Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Zeiss Optics on Canon & Nikon  (Read 6504 times)
JTFOTO
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


WWW
« on: January 19, 2009, 08:02:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I am wondering if any one is using these Zeiss optics on their Nikon or Canon lenses?

Is there any word that Zeiss will make an autofocus version of any of their lenses?

What experience have you had with the Nikon vs. Canon.  I know that the Nikon optics are better than Canon optics, but how do they fare against the Zeiss?

JT
Logged
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2009, 09:30:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JTFOTO
I am wondering if any one is using these Zeiss optics on their Nikon or Canon lenses?

Is there any word that Zeiss will make an autofocus version of any of their lenses?

What experience have you had with the Nikon vs. Canon.  I know that the Nikon optics are better than Canon optics, but how do they fare against the Zeiss?

JT

I have all the Zeiss ZF lenses for Nikon and use them with my Fuji cameras. Within those focal lengths I much prefer the Zeiss over any Nikon offering, but that doesn't make the Nikkors bad, just my personal preference. As far as Canon vs. Nikon glass, don't believe that one is better than the other, they both have great products and depending on the lens there are some Canons that are better than their Nikon equivalents and vice versa. I don't know about Canon but they have no plans for AF Zeiss lenses for Nikon, not even chipped manual ones like the Voigtlanders.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 09:31:20 PM by ddk » Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2009, 10:26:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JTFOTO
I am wondering if any one is using these Zeiss optics on their Nikon or Canon lenses?

I do only have experience with the Zeiss ZF100 f2.0 on a Nikon D3x, and the lens is an amazing performer.

The Nikkor 105 f2.8 VR is also excellent, but the detail, image uniformity and bokeh of the Zeiss are better.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2009, 10:27:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JTFOTO
I am wondering if any one is using these Zeiss optics on their Nikon or Canon lenses?

Is there any word that Zeiss will make an autofocus version of any of their lenses?

What experience have you had with the Nikon vs. Canon.  I know that the Nikon optics are better than Canon optics, but how do they fare against the Zeiss?

JT
I can't comment on the newer Zeiss lenses but I'm using older Contax Zeiss lenses on my Canon body with an adapter and the quality of the shorter focal length lenses is very impressive. I did some very basic tests comparing my Canon 24-105 and Contax 35-70mm f3.4 and the Contax was miles better than the Canon.

Some of the newer Zeiss 35mm lenses are reportedly better than the older Contax lenses while some are worse.
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2009, 11:45:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JTFOTO
I am wondering if any one is using these Zeiss optics on their Nikon or Canon lenses?

Is there any word that Zeiss will make an autofocus version of any of their lenses?

What experience have you had with the Nikon vs. Canon.  I know that the Nikon optics are better than Canon optics, but how do they fare against the Zeiss?

JT

  Sony seems to be the only company fully working in cooperation with Zeiss for autofocus lenses in DSLR.  I'm guessing that, due to contract limitations, we won't see AF in Zeiss lenses for other DSLR makers anytime soon.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2009, 11:46:22 AM by douglasf13 » Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2009, 12:53:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChrisJR
I can't comment on the newer Zeiss lenses but I'm using older Contax Zeiss lenses on my Canon body with an adapter and the quality of the shorter focal length lenses is very impressive. I did some very basic tests comparing my Canon 24-105 and Contax 35-70mm f3.4 and the Contax was miles better than the Canon.

Some of the newer Zeiss 35mm lenses are reportedly better than the older Contax lenses while some are worse.

Can you post some crops of the two lenses?
Thanks
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Paul Roark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2009, 04:53:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChrisJR
I can't comment on the newer Zeiss lenses but I'm using older Contax Zeiss lenses on my Canon body with an adapter and the quality of the shorter focal length lenses is very impressive. I did some very basic tests comparing my Canon 24-105 and Contax 35-70mm f3.4 and the Contax was miles better than the Canon.

Some of the newer Zeiss 35mm lenses are reportedly better than the older Contax lenses while some are worse.

I've tried 2 different Zeiss/Contax 28mm f/2.8 lenses with an adapter on the 5d2, and neither could focus to infinity.  I assume the adapter was too thick.  So, some lens-adpater combinations are clearly better than others.

I've read lots of reviews of these lenses, but some of what I read suggests to me that my problems are not unusual.  Samples of comments regarding adapters and these lenses include that thinner adapters are needed for wide angle lenses (why should it matter, because it's more critical with them?), and Zeiss lenses seem to have more depth of field (of course they would if they're not really focused on infinity).  There seems to be some disagreement as to whether the 28mm Contax lens will clear the mirror.  Well, on mine it cleared -- just would not focus to infinity.  Note that I don't see comparative shots at infinity in these reviews.

So, be sure to deal with people that you can return the goods to.

I've put together a selection of MTF curves that I used for my searches at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/MTF-charts.jpg  This includes the "missing" Photodo Zeiss-Contax 28mm f/2.8 MTF.

That lens did perform well in lab resolution tests, but it was very hard to see all that much difference between it and the Canon 35mm f/2, center or edge.  (I tend to crop out corners of 35mm frames.)  In the field the Canon 35mm f/2 easily won even at f8 and f11, probably due to the focus problem.  The Zeiss lens sure did have relatively sharp foregrounds, however.

