p.9 #1 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
I'll probably get the Voigtlander 40 1.2 for Z next if this one works out well. I want the smaller 40 for travel and general use. Looks like it will be coming back into stock at Camera Quest "early November".
Hope you get on it with it better than I did. I like the Ultron 40/2 better in every possible way.
p.9 #3 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
lifef8 wrote:
Feel free to expand, or in a DM if we risk derailing the thread
I doubt it's ripe for a derail but...
Z 40/1.2
- Significant CA wide open in just about any high contrast area in my testing/shooting, doesn't clean up till 1.8
- Center of barrel MF ring is not comfortable to use that close to the body IMO
- Terrible MFD performance, tons of ghosting/doubling (I'm sure there's a tech term for this I don't know)
- Can't mount on any other camera brand/mount (unlike buying the other mount options of the 40/1.2 like the FE or M)
F 40/2 Ultron II
- MF ring in much better spot once on FTZ/adapter
- Extremely sharp and very little CA wide open
- Much better MFD performance, even wide open
- Much closer MFD (2"/20% closer)
- Can pop onto any of my Nikon film cams
- Half the price if you catch on a sale
All that said, the Ultron does NOT produce the 40/1.2 "poor man's medium format" look in any significant regard. First example is THAT 40/1.2 look, you aren't getting it on any other lens. 2nd shot is a typical use case for my Ultron in that I leave it wide open 24/7 because the Z9 shutter speeds make it possible without a second thought. I think the Ultron rendering is just so classic looking without the drawbacks of the 40/1.2. I'm not constantly thinking my way around the 40/1.2 shortcomings. Your milage may vary, I'm not a huge MF guy and my experience is somewhat limited to these two Voigtlanders funnily enough.
p.9 #5 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
I doubt it's ripe for a derail but...
Such a good response, appreciate it kindly.
One thing I'm not sure is worth adding is the lovely Ultron flare orb. Believe there is some examples of it online, but it reminds me of the P67 105 flare
p.9 #6 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
I doubt it's ripe for a derail but...
Z 40/1.2
- Significant CA wide open in just about any high contrast area in my testing/shooting, doesn't clean up till 1.8
- Center of barrel MF ring is not comfortable to use that close to the body IMO
- Terrible MFD performance, tons of ghosting/doubling (I'm sure there's a tech term for this I don't know)
- Can't mount on any other camera brand/mount (unlike buying the other mount options of the 40/1.2 like the FE or M)
F 40/2 Ultron II
- MF ring in much better spot once on FTZ/adapter
- Extremely sharp and very little CA wide open
- Much better MFD performance, even wide open
- Much closer MFD (2"/20% closer)
- Can pop onto any of my Nikon film cams
- Half the price if you catch on a sale
All that said, the Ultron does NOT produce the 40/1.2 "poor man's medium format" look in any significant regard. First example is THAT 40/1.2 look, you aren't getting it on any other lens. 2nd shot is a typical use case for my Ultron in that I leave it wide open 24/7 because the Z9 shutter speeds make it possible without a second thought. I think the Ultron rendering is just so classic looking without the drawbacks of the 40/1.2. I'm not constantly thinking my way around the 40/1.2 shortcomings. Your milage may vary, I'm not a huge MF guy and my experience is somewhat limited to these two Voigtlanders funnily enough.
Hard to get a medium format look without a very sharp point of focus in addition to the blur.
That 40 1.2 shot looks very low contrast and low sharpness compared to the samples in the long E+M-mount thread. Looks like an uncoated lens shot toward a light source. I don't mind low contrast or soft wide open but I don't usually like both together.
Sounds like a lens that is better adapted from the M version since the performance at MFD of the Z version doesn't sound great.
p.9 #7 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
Hard to get a medium format look without a very sharp point of focus in addition to the blur.
That 40 1.2 shot looks very low contrast and low sharpness compared to the samples in the long E+M-mount thread. Looks like an uncoated lens shot toward a light source. I don't mind low contrast or soft wide open but I don't usually like both together.
Sounds like a lens that is better adapted from the M version since the performance at MFD of the Z version doesn't sound great.
