Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • 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.
p.70 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
you might also want to check the weight of the lens. The Milvuses and Otuses are very heavy, the ZM and C/Y are lightest. Classis lenses are somewhat intermediate. And whether you need an adapter, and how much longer this makes the set on your camera.
Bruce Marriner wrote:
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.
p.70 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Zeiss this year:
'..we were developing Radiance lenses. They have been very successful, maybe because it's a surprise for people to see ZEISS doing something with more character. We wanted to offer something else like that.
Two years ago we wondered how we could surprise people even more and asked why old ZEISS Super Speeds are so admired. The answer is that they share qualities that you can also recognize
in the old ZEISS Contax (CY) lenses. They are not dirty or soft; they have a very strong and special character.'
I'll PM you more of this fascinating story, Bruce.
In that thread, I started comparing Leica M lenses, which are designed for a thin sensor stack, on both Sony and Nikon bodies to evaluate image quality degradation. Since both systems use thicker stacks, some loss is expected.
With the Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 Nokton, the Nikon showed slightly better results than the Sony (extreme corners), but the differences were fairly small. That said, the 40/1.2 isn't a strong performer wide open even on a Leica M, so it's not the best lens to show these differences.
This time, I tested a lens that is oustanding from center to corners on the Leica M, the Voigtlander 28mm f/2 APO-Lanthar. When adapted to Sony, there is clear degradation, including increased field curvature and astigmatism.
So how does it perform on Nikon?
To my eyes, the Nikon sensor handles it noticeably better. As expected, center performance are very similar between systems and even mid-field is similar, but the corners on Nikon are much closer to what I see on the Leica M.
At this point, I'd say the Nikon sensor is the better platform for adapting M lenses....Show more →
Continuing on this topic...
In the post above, I compared the CV 28mm f/2 APO-Lanthar in M-mount on both Sony E and Nikon Z sensors, and the Nikon performed better. It's not close to the Leica M sensor performance, but to my eyes it edges out the Sony, suggesting a thinner sensor stack. Today I received the Voigtlander 40mm f/2 Septon in Z-mount and will be comparing it to the 40mm f/2 E-mount adapted to the Nikon. I'm expecting the Z-mount version to perform better, but let's see.
p.70 #9 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Fred Miranda wrote:
Has anyone else noticed that the Nikon Zf focus confirmation seems to be much more reliable with lenses that are well corrected for spherical aberration (SA)?
When I adapt lenses with more residual SA, the green focus confirmation still works, but it doesn't seem to be as accurate or consistent. Because of that, I still find myself preferring the Leica rangefinder patch for these types of lenses, while reserving the Zf's focus confirmation for lenses with better SA correction.
It makes sense in theory since the on-sensor AF system (used for the MF confirmation) relies on image contrast and resolution, both of which are reduced by SA. Has anyone else experienced the same thing, or is there another explanation?...Show more →
So which are your top performing lenses on the Zf then?
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?