What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Have Zeiss lost the plot again

Hi Robert,
I suppose that they feel that there will be no more Y/C mount bodies and they would only be making lenses for second hand cameras (apart from the Braun) which would give a very limited market.
M42 must also be a limited market but they can be used with adapters on any camera.
The whole issue is very perplexing.
John
 
It was a situation similar at one point in the history of Leica M series. M3 was the main camera until the introduction of SLR from Japan which took over the market like a storm. At that time, only a very small market was left to Leica M.

Despite the taking over by SLR, Leica M camera produced excellent photographic results better than SLRs. It is because of high quality lenses being able to place nearer the film. The body is steadier without the mirror and It focuses better than SLRs. However, SLRs were more popular due to the advantage of the viewfinder.

John, you are one of those who witnessed this transition. Do you remenber what happened ? I know about this only as second handed information.

Well, at least Leica survived.

There are more than one situation in the photographic history that better quality equipments were overwhelmed by popular stuff. Time will tell which equipments should stay.

Film SLR will stay, if you don't believe just wait and see.
 
Well, I don't think my Sony R1 will stay as it will be overwhelmed in two years time.

Last year, I brought 4 Leica Ms, I am still very happy in keeping them and I don't think they will be overwhelmed quickly. I even brought a new scanner to go with them.

At the movement, I am thinking which to get, the M42 Zeiss lens or the ZF ones.

I have a good collection of Contax cameras. What about the Nikons, are they any good ?
 
"I have a good collection of Contax cameras. What about the Nikons, are they any good ?"

I am a Nikon user and have earlier owned both the Contax Aria, ST and N1. I really liked the Contax ST but "upgraded ?" to the N mount when it was available. I owned both the Nikon system and Contax system simultaneously. The Contax N1 is a very fine camera but with a little dim viewfinder. My opinion is that the Nikon F6 body is better than the Contax bodies I have owned. The ergonomics of the F6 is very good and an external battery pack can be mounted. Nikon is discontinuing film SLRs except the F6.

The new ZF lenses do not have electrical contacts so 3D Matrix metering will not work. 3D Matrix metering take into account the focusing distance when evaluating the exposure. Regular Matrix metering, center weight and spot metering will work. The Nikon F6 (also D2X/D2Hs and D200) is also capable of focus confirmation with the new ZF lenses. One thing that is handy is if you use spot metering, the metering area is connected to the AF point. If you shift AF point the spot metering area will also shift. This will also work with the new ZF lenses. I use this when I have tricky light in a landscape shot, I can easily measure the light in different parts of the picture without moving the camera from the tripod.

One drawback of the Nikon system is that the diameter of the F-mount is small so lenses such as 50mm f/1.0 and 85mm f/1.2 can not be made. Nikon does not offer a digital camera with a FF sensor so lenses will be cropped (crop factor 1.5x).

When comparing Nikon lenses with Contax lenses I liked the Contax lenses better. Nikon has a more harsh bokeh, especially older prime lenses such as 50mm/1.4, 35mm/1.4. Newly designed prime lenses such as AFS 200mm f/2.0 VR and AFS 300mm f/2.8 VR have a very pleasing bokeh. If Zeiss will release ZF 200/2 and ZF 300/2.8 they have to be very very good to compete.
 
I have handled the F6 Joseph, and it seems like a very good camera with many improvements from the F5 ... all in a smaller, but solid camera. I previously used Nikons for film and digital SLRs in demanding conditions, and they were solid and reliable. I finally had to move to Canon for full-frame, higher ISO digital performance.

The advantage of the Nikon F6/D2X over the Canon EOS1V/1D series is that focus confirmation is available for manual lenses. Like the RX, only with a more sensitive AF sensor. This would be a good advantage with MF wide lenses in lower light, and fast longer lenses.

I hope you are right that film cameras will continue on. There are so many digital Lemmings out there that refuse to understand the charms of film that it worries me. I would not be a happy person if my Leica Ms and Hasselblad 203FE had no more film food. Of all my associates, I am the only one that still uses film on a regular basis. Some of these associates will never use film again, and have sold all their film cameras.

History of 35mm SLRs:

1935: Soviet GOMZ Sport was the 1st 35mm SLR

1936: Exakta SLR

Prior to WWII, Zeiss developed the eye level viewfinder and pentaprism, but it didn't see production until 1949 as the Contax S.

1957: Pentax introduced the prototypical SLR that we know today.

