recordproducti wrote:
I swear my Zf weighs more or less what my M240 body does. If you go for some of the new manual lenses and take advantage of the focus aids available you're not stuck with the 28/40mm SE's?
With the grip it’s about 150 grams heavier.
And yes you can use Voightlander lenses on it but the Z mount options are somewhat lacking at the moment especially if you want to go longer. It think 65mm is the longest they offer. They are also a bit pricier than the AF S lenses.
thenoilif wrote:
And yes you can use Voightlander lenses on it but the Z mount options are somewhat lacking at the moment especially if you want to go longer. It think 65mm is the longest they offer.
Correct. You could adapt the 110/2.5 Macro Apo-Lanthar, but I bet most Z users would prefer the Nikkor Z 105 MC (it's AF & VR, and optically quite good). For this reason, I think we'll never see a Z-mount version of the 110/2.5.
thenoilif wrote:
They are also a bit pricier than the AF S lenses.
They are optically better metal lenses (no plastics), made in Japan, not in China.
Ripolini wrote:
Correct. You could adapt the 110/2.5 Macro Apo-Lanthar, but I bet most Z users would prefer the Nikkor Z 105 MC (it's AF & VR, and optically quite good). For this reason, I think we'll never see a Z-mount version of the 110/2.5.
They are optically better metal lenses (no plastics), made in Japan, not in China.
Are you sure the latter are advantages?
Optically better...also here. Are you sure?
scalanc2 wrote:
Are you sure the latter are advantages?
Optically better...also here. Are you sure?
I am not sure they are. The 35/50/85 1.8 S lenses are some of the best modern lenses if you want modern rendering. I know a few of the Z mount CVs produce beautiful images because of the “character” that they have but this is a pretty subjective thing.
Don’t get me wrong, there are 2 or 3 CVs that I will add at some point but I’d like to fill out my AF lens kit first and I just don’t like the way the Nikon 1.8 primes look on the zf.
thenoilif wrote:
I am not sure they are. The 35/50/85 1.8 S lenses are some of the best modern lenses if you want modern rendering. I know a few of the Z mount CVs produce beautiful images because of the “character” that they have but this is a pretty subjective thing.
Don’t get me wrong, there are 2 or 3 CVs that I will add at some point but I’d like to fill out my AF lens kit first and I just don’t like the way the Nikon 1.8 primes look on the zf.
The only lenses we can compare are those sharing both focal length and maximum aperture.
Therefore, the comparison restricts to Z CV 35/2 Apo-Lanthar vs Z 35/1.8S and Z CV 50/2 Apo-Lanthar vs Z 50/1.8 S.
The only lenses with similar performance to the CV Apo-Lanthars are the Leica M 50/2 APO-Summicron Asph. and the Leica M 35/2 APO-Summicron Asph.
Please, let's quit kidding and see published MTF tests and pictures if you are not able to perform your own tests
Anyway, fanboys telling that Nikkor lenses are the best will always exist.
I will never forget a guy in an Italian forum who accused me of saying false things when I wrote that Zeiss ZF.2 lenses (produced by Cosina) performed better than Nikkor lenses. Then that same guy tested the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses and you can read how much he now praises the Zeiss lenses ...
Im happy with being subjective, and to my taste I prefer Voigtländer lenses.
As mentioned in other threads, samples of all new hyped cameras eventualy ends up second hand after a short while. Reasons can be anything from expectations being to high, joy of being an active shopper to economical needs.
Since I completely stopped using the Z6 when I got the Zfc, I know that I would never trade my Zf for say a Z8, even if the Z8 is better in some aspects.
Ripolini wrote:
The only lenses we can compare are those sharing focal length and maximum aperture.
Therefore, the comparison restricts to Z CV 35/2 Apo-Lanthar vs Z 35/1.8S and Z CV 50/2 Apo-Lanthar vs Z 35/1.8 S.
