- Nikon F can be adapted to Canon, but not vice versa
- Nikon F is more desirable for use with 35mm film cameras (Nikon > Canon when it comes to film bodies).
Against F-Mount:
- ?
In favor of EF:
- EF mount's EMD (electromagnetic diaphragm) marginally more accurate, consistent, and reliable, though this is mostly irrelevant to real world results.
Against EF:
- F-Mount could theoretically be de-clicked for cine use, EF mount for stills only(?)
- EF more difficult to repair since it relies on a circuit board rather than mechanical linkages.
As a Canon shooter I'm thinking about picking up a Zeiss lens, but for the reasons given I'm thinking about buying the Nikon version with an adapter, since I feel it will hold its value even after the last DSLR is discontinued. Though I wonder if there is a reason I should go with EF that I haven't thought of?
Some people have focus rotation direction preferences.
I found OVFs tedious with mechanical apertures and manual focus (OVFs get dark real fast, making it difficult to focus visually when stopped down). The EF versions will allow you to focus wide open and with a bright view finder, and use the DoF preview - much easier, to me. If you don't stop down much, or you're going to be primarily focusing by the distance scale or if you're okay with primarily using the screen for live view, this may not matter much to you.
When I started shooting Zeiss I bought ZF/ZF.2 mount as I was shooting multiple platforms although I used my Canon bodies the most. Having the F mount and aperture control allowed me to shoot the same lens on every platform.
When shooting video I can not think of a time where I ever changed the aperture while shooting so de-clicking was not a concern.
With the advent of the EOS R the manual focus features, the ability to use 1/3 aperture stops rather than 1/2 stops and fully recorded EXIF information has me now buying ZE versions.
None of my Zeiss lenses ZF/ZF.2 and ZE has had any mechanical or electronic issues.
You can't lose either way it comes down to what works best for yourself.
I've got both Canon and Nikon lenses, and prefer the Canon EF mount and the lenses. For non-electronic, it doesn't much matter to me, but I do slightly lean toward some the FD lenses like 24/2.8, 35/2.8 and 50/3.5 Macro. In Nikon I like the AIS 50/1.4, 180/2.8 ED IF AIS, 300/4.5 AIS, and the newer 45 PC-E.
I own Canon over Nikon lenses and cameras, about 4:1 ratio, with far more Canon L lenses than native Sony E mount lenses.
I use Sigma MC-11 with Canon EF, and Commlite Pro with Nikon F mount manual or electronic. Canon FL/FD are all "dumb" adapters, mostly K&F Concept.
I love Zeiss lenses, and currently own ZE mount only (sold my ZF/ZF.2 Nikon mounts) in 18/3.5, 25/2, 28/2, 35/2, and 50/1.4. These are really favorites, right up with the best Canon L electronic lenses.
May 30, 2020 at 05:56 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
The primary tradeoff is between an electronic aperture and a manually controlled aperture. The advantage of the electronic aperture is that you can focus wide open which provides a bit more precision without having to stop down manually. It also generally provides EXIF data if you use an adapter with electronics. The disadvantage of the electronic aperture is that you control it from the camera (which some prefer but many prefer changing the aperture on the lens), it means a little bit bigger lens, and you need an electronic adapter if you want to stop down.
The advantage of the mechanical aperture is that you can use a cheap dumb adapter without electronics. You can change the aperture ring on the lens, and the lens is a bit lighter. The disadvantages are for most cameras you will not get EXIF data. You also will not get automatic aperture control (you will have to focus stopped down or you will have to stop down manually).
Then there is the focus direction (and the direction of the aperture ring if the lens has one) to consider. Personally I prefer the Canon/Leica/Sony/Minolta/Olympus focus direction to the Nikon/Pentax focus direction, but that is obviously just a preference. Nevertheless, it plays a pretty big part in my decision about these lenses.
Maybe consider focus direction on the F mount lenses as Nikon focuses in the opposite, ie WRONG, direction. This doesn't matter for lots of photography, landscape, product etc. where the subject is stationary but makes a big difference with moving subjects such as portraits, people, especially if you are used to focusing in a certain direction.
