Comparison of New Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Nikon Mount vs. Older Nikon Normal Lenses

When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site about
their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could hardly
wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax Screwmount
(I still shoot in M42).

Well, after reading Ken Rockwell's comparisons, it appears that these
Cosina-Zeiss lenses aren't really so superior after all.

One look at his comparison pages on lens sharpness reveals that your choice
of aperture is, by far, more important than your choice of lens!
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...on/f-stops.htm) He used the
50mm f/1.4 AI as an example, and he showed images of the same object, shot
at various apertures. I had always known that lens performance varied based
on the selected aperture, but seeing these comparisons, rather than just
reading test results expressed in Lines-Per-Millimeter, really hit home!

The entire series of tests can be viewed starting at this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...ison/index.htm

What I really liked about this particular series of tests is that he
actually shows you the images, side by side, so you can see the differences
with your own eyes, rather than just relying on his personal assessments.

It was amazing to see how decades-old Nikon normal lenses equaled or beat
out the new Zeiss normal lens. These tests may not represent the last word
on the subject, but seeing the photos certainly knocked the wind out of
Zeiss' sails, at least for me. I guess I won't be trading in my Pentax
normal lenses any time soon.

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:nLtEg.7196$Ji1.5986@trnddc05...
When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site about
their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could hardly
wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax Screwmount
(I still shoot in M42).

dude...are there two people in these groups with your name? aren't you the
same guy who last week said how inferior older pentax gear was to the
"newest" and best of the digital age? now you want a new lens (that in your
pal's conclusion--not yours--isn't all that great) for a camera you still
use, but found terrible last week?

It was amazing to see how decades-old Nikon normal lenses equaled or beat
out the new Zeiss normal lens. These tests may not represent the last
word on the subject, but seeing the photos certainly knocked the wind out
of Zeiss' sails, at least for me. I guess I won't be trading in my Pentax
normal lenses any time soon.

lol...you are an interesting sort. those "unprofessional" pentax lenses
suddenly are acceptable?

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:nLtEg.7196$Ji1.5986@trnddc05...
When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site about
their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could hardly
wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax Screwmount
(I still shoot in M42).

Well, after reading Ken Rockwell's comparisons, it appears that these
Cosina-Zeiss lenses aren't really so superior after all.

One look at his comparison pages on lens sharpness reveals that your
choice of aperture is, by far, more important than your choice of lens!
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...on/f-stops.htm) He used the
50mm f/1.4 AI as an example, and he showed images of the same object, shot
at various apertures. I had always known that lens performance varied
based on the selected aperture, but seeing these comparisons, rather than
just reading test results expressed in Lines-Per-Millimeter, really hit
home!

The entire series of tests can be viewed starting at this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...ison/index.htm

What I really liked about this particular series of tests is that he
actually shows you the images, side by side, so you can see the
differences with your own eyes, rather than just relying on his personal
assessments.

It was amazing to see how decades-old Nikon normal lenses equaled or beat
out the new Zeiss normal lens. These tests may not represent the last
word on the subject, but seeing the photos certainly knocked the wind out
of Zeiss' sails, at least for me. I guess I won't be trading in my Pentax
normal lenses any time soon.

"Don't worry about your lenses' sharpness. The lens designers already have.
The lenses you already have are all you need." - Ken Rockwell

.....the guy should be on the Comedy Channel !!! LOL

"POTD.com.au" wrote in message
...

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:nLtEg.7196$Ji1.5986@trnddc05...
When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site about
their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could hardly
wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax
Screwmount (I still shoot in M42).

Well, after reading Ken Rockwell's comparisons, it appears that these
Cosina-Zeiss lenses aren't really so superior after all.

One look at his comparison pages on lens sharpness reveals that your
choice of aperture is, by far, more important than your choice of lens!
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...on/f-stops.htm) He used the
50mm f/1.4 AI as an example, and he showed images of the same object,
shot at various apertures. I had always known that lens performance
varied based on the selected aperture, but seeing these comparisons,
rather than just reading test results expressed in Lines-Per-Millimeter,
really hit home!

