Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.70 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Bruce Marriner wrote:
Thanks for the info Cyra That's helpful. I was reading up on the Zeiss lenses a bit and one thing I read was the ZF/ZF.2 version are not the same rendering as the older lenses. From what I read - the older ones have more character and the newer are much more like typical modern lenses. Do you have any experience using the older vs new Zeiss lenses?
I have used several Zeiss C/Y mount lenses (the 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, and the 100 f/3.5) and a lot of Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses (21 f/2.8, 25 f/2. 35 f/1.4, 35 f/2, 50 f/2 Makro, 100 f/2 Makro, and 135 f/2 APO) a lot of Milvus lenses (18 f/2.8, 25 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, and 135 f/2 APO) and a couple of the DSLR Otus lenses (28 f/1.4 and 55 f/1.4).
IMO, there is a progression in the lenses becoming more modern in design but also a continuity. Sometimes lenses are very similar between lines (C/Y 50 f/1.4 and ZF 50 f/1.4; ZF 21 f/2.8 and Milvus 21 f/2.8) and sometimes there are significant changes (ZF 35 f/1.4 and Milvus 35 f/1.4; ZF 50 f/1.4 and Milvus 50 f/1.4). I think you have to know about the specific lenses to know whether the lenses have changed or are a very similar lens in a different case and mount. If you have specific questions I am sure people here or on the ZE/ZF/ZM can answer them. There have been enough changes, however, that none of the Milvus lenses have that much similarity to the C/Y lenses. The 21 f/2.8 is probably the closest in similarity between C/Y and Milvus, but even that lens is a bit different and the C/Y 100 f/2 bears some resemblance to the Milvus 100 f/2 Makro, but obviously the Milvus lens allows a lot closer focussing. So the lenses definitely developed to become more modern in rendering, but sometimes C/Y to ZF or ZF to Milvus is hardly a change at all.
p.70 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have used several Zeiss C/Y mount lenses (the 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, and the 100 f/3.5) and a lot of Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses (21 f/2.8, 25 f/2. 35 f/1.4, 35 f/2, 50 f/2 Makro, 100 f/2 Makro, and 135 f/2 APO) a lot of Milvus lenses (18 f/2.8, 25 f/1.4, 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, and 135 f/2 APO) and a couple of the DSLR Otus lenses (28 f/1.4 and 55 f/1.4).
..
Thanks for the info Steve - it does make sense that it would depend on the lens. I'll start skimming through the ZE/ZF/ZM thread and learning from there, and ask follow up questions there to help avoid pulling this thread too far off topic.
That's helpful. I was reading up on the Zeiss lenses a bit and one thing I read was the ZF/ZF.2 version are not the same rendering as the older lenses. From what I read - the older ones have more character and the newer are much more like typical modern lenses. Do you have any experience using the older vs new Zeiss lenses?