p.13 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
Please keep in mind that my comments were focused on performance wide open or close to it, specifically compared against the Ultron. I had no interest shooting at >f2.8 with a lens such as that, so it didn’t really matter to me if things cleaned up by then.
Totally agree, I'm mostly interested in how the lens performs wide open/close to wide open.
p.13 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Here's a great example of what I was seeing on my copy wide open. The black text on the wall is almost completely purple because the fringing is so egregious wide open. This behavior was easily replicable.
I don't really see this behavior in examples in the Sony thread, couldn't say if it was my copy, the Z mount version specifically, or something else.
p.13 #4 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
Here's a great example of what I was seeing on my copy wide open. The black text on the wall is almost completely purple because the fringing is so egregious wide open. This behavior was easily replicable.
I don't really see this behavior in examples in the Sony thread, couldn't say if it was my copy, the Z mount version specifically, or something else.
Looks like a similar situation to shooting dark tree branches against a bright sky, which would be very hard on any of the Voigtlander f/1.2 lenses. Maybe underexposing a bit could have helped, I don't know.
I haven't gone back to a Voigtlander f/1.2 lens since the VM 35 1.2 III, which had terrible green/purple bokeh fringing. But for whatever reason, it didn't bother me with the 50 f/1.
So far I'm pretty happy with the nearly perfect 50 APO instead. I hope Voigtlander makes a few small f/2 Ultrons for Z, especially for 28 and 35mm.
p.13 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
Looks like a similar situation to shooting dark tree branches against a bright sky, which would be very hard on any of the Voigtlander f/1.2 lenses. Maybe underexposing a bit could have helped, I don't know.
I haven't gone back to a Voigtlander f/1.2 lens since the VM 35 1.2 III, which had terrible green/purple bokeh fringing. But for whatever reason, it didn't bother me with the 50 f/1.
So far I'm pretty happy with the nearly perfect 50 APO instead. I hope Voigtlander makes a few small f/2 Ultrons for Z, especially for 28 and 35mm.
Have you ever used the M 28 Ultron? It seems like a no-brainer next pick up so I could use on both my FM3a and Z bodies...I don't quite understand the price difference between it and the 40/2. Is it simply because it's M mount?
p.13 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
Have you ever used the M 28 Ultron? It seems like a no-brainer next pick up so I could use on both my FM3a and Z bodies...I don't quite understand the price difference between it and the 40/2. Is it simply because it's M mount?
I have, it's a great lens. Extremely sharp and great contrast. Downsides are strong vignetting at wide apertures, loss of bokeh at the frame edges at f/2 at certain distances, and overall weird cone-shaped external design. I've not tried the new 28 Color-Skopar 2.8, but Fred and others sold their Ultrons in favor of it since the IQ was the same and the lens is much smaller.
I think the price difference is just in the difficulty in making a very compact f/2 in the 28mm focal length. 40mm is much easier to do. M Voigtlander 40s are also less expensive.
p.13 #7 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
Have you ever used the M 28 Ultron? It seems like a no-brainer next pick up so I could use on both my FM3a and Z bodies...I don't quite understand the price difference between it and the 40/2. Is it simply because it's M mount?
p.13 #9 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
I have, it's a great lens. Extremely sharp and great contrast. Downsides are strong vignetting at wide apertures, loss of bokeh at the frame edges at f/2 at certain distances, and overall weird cone-shaped external design. I've not tried the new 28 Color-Skopar 2.8, but Fred and others sold their Ultrons in favor of it since the IQ was the same and the lens is much smaller.
I think the price difference is just in the difficulty in making a very compact f/2 in the 28mm focal length. 40mm is much easier to do. M Voigtlander 40s are also less expensive.
p.13 #12 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
To me the samples I've seen from the 40 Z at f/1.2 and close distance look a lot like the Minolta 58 1.2 at 1.2 – very dreamy, not overly sharp at the point of focus, and flattering for portraits.
Nikon 50 1.8 S vs CVZ 50 1.0 vs CVZ 40 1.2. I wish for the portrait comparisons that he had stepped closer with the 40 in order to maintain the same framing because it would have made the 40's bokeh look a bit more dramatic than it does.
&t=735
CVZ 40 1.2 – Note the very close MFD and how they do an aperture series at MFD, which looks best to me stopped way down, not just because of increased sharpness but because it gives a very nice context of the background while retaining a nice impressionistic rendering. ...Show more →
I do agree that the CVZ50/1.0 seems to be a special lens. It looks a bit chunky, but 484 gr is very doable. $1,800...
"For instance, my 28mm Ultron v2 gets outward bending field curvature near the edge and in the corners on the Z7 (while having a perfectly flat plane of focus on an M camera)."