The entire series of tests can be viewed starting at this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...ison/index.htm

What I really liked about this particular series of tests is that he
actually shows you the images, side by side, so you can see the
differences with your own eyes, rather than just relying on his personal
assessments.

It was amazing to see how decades-old Nikon normal lenses equaled or beat
out the new Zeiss normal lens. These tests may not represent the last
word on the subject, but seeing the photos certainly knocked the wind out
of Zeiss' sails, at least for me. I guess I won't be trading in my
Pentax normal lenses any time soon.

"Don't worry about your lenses' sharpness. The lens designers already
have. The lenses you already have are all you need." - Ken Rockwell

....the guy should be on the Comedy Channel !!! LOL



The site has multiple pages of comparison shots, and as always, some clown
has to surface and dismiss it all with a one-liner.

P-L-O-N-K !

jeremy wrote:

When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site about
their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could hardly
wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax Screwmount
(I still shoot in M42).

Well, after reading Ken Rockwell's comparisons, it appears that these
Cosina-Zeiss lenses aren't really so superior after all.

If memory serves, Ken Rockwell's comparisons themselves have sometimes
been of questionable sharpness.

"no_name" wrote in message
. com...
jeremy wrote:

When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site about
their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could hardly
wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax
Screwmount (I still shoot in M42).

Well, after reading Ken Rockwell's comparisons, it appears that these
Cosina-Zeiss lenses aren't really so superior after all.

If memory serves, Ken Rockwell's comparisons themselves have sometimes
been of questionable sharpness.

I have two responses:

1: I haven't seen anybody else post anything about those new Zeiss lenses,
so this is all there is right now.

2: I admit that I am unqualified to assess the validity of his testing
criteria, but he did indicate that he made every effort to test each of the
lenses under identical conditions. And he actually posts the photos,
side-by-side, on his website. Readers can see the differences with their
own eyes, rather than simply relying on numerical scores.

I was really surprised by the lack of a clear margin of superiority of the
Zeiss lens over the older Nikon normal lenses. And I was doubly surprised
by the examples of bokeh. The Zeiss lenses didn't seem to have an edge over
the Nikons. Given the price of the Zeiss lens, I just expected a lot more
in the way of results.

The comparison shots displaying the images at different aperture settings
were the most revealing to me. Now, if all that Rockwell did was to take
the same shot, using the same lens, mounted on the same camera, with the
only variable being the aperture (and corresponding reciprocal shutter
speed), then it would seem to me that the test was unbiased. The
differences in sharpness varied widely, based on the aperture used. By
comparison, the differences between different lenses, at the same aperture,
were hardly worth scrutiny. A used Nikon normal lens, for under $50 bucks,
yielded results as good as the expensive new Zeiss lens--and the Nikon build
quality was better, too. I really did not expect that before I saw the
shots.

If his testing criteria were invalid, please explain where he fell short of
the mark. To my amateur eyes, everything seemed to be in good order. Too
bad Zeiss could not have been allowed to critique the comparisons and
comment. They had made some really wild claims about the sharpness of their
new lenses--and the side-by-side comparison shots with the Nikon lenses sure
didn't show any discernable differences.

Nobody is publishing these types of lens tests anymore, so I'm grateful that
Ken Rockwell took on this project. I'd never have believed it had I not
seen the images with my own eyes.

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:AWEEg.70172$MW.66928@trnddc04...

"POTD.com.au" wrote in message
...

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:nLtEg.7196$Ji1.5986@trnddc05...
When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site
about their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could
hardly wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax
Screwmount (I still shoot in M42).

Well, after reading Ken Rockwell's comparisons, it appears that these
Cosina-Zeiss lenses aren't really so superior after all.

One look at his comparison pages on lens sharpness reveals that your
choice of aperture is, by far, more important than your choice of lens!
(http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...on/f-stops.htm) He used
the 50mm f/1.4 AI as an example, and he showed images of the same
object, shot at various apertures. I had always known that lens
performance varied based on the selected aperture, but seeing these
comparisons, rather than just reading test results expressed in
Lines-Per-Millimeter, really hit home!