Again, just my 2 cents, and certainly not my area of expertise. All I did was compare the 40/1.2 and 40/2 and came to these conclusions.
For my money, it was hard to find a fault with the 40/2 at $400.
p.9 #9 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
This feature makes it a little painful to mount a non-chipped lens once you get used to it
I can now confirm this is true after spending just 15 minutes with the Voigtlander Z 50 APO on the Zf What a luxury to not even have to zoom in to get AF-level accuracy with a manual focus lens.
CV-Z 50 APO: is just insanely sharp at infinity all the way to the far corners at f/2. It may have even better IQ at f/2 infinity in the corners than the M version on the M11.
I hope Nikon will produce a 60mp or higher Z camera in the near future.
I don't think I want to go anywhere near the modern styled Nikon Z AF lenses after seeing how good this looks and how well it functions with the aperture ring on the Zf. Nikon, please step up your game and make some matching lenses for the Zf with aperture rings. The cheap plastic SE 28/40 do not count and do not relieve you of your duty now
My OCD was pleasantly surprised to find my 52mm Zeiss T* UV filter on this lens aligns "Zeiss T*" to dead center at the top. It's always a crap shoot – I had three copies of their 49mm filter at one time, and the words on the filter were in a different place on all of them relative to the threads.
For now, I don't plan on using the hood as I much prefer the length of the lens without it.
p.9 #10 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
I can now confirm this is true after spending just 15 minutes with the Voigtlander Z 50 APO on the Zf What a luxury to not even have to zoom in to get AF-level accuracy with a manual focus lens.
CV-Z 50 APO: is just insanely sharp at infinity all the way to the far corners at f/2. It may have even better IQ at f/2 infinity in the corners than the M version on the M11.
I hope Nikon will produce a 60mp or higher Z camera in the near future.
I don't think I want to go anywhere near the modern styled Nikon Z AF lenses after seeing how good this looks and how well it functions with the aperture ring on the Zf. Nikon, please step up your game and make some matching lenses for the Zf with aperture rings. The cheap plastic SE 28/40 do not count and do not relieve you of your duty now
My OCD was pleasantly surprised to find my 52mm Zeiss T* UV filter on this lens aligns "Zeiss T*" to dead center at the top. It's always a crap shoot – I had three copies of their 49mm filter at one time, and the words on the filter were in a different place on all of them relative to the threads.
For now, I don't plan on using the hood as I much prefer the length of the lens without it....Show more →
And just when you though it couldn't get any better ... it does.
Using the Techart adapter with the M mount lenses , you can manual focus , get all the subject detection, and focus confirmation , but since it has AF , all you have to do is get close enough then activate the AF and photo is perfect. Or you can just manual focus , you got choices. It also acts as a close focusing adapter for any M mount lens you attach , and you can also stack adapters and use other mounts with the AF adapter as well.
p.9 #11 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
JustShootMe wrote:
And just when you though it couldn't get any better ... it does.
Using the Techart adapter with the M mount lenses , you can manual focus , get all the subject detection, and focus confirmation , but since it has AF , all you have to do is get close enough then activate the AF and photo is perfect. Or you can just manual focus , you got choices. It also acts as a close focusing adapter for any M mount lens you attach , and you can also stack adapters and use other mounts with the AF adapter as well. ...Show more →
That's very interesting. I thought I read the techart only worked with the center focus point for AF. I'm a bit reluctant to give techart any more of my money until they get the E-Z adapter that I bought for a pretty penny working. Not a great company when it comes to customer support. Actually, it's the worst.
Can you explain more on the close focus? Can you turn the adapter and manually extend the helicoid?
p.9 #12 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
Hardcore wrote:
That's very interesting. I thought I read the techart only worked with the center focus point for AF. I'm a bit reluctant to give techart any more of my money until they get the E-Z adapter that I bought for a pretty penny working. Not a great company when it comes to customer support. Actually, it's the worst.
Can you explain more on the close focus? Can you turn the adapter and manually extend the helicoid?
The AF works regardless where the subject is in frame , just tried it with animal eye AF.
