Nikon Mount Zeiss Lens resolves 320 lp/mm

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. I have both, admittedly in much older versions: They are both excellent
    lenses, where sharpness isn't even their best attribute, but 250 - 320

    Have these lenses been recalculated or do I have to start using
    microfilm from now on?

    It is nice, however, having a major company fully back, promote &
    support film...
    Chris Loffredo, Mar 2, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    I am especially waiting for the wide angle releases. They could be a new
    formulation? They mention a 10 blade iris. Are yours?

    Wonderful news for photography.

    deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006
  4. Mine (several) are the Rolleiflex versions. The 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm
    f/1.4 actually have triangular irises (look like 3 blades, but are
    probably six or maybe nine).

    I doubt that was to save on costs, since those were flagship lenses.

    In practice I don't see any ugly bokeh (quite the opposite!), and any
    triangular highlights are practically unnoticeable. It makes me wonder
    what role the diaphragm really does play in good/bad bokeh.

    For me, Zeiss lenses in Nikon mount do open a number of interesting
    options (especially since the various Rolleiflex 35mm SLR bodies can't
    be described as "indestructable", unlike, say, the Nikon F2).

    Anyway, also looking forward to seeing which wides come out (my 35mm
    f/1.4 being my "desert island lens").
    Chris Loffredo, Mar 2, 2006
  5. deryck  lant

    Tony Polson Guest

    The shape of the aperture in the iris diaphragm has no effect on
    bokeh, which is purely a function of the optical design. However, in
    lenses with harsh bokeh, a circular aperture will make hard-edged
    highlights slightly less unpleasant.

    Of all the major manufacturers, Nikon have given the most publicity to
    their move towards near-circular apertures, using larger numbers of
    curved-edge diaphragm blades. That's probably because, with some
    notable exceptions, Nikon lenses tend to have harsher bokeh, and it is
    a lot cheaper to re-design an iris diaphragm than it is to re-design
    the optics.
    Tony Polson, Mar 2, 2006
  6. deryck  lant

    Norm Fleming Guest

    So what you're saying is that it doesn't have an effect, but it has an

    Norm Fleming, Mar 2, 2006
  7. deryck  lant

    Gordon Moat Guest

    The diffraction limit (theoretical) for the 320 lp/mm they quote would
    be 400 lp/mm, so really quite good. Zeiss did not state if that was on
    the film, or from projecting through the lens.

    So then the question becomes are there any enlarger lenses that can take
    advantage of that? I know with scanning, about the only scanners that
    can get near that are the latest ICG drum scanners.

    They seem to have used Kodak Imagelink HQ and SPUR developer. Not an
    impossible combination, but certainly not low cost, and definitely not
    convenient. Film specs are 250 lp/mm at 1.6:1 and 800 lp/mm at 1000:1,
    with other contrast ratios falling between those in resolution.

    I am quite happy to see the prices. The 50 mm f1.4 is very reasonable.
    Gordon Moat, Mar 2, 2006
  8. deryck  lant

    Matt Clara Guest

    And the 85mm is only $190 more than the Nikon equivalent, which could give
    it a run for the money.
    Matt Clara, Mar 2, 2006
  9. deryck  lant

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Unfortunately, there are many Nikon 85 mm f1.4 lenses already on the
    used market, and they are very good lenses. Contrast that with the 50 mm
    f1.4 from Nikon, and not too many people have ever been completely happy
    with that lens.

    The issues for me are more to do with size and my choices of which focal
    lengths to use. I have an 85 mm f2.0, which is a nice compact lens. I
    did borrow the f1.4 version a few times, and it is quite a large lens
    with a 72 mm filter front end . . . not really well balanced on anything
    lighter than an F4. Then when you look at the new Zeiss with a 77 mm
    filter front end, and it seems that will again be a large and heavy
    lens. Of course, if you want to impress some people, that large hunk of
    glass would do the trick.

    I have gone through several 50 mm f1.4 Nikon choices to finally find one
    that is really good. Probably the result of quality control (or lack of
    it), though variation seems to be a bit too much. I would be more likely
    to dump my current Nikon for the newer Zeiss, though I would like to see
    some samples images . . . something more than lens test results or MTF.
    What I would hope for is the Zeiss 50 mm being as good as the rare Nikon
    58 mm f1.2, though that is probably expecting too much . . . that old 58
    mm still goes for quite a bit of money on the used market, when you can
    find one.
    Gordon Moat, Mar 2, 2006
  10. deryck  lant

    Tony Polson Guest

    Take what you will.
    Tony Polson, Mar 2, 2006
  11. deryck  lant

    Father Kodak Guest

    People! Wait a cotton-pickin' minute here!!