The only lenses with similar performance to the CV Apo-Lanthars are the Leica M 50/2 APO-Summicron Asph. and the Leica M 35/2 APO-Summicron Asph.
Please, let's quit kidding and see published MTF tests and pictures if you are not able to preform your own tests
Anyway, fanboys telling that Nikkor lenses are the best will always exist.
I will never forget a guy in an Italian forum who accused me of saying false things when I wrote that Zeiss ZF.2 lenses (produced by Cosina) performed better than Nikkor lenses. Then that same guy tested the Zeiss ZF.2 lenses and you can read how much he now praises the Zeiss lenses ... ...Show more →
These are simply your opinions, respectables, but just opinions.
One mistake for sure. Both Nikon lenses you compare are 1.8 while Vogts and Leica are 2.0.
In my opinion, just my opinion of course, this is not the only wrong thing you state.
scalanc2 wrote:
These are simply your opinions, respectables, but just opinions.
One mistake for sure. Both Nikon lenses you compare are 1.8 while Vogts and Leica are 2.0.
In my opinion, just my opinion of course, this is not the only wrong thing you state.
On which basis you say my opinions are wrong (thus assuming arbitrarily your opinions aren't).
I use Nikkor F, Nikkor S, Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses. According to my experience the best ones are those manufactured by Cosina.
Have you ever used a CV Apo-Lanthar?
Let's start with few facts: MTF plots
On which basis you say my opinions are wrong (thus assuming arbitrarily your opinions aren't).
I use Nikkor F, Nikkor S, Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses. According to my experience the best ones are those manufactured by Cosina.
Have you ever used a CV Apo-Lanthar?
Let's start with few facts: MTF plots
Do you usually compare two lenses fitted two different cameras?
Do you think resolving power is all?
Do you trust in this kind of review?
I do not.
In the meantime I didn’t state that you are wrong: I state that “in my opinion” you are wrong.
I did not tested personally the 50 2.0 Apo but it seems you did. Therefore would you please be so kind to post a technical valid comparison of the two. With the same camera, possibly.
You're right. My mistake.
The Nikkor Z 50/1.8 S lens is a lens (at least) as good as my 50/2 Apo Lanthar.
Guys at Cosina are so stupid that they produce Z-mount MF lenses that are more expensive, and even slower (f/2 vs f/1.8) than equally good AF Nikkor Z 35/1.8 S & 50/1.8 S.
You could contact and inform them how crazy they are.
The standard for lens performance is Modulation Transfer Function (or MTF), established in/around the 1950s when Carl Zeiss specialists plotted it by hand. Many serious photographers and lens makers use them to determine many characteristics of photographic lenses. MTF uses real world measurements. Lensrentals use an optical bench that delivers MTF. Leica use and publish MTF data. It's a scientific measure.
The CV 110mm f2.5 is widely perceived as a startling good optic.
'Both Zeiss and Leica Leica have been more lenient with the APO label in the past. But in 18 months of regular usage I haven’t managed to produce a single image with any CA in it. The Voigtlander 110mm f2.5 APO Macro’s level of CA-correction is simply outstanding.'
It feels like the Carl Zeiss lenses made for the Hasselblads and Rolleis of last century - old world craftsmanship at its best. For those who understand MTF (fewer each year that passes) here is its wide open and f5.6 measurements:
philip_pj wrote:
The standard for lens performance is Modulation Transfer Function (or MTF), established in/around the 1950s when Carl Zeiss specialists plotted it by hand. Many serious photographers and lens makers use them to determine many characteristics of photographic lenses. ...
MTF plots of the 50/2 Apo-Lanthar, both VM and E/Z versions, are equally impressive:
Went to B&H today to get an impression of the Zf, esp. since so many heralded its manual focus functions. I was wondering if it could become my street camera with Voigtlander lenses.
My main immediate impression was that it’s much larger than I’d like. It looks nice but it’s a large camera. My M11 seems small compared to it.