The OP doesn't make it clear which variant of the Zeiss SLR lenses he is considering: Classic, Milvus, or Otus. I only have experience with the Classic ZE and ZF lenses (28/2, 35/2, 50/2 MP, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4) and the latter two exhibit definite focus shift, making it desirable (for me, essential) to focus at the taking aperture. The aperture rings on the ZF lenses make this easy but I hate the Nikon focusing direction. However the Metabones Canon EF to Sony E adapter has a setting that allows one to switch from auto-aperture to stop-down aperture, which solves the problem. To my knowledge the Sigma MC-11 does not allow this (though someone may advise that this has been implemented via a firmware update). I like the Planar 50/1.4 so much that I bought a ZF version to use with the Techart Pro. In this case the wretched Nikon focusing direction isn't an issue because the TAP focuses the lens for me.
genji wrote:
The OP doesn't make it clear which variant of the Zeiss SLR lenses he is considering: Classic, Milvus, or Otus. I only have experience with the Classic ZE and ZF lenses (28/2, 35/2, 50/2 MP, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4) and the latter two exhibit definite focus shift, making it desirable (for me, essential) to focus at the taking aperture. The aperture rings on the ZF lenses make this easy but I hate the Nikon focusing direction. However the Metabones Canon EF to Sony E adapter has a setting that allows one to switch from auto-aperture to stop-down aperture, which solves the problem. To my knowledge the Sigma MC-11 does not allow this (though someone may advise that this has been implemented via a firmware update). I like the Planar 50/1.4 so much that I bought a ZF version to use with the Techart Pro. In this case the wretched Nikon focusing direction isn't an issue because the TAP focuses the lens for me....Show more →
Unless I'm reading this wrong, the OP is going to be using a Canon DSLR, so we're talking about running ZE natively or ZF with a dumb adapter.
I like the ZFs myself. Don’t mint the RIGHT focus direction having come from Nikon myself, but really I use so many that I don’t notice much about direction. I much prefer a real aperture ring to doing it on camera, and if I need EXIF I could still use a smart adapter and ZF.2s. Some day the electronic apertures of the ZE will fail (but I’ll agree I haven’t heard reports of that yet), so I like the mechanical linkage of ZFs.
Basically the Classic ZFs offer modern optics with a all mechanical build like the old days. Maybe I’m nostalgic, but consider that a good thing.
WhyFi wrote:
Unless I'm reading this wrong, the OP is going to be using a Canon DSLR, so we're talking about running ZE natively or ZF with a dumb adapter.
I do love the manual aperture ring on the ZFs, and the focus direction doesn't bother me. The only Zeiss lens I've kept is the APO-Sonnar 135 and it's ZF.
That said, there's something specific the ZE's report to Canon and smart-adapted bodies, and that's focus distance. I was told by a Canon rep that their bodies use focus distance in auto-strobe calculations, and the ZE lenses do report focus distance. The ZFs do not, per Zeiss' website.
I've wondered about this if anyone has any insight. I suspect it's just a "feeler" to tell what aperture is set at and report to EXIF, and suspect it's "death" would have no consequence on the lens. But never tore about a ZF2 to verify construction.
freaklikeme wrote:
What difference do you think the ROM chip in the ZF.2 makes?
AdaptedLenses wrote:
I've wondered about this if anyone has any insight. I suspect it's just a "feeler" to tell what aperture is set at and report to EXIF, and suspect it's "death" would have no consequence on the lens. But never tore about a ZF2 to verify construction.
Do Nikon DSLR bodies need the chip for focus confirmation like Canon? Besides EXIF, that's the only other function that I can think of. And yeah, it still wouldn't really impact the functionality.
freaklikeme wrote:
What difference do you think the ROM chip in the ZF.2 makes?
None really, except having an actually purely mechanical lens with zero electronics is definitely a different experience.
P.s.: Theres some restrictions for the camera though. For example you can only use M and A modes because the camera cannot move the aperture.
WhyFi wrote:
Do Nikon DSLR bodies need the chip for focus confirmation like Canon?
Focus confirmation works fine. Unlike Canon, Nikon still sells purely mechanical lenses new, such as the AI-S 50/1.2, so obviously they will support them best they can.
I have 4 Zeiss ze lenses that I used with my Canon cameras and now with my Sony cameras. I just don't understand bringing in an adapter which has tolerances and resulting affect on image quality when native mount Zeiss lenses are available. Not to mention the pain of managing the adapters if shooting both Zeiss and Canon lenses.