RoamingScott wrote:
Have you ever used the M 28 Ultron? It seems like a no-brainer next pick up so I could use on both my FM3a and Z bodies...I don't quite understand the price difference between it and the 40/2. Is it simply because it's M mount?
p.13 #15 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
JustShootMe wrote:
Zf + Techart + CV 50mm 1.5 II
I was just in BH photo and checked out the Zf- I wasn't a fan of if at all. Which really surprised me. I though I would 100% fall in love with it and walk out the door with one-
How are you liking the controls on it? It just didn't vibe with me for some reason. Felt very shiny and plasticy.
p.13 #16 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RustyRus wrote:
...It just didn't vibe with me for some reason. Felt very shiny and plasticy...
I had the same initial reaction when I opened mine and first handled it. The clinking triangle d-rings don't help and neither does the cheaply-made 40 f/2 SE lens. But I had to remind myself I was coming from the M and SL cameras, and nothing feels as solid as they do. When I think about other cameras I've had handled like the X100 series, the Lumix S5 II, XT cameras, my past Canons like the R5/6, etc., it feels better than those to me.
After getting a few adapted lenses on there like the Voigtlander Z 50 APO and 35 Lux, it felt much, much nicer. I'm also waiting on SmallRig to make a version of their grip that has a wood handle versus the black texture that doesn't match the Zf cladding for whatever reason. Or I want the official Nikon "Z f GR1" grip that for now is Japan-only with an export restriction. It has a better matching and more discrete front grip as well as adding a rear thumb grip, which I think is key for how this camera needs to feel in the hand.
I do wish they had made the top and bottom plates from brass like the dials without regard for weight.
p.13 #17 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RustyRus wrote:
I was just in BH photo and checked out the Zf- I wasn't a fan of if at all. Which really surprised me. I though I would 100% fall in love with it and walk out the door with one-
How are you liking the controls on it? It just didn't vibe with me for some reason. Felt very shiny and plasticy.
Nice pics though which is what matters most.
The Zf to me actually felt very substantial and well built, it was the ergonomics I couldn't get past.
p.13 #18 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RustyRus wrote:
I was just in BH photo and checked out the Zf- I wasn't a fan of if at all. Which really surprised me. I though I would 100% fall in love with it and walk out the door with one-
How are you liking the controls on it? It just didn't vibe with me for some reason. Felt very shiny and plasticy.
Nice pics though which is what matters most.
Thanks, I like the controls , I'm very fond of the Fujifilm X-T line. The X-T line is my most used camera since they were released . So, to me .. this is just a better version of those cameras, better built, and full frame. Feels substantial in the hand, I have the smallrig grip to help with ergonomics, but honestly I just don't use it . Trying to keep the overall package as small as possible.
p.13 #20 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
philip_pj wrote:
Thanks for the overall good video, p.13 #12. I like this guy's approach, he is what I call an 'image firster', like me and many CV users. Rather than spending talk time on the checklist items and giving a total based on whether the pluses and minuses add up, we look at the images the lens produces and if it impresses, the other stuff can be taken into account later in the process. A question of priorities..
Honestly, I have the impression many reviewers need to measure 'quality' first and foremost, like looking at cars specs rather than driving them. They never include image comparisons, for obvious commercial reasons. Check out Thom Hogan's dismal look at the CV 65/2:
Such types want you to take their word, rather than show images as evidence for their pronouncements.
The video guy above might have done a series of back-to-back comparisons between the 50/1 and the 40/1.2 and even asked for the E vsn of the 50/1.2 and included that one as well. [Fred has reviewed the CV 50mm lenses against each other, with some surprising results.] It's also a good thing he did not show images from the 50/1.2 Z lens.
BTW, the Z vsn of the 50/1 weighs in at 598 grams. You can keep up with the CV releases for Nikon at this page:
The VM vsn is a real chode by comparison, but uses the same filter size of 62mm. Maybe the MFD difference (0.45m Z -vs- 0.9m VM) accounts for some of the weight gain. Another thing to really like about CV are the wonderful light metal hoods - old world class. This one should be reversible; the VM is. ...Show more →
I think frankly with the image display capabilities of internet and forums anything beyond the display of sharpness at the edges etc (or lack of it) by use of 100% crops, like Fred does here, is lost in jpeg creation, compression algorithms etc.
And indeeed lost on the majority of viewers who only ever look at stuff on a phone or tablet.
We see that all the time, especially with old adapted lenses, where enthusiasm is rife for second or third rank Japanese lenses of the 60s etc that I tried and rejected when originally available as less than the best even on film.
If it looks competent technically then we can think it worth trying, pretty snapshots by 'reviewers' don't tell us much usually.
