i know the bodies CAN meter with AI lenses, but CPU chips still kick ass.
I have 6 AI(S) lenses, and one AF-D. I'd rather them all have CPU chips and/or be AF. I love the Cosina/Voigtlander lenses that DO have chips, they're so much more simple and quick to use. Also, they're more unique, and don't overlap what great lenses Nikon already has.
ISO1600 wrote:
i know the bodies CAN meter with AI lenses, but CPU chips still kick ass.
I have 6 AI(S) lenses, and one AF-D. I'd rather them all have CPU chips and/or be AF. I love the Cosina/Voigtlander lenses that DO have chips, they're so much more simple and quick to use. Also, they're more unique, and don't overlap what great lenses Nikon already has.
Ironically, I've got my D300 configured so my CPU lenses work like AI lenses, for consistency. I only set aperture on the control wheel with G lenses.
i have no desire to use the control wheel for aperture control. This is why i don't want any G lenses.
I want exif and that's it. Also, will the camera work/meter properly w/o the lens programmed in? I just want CPU so that i don't have to program anything.
Expensive compared to the Summicron?? The comparable 35/2.0 Summicron-R, whose bokeh you feel is much better, costs 3 times as much as the ZF. It seems to me that the ZF 35/2.0 is comparatively inexpensive (and there are others who prefer the ZF's bokeh, which I think is quite nice).I wouldn't even consider buying Leica lens new. A good used cron goes for ~$500 give or take. A used ZF35 is probably more like $700. Not a great difference, I guess. As far as the bokeh goes, the Leica is smooth, the ZF is sometimes frazzled. But the cron's weaknesses are far worse, without doubt. Regardless, I'm still not sure the ZF is the better lens for me, even though I have already made my decision.
With respect to too much contrast, I guess I'm saying that the extremely high contrast gives the impression of absolute sharpness without (necessarily) being critically sharp. There are plenty of examples of sharp low contrast lenses and soft high contrast lenses. My 24-105, for instance, looks considerably sharper than my OM 28 @ 28 until you adjust the contrast on the Oly raw files and you find there's much more detail in the Oly files. The high contrast just gives a potentially misleading impression. I'm not 100% certain this is the case with the ZF, as I only used it once in anger before I sold my 5D, but looking back over images it seems that there is heaps of contrast which does not always hold detail on closer inspection.
With respect to the 35-70. Of course it's not as sharp at wider apertures, but I'd guess it's close enough at 5.6 on a 5D (though perhaps not on a new MkII) from comparing different shots taken of different subjects under different lighting conditions. Distortion at 35 on the 35-70 is quite bad, though I'd say that it handles flare better than the ZF.
ISO1600 wrote:
i have no desire to use the control wheel for aperture control. This is why i don't want any G lenses.
I want exif and that's it. Also, will the camera work/meter properly w/o the lens programmed in? I just want CPU so that i don't have to program anything.
The metering works fine other than Matrix (you get CWA instead) and the camera displays Aperture delta rather than actual aperture. You need to program it in only for iTTL flash and Matrix Metering as well as EXIF.
However you can program in a number of lenses in advance (9 on my D300) and then just select them when you mount the lens. The selection menu can even be assigned to one of the programmable buttons. And that gets you EXIF as well. Only downside is you're stuck selecting from focal lengths Nikon has produced including some oddballs from certain old zooms liek 43mm and 86mm which is why my 90/2.5 ends up as an 86/2.5 and my 17/3.5 is an 18/3.5.