The Zeiss 28 had some odd shooting characteristics.  The contrast appeared to be greater, and highlights tended to get blown out.  While it showed darker corners at 2.8, at f 11 the edges seemed over-exposed.

I'm an old Zeiss fan and prefer good manual focus lenses, so I look forward to the ZE line.  But I'd be wary of these older optics and the adapters.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 578


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2009, 07:20:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Paul, which adapter did you use?
Logged

ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2009, 08:44:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marcmccalmont
Can you post some crops of the two lenses?
Thanks
Marc
No problem. I've attached some examples below. First two images are from the Canon, others from the Contax. Both shot at f11. Please excuse lack of studio lighting and the junk subject but nonetheless you can see big differences in the crops.

Neither image has had any PP apart from resizing.

[attachment=11019:canon_24_105.jpg]
[attachment=11020:canon_24_105_crop.jpg]
[attachment=11021:contax_35_70.jpg]
[attachment=11022:contax_35_70_crop.jpg]
Logged
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2009, 08:46:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Paul Roark
I've tried 2 different Zeiss/Contax 28mm f/2.8 lenses with an adapter on the 5d2, and neither could focus to infinity.  I assume the adapter was too thick.  So, some lens-adpater combinations are clearly better than others.

I've read lots of reviews of these lenses, but some of what I read suggests to me that my problems are not unusual.  Samples of comments regarding adapters and these lenses include that thinner adapters are needed for wide angle lenses (why should it matter, because it's more critical with them?), and Zeiss lenses seem to have more depth of field (of course they would if they're not really focused on infinity)
I found www.pebbleplace.com really good for information regarding which lenses and adapters work. Which adapters did you try? I'm using the happypageHK adapters which I've found to be excellent.
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2009, 04:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChrisJR
No problem. I've attached some examples below. First two images are from the Canon, others from the Contax. Both shot at f11. Please excuse lack of studio lighting and the junk subject but nonetheless you can see big differences in the crops.

Neither image has had any PP apart from resizing.

[attachment=11019:canon_24_105.jpg]
[attachment=11020:canon_24_105_crop.jpg]
[attachment=11021:contax_35_70.jpg]
[attachment=11022:contax_35_70_crop.jpg]

Was this on a tripod with  IS on it looks like the Canon is hunting?
Did you manually focus with live view?
The Canon looks blured due to movement.
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2009, 05:42:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: marcmccalmont
Was this on a tripod with  IS on it looks like the Canon is hunting?
Did you manually focus with live view?
The Canon looks blured due to movement.
Marc
Everything was taken on a tripod. IS turned off, focused manually. Everything completely manual.

It's possible the Canon lens is a bad copy.
Logged
witz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 199


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2009, 07:34:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChrisJR
Everything was taken on a tripod. IS turned off, focused manually. Everything completely manual.

It's possible the Canon lens is a bad copy.


My 24-105 is much better than that.... especially at f11 ( 5d2 & 1ds3 )

in fact.... I get rid of the 24-70 L because I thought my 24-105 was better... plus the IS really comes in handy ( really handy when shooting handheld video with the 5d2 )



Logged
ChrisJR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 217


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2009, 09:03:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: witz
My 24-105 is much better than that.... especially at f11 ( 5d2 & 1ds3 )

in fact.... I get rid of the 24-70 L because I thought my 24-105 was better... plus the IS really comes in handy ( really handy when shooting handheld video with the 5d2 )
My 24-105 really must be a bad copy then. Ideally I would like to have a good copy of this lens, especially as I'm looking at getting a 5d2 in a few months.
Logged
Paul Roark
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2009, 01:18:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Hening
Hi Paul, which adapter did you use?

It was from Haoda.  He seemed to have a good reputation, and the product seemed well made, with a chip that allowed the in focus light to work.  He's been easy to work with and seemed interested in finding out himself whether the adapter was really at fault here.

On the other hand, part of the weirdness of the images other than not being able to focus to infinity was probably that the adapter chip was putting image information in the Raw file that the converter was picking up and using in processing.  That can probably be changed, and I was able to manually correct some of the image issues I saw.  However, having a lens that transmits the correct image information is a major plus to me.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
Logged
marcmccalmont
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1729



« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2009, 01:58:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ChrisJR
Everything was taken on a tripod. IS turned off, focused manually. Everything completely manual.

It's possible the Canon lens is a bad copy.

I think you have a bad copy! Have it serviced by Canon, the lens should be too good to not use
Marc
Logged

Marc McCalmont
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 578


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 21, 2009, 03:30:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Paul Roark
It was from Haoda.  [...]

Thank you Paul. So I am happy with my CameraQuest.
Logged

mcbroomf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424


WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2009, 01:28:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I have tried a number of Zeiss lenses (older C/Y not ZF) on Canon 1ds2 and 1ds3.  The lenses I use are the 21mm Distagon and 35-70 Vario-Sonnar.  Both stellar performers.  At 28mm I use a new version of the Leica Elmarit, and at 90mm I use the F2 OM Macro.  For 135mm I use the Canon L.
Logged

Mike Broomfield
Website
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad