WEX Deal: Save £500 on the Sony A7R Mark II

Carle Zeis Vs Nikon


TonyCoridan 7 137 United Kingdom
9 Mar 2013 11:26AM
Hi Fellow photographers,

Is any of you using a Carl Zeiss lens of a nikon body (DSLR)?

In your opinion, does it produce better quality image than Nikon lenses?

Or would you get a Carl Zeiss lens/ have thought about getting one?

I heard they produce stunning result! Sharpness and details etc...

Thanks,

Tony

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

thewilliam 11 6.1k
9 Mar 2013 12:26PM
The Carl Zeiss lenses are designed with fewer compromises than their Nikon equivalents and in my experience, they do perform better.

I use the 100mm Makro-Planar for perhaps 90% of my studio portraits and all my product shots. It replaced the Nikon 105 VR Micro which I still keep as a back-up. The Zeiss lenses that we buy for stills photography are based on the hideously expensive Cinematographic "Master Primes" and so have a very much more complicated design than their Nikon counterparts. The new 135mm has 11 elements, many of which are ED glass, which is twice as many elements as a typical 135mm.

THe Makro-Planar has floating elements intended to prevent the lens from "breathing" which would be a cardinal sin for a movie lens. This means that, when doing product shots, the image scale doesn't change when we adjust the focus and studio work is easier.

Not many of us prefer to focus manually and few digital bodies have a suitable screen fitted as standard. Luckily the D3 series work just fine.

You'd buy Zeiss for one of two reasons: either using the best will make you happy or you'll make more money by using the best.
TonyCoridan 7 137 United Kingdom
9 Mar 2013 12:58PM

Quote:The Carl Zeiss lenses are designed with fewer compromises than their Nikon equivalents and in my experience, they do perform better.

I use the 100mm Makro-Planar for perhaps 90% of my studio portraits and all my product shots. It replaced the Nikon 105 VR Micro which I still keep as a back-up. The Zeiss lenses that we buy for stills photography are based on the hideously expensive Cinematographic "Master Primes" and so have a very much more complicated design than their Nikon counterparts. The new 135mm has 11 elements, many of which are ED glass, which is twice as many elements as a typical 135mm.

THe Makro-Planar has floating elements intended to prevent the lens from "breathing" which would be a cardinal sin for a movie lens. This means that, when doing product shots, the image scale doesn't change when we adjust the focus and studio work is easier.

Not many of us prefer to focus manually and few digital bodies have a suitable screen fitted as standard. Luckily the D3 series work just fine.

You'd buy Zeiss for one of two reasons: either using the best will make you happy or you'll make more money by using the best.



Thanks!

Have you got a portfolio online that I can have a look, please.

I'm thinking of getting either the 24-70 f2.8 Nikon or a Carl Zeiss equivalent: what do you recommend?

Tony,
scottishphototours 16 2.6k 2
9 Mar 2013 2:22PM
Get the Nikon, you'll never be disapointed.
Buchephalus 11 30
9 Mar 2013 3:19PM

Quote:I'm thinking of getting either the 24-70 f2.8 Nikon or a Carl Zeiss equivalent: what do you recommend?


Don't think Zeiss make a 24-70mm f2.8 zoom equivalent, at least I didn't see it at Focus on Imaging. I tried various Zeiss lenses on a Nikon D800 body and the results were stunning but the results from the 24-70 are great and you won't be disappointed and I've nothing to complain about using this lens.
photofrenzy 13 424 2 United Kingdom
9 Mar 2013 10:39PM
Super Optics theres very few Nikkor lenses that reach the same optical excellence as the Zeiss optics , However i think majority if not all of them are manual focus, If that suits your style of photography then go for it.Wink
TonyCoridan 7 137 United Kingdom
9 Mar 2013 10:42PM

Quote:Super Optics theres very few Nikkor lenses that reach the same optical excellence as the Zeiss optics , However i think majority if not all of them are manual focus, If that suits your style of photography then go for it.Wink


No, I would want an autofocus lens.

Thanks,

Tony
User_Removed 16 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
9 Mar 2013 10:43PM

Quote:I heard they produce stunning result! Sharpness and details


I'm sick of hearing this, but nobody has linked yet to an image taken with one of these expensive lenses that looks any better than what you'd get with a decent Nikkor or Canon L
TonyCoridan 7 137 United Kingdom
9 Mar 2013 10:54PM
These are the lenses that I have bought over the past few years:

1. 28mm f2.8 Nikon
2. 50mm f1.8 Nikon
3. 60mm 2.8 Micro Nikon
4. 85mm f1.8 Nikon
5. 80-200 f2.8 D ED IF Nikon
6. 80-400mm VR Nikon
7. 17-35mm Sigma

Is that too many?

Tony
9 Mar 2013 11:40PM

Quote:
Is that too many?

Tony



That largely depends on whether you get the use of them, and what you need them for
photofrenzy 13 424 2 United Kingdom
10 Mar 2013 12:31AM

Quote:Super Optics theres very few Nikkor lenses that reach the same optical excellence as the Zeiss optics , However i think majority if not all of them are manual focus, If that suits your style of photography then go for it.Wink

No, I would want an autofocus lens.

Thanks,

Tony



Tony if you require Auto Focus then stick with Nikon then in that case the Zeiss is not for you , If you can try n go for Nikkor AF-s lenses which are more responsive, Wink. The lenses you have should produce good quality
Carabosse 17 41.4k 270 England
10 Mar 2013 12:37AM
I have a Carl Zeiss lens on my Sony shirt-pocket compact. It's very good! Wink Tongue
10 Mar 2013 3:44PM
I have some Zeiss Z-series lenses and they are very fine lenses. In particular, they are built to last a long time, they have superb antireflective coatings that deliver high contrast and colour saturation, and even at large apertures they are well corrected for aberrations.

On the other hand, they’re large, heavy, and expensive. They’re also manual focus, which is ideal for tripod work with precise focusing in live view and snapshots relying on depth of field, but less suitable for unpredictable shooting requiring fast focus.

I like them a lot, but they’re not for everyone. And even though I like them, I do own autofocus lenses for when autofocus is convenient.

You have several lenses covering a large range of focal lengths, but they’re only too many if you don’t use them. And they’re only too few if you’d really use another one!
User_Removed 16 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
10 Mar 2013 4:17PM
Have you got any pictures from them you can share with us sam?
Paul Morgan 19 19.4k 6 England
10 Mar 2013 6:18PM
Do these lenses have smooth running apertures without click stops, if not I can`t see any advantages.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.