1959: Nikon and Canon joined Pentax ... and the Nikon F became the camera that won over professional photographers to 35mm SLRs.

Leica had responded to the SLR with a device called the Visoflex ... which was an awkward attachment for M cameras that allowed use of some M lenses and other specific telephotos. The Leicaflex SLR didn't come onto the scene until the mid 1960s. The 1970s Leicaflex SLII is to this day considered by many to the best SLR ever built, and thousands of them are still going strong. This camera production was stopped and the R line introduced because the Leicaflex SLII cost more to make than Leica could recoup in sales.

The 1957 to 1966 M3/M2 sold 288,000 units despite the introduction of SLRs. What almost killed Leica in the market was the M5 launched in 1971. It was big and bulky, couldn't use some existing wide lenses, and famous Leitz collapsable lenses.

After that, the SLR steadily took over the market and introduced AF which sealed the fate of most manual systems eventually. But the M continued being developed and survived because of what Joseph mentioned ... there is always a little room for super-high performance optics in a rangefinder format. The digital juggernaught is now the challenge that Leica faces in order to survive into the future. A digital M camera is being developed, and many hope it will save Leica from the trash bin of history.
 
Patrik, do you have the Nikon 200/2 VR? It is good to hear that the Bokeh is pleasing with this lens. I have thought about this lens on a Nikon D2X/F6 because of the VR.

IS and VR are the single best invention since AF IMO. More shots are lost to camera movement with long lenses than any other reason. A 200/2 on a D2X would be like a 300/2 considering the crop factor (but with the OOF areas of a 200/2).

Might you have a photo to display from that lens?
 
Marc,

I do not own the 200/2 VR but the 300 VR. My opinion is that the 300 VR has better bokeh compared to the non VR I have owned. The 200/2 VR is reviewd by Björn Rörslett, www.naturfotograf.com. I found his reviews very accurate so I belive his statements according the 200/2 VR.

I will certanly buy the ZF 50mm f/1.4 because of the bokeh. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 has a little harsh bokeh. Does anyone know if the ZF lenses annonced have the same optical formula as the C/Y lenses?
 
Thanks Patrik, I'll check it out. Glad there has been an improvement in Nikon OOF areas. In the past, the long telephoto Nikons I've used (300/2.8) had terrible Bokeh to the point I hated the lens. In contrast, the Canon 400/2.8 and 200/1.8 that I owned were creamy and delicious looking.

Also, were I you, I'd hold judgment of the ZF 50/1.4 Bokeh until you actually see it. IMO, my N version of the Zeiss 50/1.4 had some of the worse Bokeh I've ever encountered in a 50mm. The (too expensive) Leica E60 version of their 50/1.4 blows it away, and even the cheaply made Canon 50/1.4 seems better in OOF areas.
 
Marc,

isn't the 50/1.4 N and 50/1.4 C/Y the same optical design? I would expect both lenses have the same bokeh. I was quite pleased with the bokeh with the C/Y 50/1.4, maybe the bokeh with the Nikon 50/1.4 is extremly bad. The good thing is that I have choice now to pick up ZF lenses for my Nikon.
 
Despite the fact that C-Y 50 1.4 and N50 1.4 are optically identical, N50 1.4 performs better because N1 is better in the control of unwanted light and flare. N1 just have better matt coating inside to absorb light. In terms of bokeh, they are identical.

I have a gut feeling that the new ZF 50 1.4 will be identical to N and C-Y counterparts. This is because in Zeiss camera lens news, they mentioned that they believe C-Y 50 1.4 is very good and won something like... The technical data of the new lenses 50 and 85 are absolutely identical to the C-Ys. The only thing which is missing is the MTF graph but I would think they are the same as C-Ys. Zeiss also said the price will be comparable to Nikons, suggesting that they would not use expensive materials for the new lenses.

If you are after bokeh, Zeiss Ikon 50 2 is very good, so is C-Y 60 2.8. These two are significantly more expensive than C-Y 50 1.4.

ZF 60 2 should have a good bokeh too. I extrapolate from the fact that it is a Macro lens and Zeiss Macro lenses always have a good bokeh. In order to be a good macro lens, you can't have much astigmatism. Astigmatism produces both clear and blurr outline in the focused areas. It also produces bad bokeh when the pattern of bokeh has both sharp and blurr edges.

I am very pleased with my RX and AX because they have light and well d&ened mirror. Has the F6 a well d&ened mirror ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top