The adapter can only move the lens so far , so for it to work typically lenses are set to infinity, and the adapter moves back and forth to focus. If you don't set the lens to infinity you may not get the full range of focus but the adapter will still move creating a moving extension tube. Depending on the lens , you can decrease the min focusing distance by quite a bit , if the lens still performs at those distances remains to be seen.. guess it's trial and error.
p.9 #13 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
JustShootMe wrote:
The AF works regardless where the subject is in frame , just tried it with animal eye AF.
The adapter can only move the lens so far , so for it to work typically lenses are set to infinity, and the adapter moves back and forth to focus. If you don't set the lens to infinity you may not get the full range of focus but the adapter will still move creating a moving extension tube. Depending on the lens , you can decrease the min focusing distance by quite a bit , if the lens still performs at those distances remains to be seen.. guess it's trial and error.
p.9 #15 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
RoamingScott wrote:
I doubt it's ripe for a derail but...
Z 40/1.2
- Significant CA wide open in just about any high contrast area in my testing/shooting, doesn't clean up till 1.8
- Center of barrel MF ring is not comfortable to use that close to the body IMO
- Terrible MFD performance, tons of ghosting/doubling (I'm sure there's a tech term for this I don't know)
- Can't mount on any other camera brand/mount (unlike buying the other mount options of the 40/1.2 like the FE or M)
F 40/2 Ultron II
- MF ring in much better spot once on FTZ/adapter
- Extremely sharp and very little CA wide open
- Much better MFD performance, even wide open
- Much closer MFD (2"/20% closer)
- Can pop onto any of my Nikon film cams
- Half the price if you catch on a sale
All that said, the Ultron does NOT produce the 40/1.2 "poor man's medium format" look in any significant regard. First example is THAT 40/1.2 look, you aren't getting it on any other lens. 2nd shot is a typical use case for my Ultron in that I leave it wide open 24/7 because the Z9 shutter speeds make it possible without a second thought. I think the Ultron rendering is just so classic looking without the drawbacks of the 40/1.2. I'm not constantly thinking my way around the 40/1.2 shortcomings. Your milage may vary, I'm not a huge MF guy and my experience is somewhat limited to these two Voigtlanders funnily enough.
p.9 #19 · Nikon Zf as a platform for adapted/native manual focus lenses
highdesertmesa wrote:
I can now confirm this is true after spending just 15 minutes with the Voigtlander Z 50 APO on the Zf What a luxury to not even have to zoom in to get AF-level accuracy with a manual focus lens.
CV-Z 50 APO: is just insanely sharp at infinity all the way to the far corners at f/2. It may have even better IQ at f/2 infinity in the corners than the M version on the M11.
I hope Nikon will produce a 60mp or higher Z camera in the near future.
I don't think I want to go anywhere near the modern styled Nikon Z AF lenses after seeing how good this looks and how well it functions with the aperture ring on the Zf. Nikon, please step up your game and make some matching lenses for the Zf with aperture rings. The cheap plastic SE 28/40 do not count and do not relieve you of your duty now ...Show more →
It's almost like Nikon designed the Zf to work specifically with Voigtlander lenses. Obviously they didn't, but the finish is a perfect match and the handling feels very much "as intended." I bought the Zf with the 24-70 f/4 S so I'd have a native lens right off the bat, but if you handle the camera with the Voigtlander and the Nikon 24-70, it's the Nikon lens that feels like the third-party lens.
And just in using my CV-Z 40 Nokton and some adapted MF lenses along with modern AF/AF-D/AF-S lenses, I've come to really dislike the front dial on the Zf. It's in an awkward spot, it feels cheap, and it's more cumbersome to adjust aperture with the dial than to simply use the ring on a manual lens. The focus ring on the 24-70 is almost a good solution, but it's too easy to bump.
So between the handling, the MF assists, and the green box when you're using a chipped lens, I have very little interest in mounting a modern AF lens to this camera. I'm glad to have the 24-70 for when I need a practical, weather-resistant lens, but the Zf comes alive with the Voigtlander glass.
What a luxury to not even have to zoom in to get AF-level accuracy with a manual focus lens.
