nikon lenses are awful in this regard; even many of the older AI and AIS Nikkors (I have a dozen or so) have focusing action that is way too light. They can even be difficult to focus in Live View, so touchy.

Thanks for the great find Jammy
and sharing it

Does buying Zeiss for Nikon constitute fulfilling NAS?

Joe

jamach wrote:
Thanks for the great find Jammy
and sharing it

Does buying Zeiss for Nikon constitute fulfilling NAS?

Joe


No problamo man I'd say buying Zeiss lenses in F-mount counts as fulfilling NAS.

llcFM wrote:
I just came across this thread today (June 28, 2008). I thank you Jammy and Kit for posting your impressions.
—Lloyd

Thank you sir for doing the review in the first place. Its good to know you've stumbled upon this thread and are good with an open community discussion of the review.

Cheers!

Very nice discussion. What about Voightlander for Nikon? Any thoughts?

Regarding Voigtlander, I have evaluated the Ultron 40/2 and 58/1.4 Nokton (both the new "SL II" lenses). I've commented on both in my June 10th blog, and will be offering a more in-depth look soon. (Stephen Gandy of CameraQuest loaned me eval units of both).

Those two lenses are excellent, and the price is right. I like both for different reasons: the 40/2 is superb as a compact lens, perfect when you want to travel light. The 58/1.4 offers wonderful bokeh, and is very crisp (my first sample had a obvious problem, but the 2nd was excellent). Both are very similar to the Zeiss ZF lenses in build quality, and optical quality is very high, very similar to the Zeiss ZF lenses, though I'd rate the Zeiss 35/2 higher than the 40/2 Voigtlander.

I am tempted to get both, but they are not free, and I already own all the ZF lenses, so they would be redundant. Wait, no lens is redundant!—every lens offers its own “look”.

Jammy Straub wrote:
llcFM wrote:
I just came across this thread today (June 28, 2008). I thank you Jammy and Kit for posting your impressions.
—Lloyd

Thank you sir for doing the review in the first place. Its good to know you've stumbled upon this thread and are good with an open community discussion of the review.

Cheers!

Thank you. My policy is to address user concerns with anything I write. Nothing is perfect, but I try to cover all the bases in advance, and if I miss something, add it as a revision. Reader feedback in any form is extremely helpful in improving my work.

BTW the 18/3.5 Distagon is arriving today and it will be incorporated into the review.

Lloyd...

Happy to have "found" you over here!! We have been Emailing back and forth about the focus of my 100/2 and the D3.

You have been super helpful... Looks like Nikon did something to "fix" the problem as the focus seems dead on now!!

I have not yet subscribed to the Zeiss site... but I intend to tonight.

Thanks, Don Krieff

Echoing the thoughts of others, Lloyd's reviews are top notch and he is super helpful in personal correspondence.