I was actually quite disappointed because I thought I’d fall in love with this camera based on what I knew about it.
johnvanr wrote:
Went to B&H today to get an impression of the Zf, esp. since so many heralded its manual focus functions. I was wondering if it could become my street camera with Voigtlander lenses.
My main immediate impression was that it’s much larger than I’d like. It looks nice but it’s a large camera. My M11 seems small compared to it.
I was actually quite disappointed because I thought I’d fall in love with this camera based on what I knew about it.
It isnt realy fair to compair it to a M11 The Zfc i smaller and lighter than the M11 if you dont care for IBIS and are hapy with asp-c.
johnvanr wrote:
Went to B&H today to get an impression of the Zf, esp. since so many heralded its manual focus functions. I was wondering if it could become my street camera with Voigtlander lenses.
My main immediate impression was that it’s much larger than I’d like. It looks nice but it’s a large camera. My M11 seems small compared to it.
I was actually quite disappointed because I thought I’d fall in love with this camera based on what I knew about it.
I owned the M11 in black but have since sold it. When i tested the Zf at a store back in November before I sold the M11 (eyed as a potential replacement of my m11), I had high expectations but came away feeling...disapppointed too. The camera felt slippery (the Leica m10 and m11 divet at the real thumb dial makes a difference) and there was a difference in build i didn't think I'd notice. I personally felt i had to use the grip and that made the camera close to SL sized. However, after going months without a camera i picked up a used Zf. I guess without a point of comparison any more I didn't find the build to be an issue (it is well built and i have no complaints). The camera is less slippery than I initially felt and i dont use the smallrig grip (granted I use the camera with a 28 2.8 and 40 f2 SE, a 40 1.2 Voigtlander and occasionally an adapter 58 1.4g, and some M glass - so nothing massive). Weight wise i don't feel it to be any more than the pre black M11 digital Ms, e.g. the M240 and M10, if you don't use the grip. Plus you get IBIS, a tilt screen, a good evf (over the rangefinder).
Jepser wrote:
It isnt realy fair to compair it to a M11 The Zfc i smaller and lighter than the M11 if you dont care for IBIS and are hapy with asp-c.
Compairing it to SL2 is maybe more relevant?.
To me it isn’t about the camera’s build, but about its intended use. The SL Leica are way too large and heavy for street. Apparently, the SL3 will be smaller but I’m not paying Leica new prices, so that’s out for the next few years.
chasdfg wrote:
I owned the M11 in black but have since sold it. When i tested the Zf at a store back in November before I sold the M11 (eyed as a potential replacement of my m11), I had high expectations but came away feeling...disapppointed too. The camera felt slippery (the Leica m10 and m11 divet at the real thumb dial makes a difference) and there was a difference in build i didn't think I'd notice. I personally felt i had to use the grip and that made the camera close to SL sized. However, after going months without a camera i picked up a used Zf. I guess without a point of comparison any more I didn't find the build to be an issue (it is well built and i have no complaints). The camera is less slippery than I initially felt and i dont use the smallrig grip (granted I use the camera with a 28 2.8 and 40 f2 SE, a 40 1.2 Voigtlander and occasionally an adapter 58 1.4g, and some M glass - so nothing massive). Weight wise i don't feel it to be any more than the pre black M11 digital Ms, e.g. the M240 and M10, if you don't use the grip. Plus you get IBIS, a tilt screen, a good evf (over the rangefinder).
All good points. I was mostly taken aback by its width. I already knew I needed the grip. I would also use it with Voigtlander lenses. Going to B&H was meant to see if it was worth it to rent the Zf and try it. I’m not sure now. I liked the eye recognition in MF, for example, but I’d be using zone focus most of the time. And I have no intention of buying Nikon Z lenses, as I use Olympus happily for really long glass and Canon for model work. I also think Nikon was dumb to not feature an aperture ring on the 40mm lens.
The Zfc i smaller and lighter than the M11 if you dont care for IBIS and are hapy with asp-c.