    You guys are gushing over manual focus lenses. Not D-series
    equivalents. Not G series equivalents. Are you all willing to give
    up your auto-focus for just an electronic rangefinder? And give up S
    and P modes?

    Me, I still shoot film with 2 F2 bodies, so I might just spring for
    one or both of these lenses, Once I do go digital, I'll be shooting
    just B&W in the F2's. and probably home-processing.

    Now, if/when/ever Zeiss produces the equivalent of D-series lenses,
    then I'm very, very interested.

    Father Kodak
    Father Kodak, Mar 5, 2006
  12. deryck  lant

    Father Kodak Guest

    Is this Kodak film available in bulk rolls? Is the formula for SPUR

    Father Kodak, Mar 5, 2006
  13. Some people would rather focus their lenses on the object *they* (and
    not a microchip) choose and also decide what kind of depth-of-field
    *they* want (not leaving it to whatever P mode comes up with).

    Personally, not shooting sports or *events*, I have absolutely no use
    for autofocus and program modes: I actually find them counter-productive.
    De gustibus non est disputandum...
    Chris Loffredo, Mar 5, 2006
  14. deryck  lant

    Matt Clara Guest

    It seems the D in the D lenses doesn't do a heck of a lot, and is most
    valuable when using Nikon dedicated speedlights. Still, I haven't seen
    anything for Nikon from Zeiss that I want at the price they're asking.
    Matt Clara, Mar 5, 2006
  15. deryck  lant

    Gordon Moat Guest

    The only autofocus camera I own is a Polaroid SX70. I vastly prefer
    manual focus. Even with autofocus cameras I have used on loan, or as
    rentals, I have still manually focused them. It is a personal preference.

    My other personal preference is not using zoom lenses. One issue I have
    is the slow and small aperture on most of those, at least when compared
    to many fixed focal length lenses. Using an SLR with an f1.4 or f2.0
    will give a brighter view in the viewfinder than any f2.8 zoom lens offers.

    Electronic rangefinder? If you mean the Contax G series, I liked that
    camera system, but I did not like manually focusing it. If you mean
    focus confirmation, I thought it worked well on a Nikon F100, but I
    still prefer a viewfinder screen that allows for easy manual focusing.

    I think either would be an excellent choice, though I lean more towards
    the 50 mm. There are too many good used Nikon 85 mm choices on the market.

    Do you mean the cropped format DX? Or the distance information for TTL
    flash control on microchipped Nikon lenses?
    Gordon Moat, Mar 5, 2006
  16. deryck  lant

    Gordon Moat Guest

    I think the shortest is 100 foot rolls. This film is listed in the
    Business area of the Kodak website, and can be purchased directly from
    Kodak. The SPUR developer I think is now carried by J&C Photo.
    Apparently without using the SPUR developer, the look might not be what
    most people would like. If you used Tech Pan in the past, you might want
    to try Imagelink HQ.
    Gordon Moat, Mar 5, 2006
  17. deryck  lant

    Father Kodak Guest


    I meant the latter. I didn't think that D-series implied DX format
    only coverage. I use a 50 mm f1.4 D-series lens for film photography,
    and I have no problems with format coverage.

    Father Kodak
    Father Kodak, Mar 6, 2006
  18. deryck  lant

    Gordon Moat Guest

    Okay, was not sure on that. The distance information has more importance
    on automated flash. When I do lighting set-ups, I either meter and
    position, or when using one flash I use manual settings or set the flash
    on auto. All my experiences with TTL have not been entirely to my
    liking. I think TTL is a nice solution when you are doing action, or
    event imaging, but I don't do that type of imaging.

    Zeiss mention patent expirations as one of the reasons behind releasing
    F mount lenses (and M42). The Nikon mount patent expired not too long
    ago. If I understand that correctly, they are not including things like
    distance chips or autofocus in order to avoid licensing issues or patent
    infringement. Apparently that is also why they are not making modern
    Canon EOS mount lenses.

    On a side note for Zeiss Ikon gear, it appears they sold 3500 cameras
    from their launch until November 2005, and are now producing about 1000
    a month. I did not find information for lenses, other than a comment
    about 2.5 ZM lenses sold for every Ikon body sold. Seems to my like that
    is a small success for them. I think Leica barely did 14000 M bodies
    last year, and now Zeiss are on track for close to that volume.
    Definitely niche market numbers, but somewhat comparable to the top of
    the line D-SLRs volume.
    Gordon Moat, Mar 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.