The entire series of tests can be viewed starting at this link:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...ison/index.htm

What I really liked about this particular series of tests is that he
actually shows you the images, side by side, so you can see the
differences with your own eyes, rather than just relying on his personal
assessments.

It was amazing to see how decades-old Nikon normal lenses equaled or
beat out the new Zeiss normal lens. These tests may not represent the
last word on the subject, but seeing the photos certainly knocked the
wind out of Zeiss' sails, at least for me. I guess I won't be trading
in my Pentax normal lenses any time soon.

"Don't worry about your lenses' sharpness. The lens designers already
have. The lenses you already have are all you need." - Ken Rockwell

....the guy should be on the Comedy Channel !!! LOL



The site has multiple pages of comparison shots, and as always, some clown
has to surface and dismiss it all with a one-liner.

P-L-O-N-K !


Wow we are testy aren't we?? :-)

The site also has multiple pages of dribble that back up Ken's rather naive
view on the lens issue.... and to right of the benefits of CZ glass just
because some other lens will be good at "some" aperture is just as naive
IMO. You might as well wear and broken watch... at least it will be right
twice a day! lol

"joe mama" wrote in message
...

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:nLtEg.7196$Ji1.5986@trnddc05...
When I read all the promotional material on the Carl Zeiss web site
about
their introduction of a new line of lenses in Nikon mount, I could
hardly
wait to get my hands on their upcoming lenses in the M42 Pentax
Screwmount
(I still shoot in M42).

dude...are there two people in these groups with your name? aren't you
the
same guy who last week said how inferior older pentax gear was to the
"newest" and best of the digital age? now you want a new lens (that in
your
pal's conclusion--not yours--isn't all that great) for a camera you still
use, but found terrible last week?

Umm, that's a very long way indeed from what Jeremy said.


It was amazing to see how decades-old Nikon normal lenses equaled or
beat
out the new Zeiss normal lens. These tests may not represent the last
word on the subject, but seeing the photos certainly knocked the wind
out
of Zeiss' sails, at least for me. I guess I won't be trading in my
Pentax
normal lenses any time soon.

lol...you are an interesting sort. those "unprofessional" pentax lenses
suddenly are acceptable?

Again, you really need to work on those reading comprehension skills.
Jeremy said that 40 plus year old screw-mount lenses could hardly be relied
upon for professional use because they are no longer supported by the
manufacturer for servicing. He also noted that they are better built than
anything made today and have better optics than almost anything made today.
On all of which points he is correct.


Peter

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
pal's conclusion--not yours--isn't all that great) for a camera you still
use, but found terrible last week?

Umm, that's a very long way indeed from what Jeremy said.

"Much as I have received enjoyment from my Spotmatics and SMC Takumar
lenses,
they are antiques and cannot be considered professional tools. And I've
grown weary of carrying around all those lenses, filters and accessories.
It may be okay for those times that I feel nostalgic and want to fiddle
around with classic metal equipment, but I find that I spend more time
fiddling with equipment than I spend in actually taking photos. The older I
get, the less I want to fiddle with equipment and the more I want to create
photos. It's a dilemma."


lol...you are an interesting sort. those "unprofessional" pentax lenses
suddenly are acceptable?

"Much as I have received enjoyment from my Spotmatics and SMC Takumar
lenses,
they are antiques and cannot be considered professional tools. And I've
grown weary of carrying around all those lenses, filters and accessories.
It may be okay for those times that I feel nostalgic and want to fiddle
around with classic metal equipment, but I find that I spend more time
fiddling with equipment than I spend in actually taking photos. The older I
get, the less I want to fiddle with equipment and the more I want to create
photos. It's a dilemma."

"I stand on my assessment that these are no longer professional tools."
"I am not a professional."

it's nice to know he has a fan club though. and speaking of comprehension,
why not look at the cannabilization of the origianl thread.

"joe mama" wrote in message
...

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...
pal's conclusion--not yours--isn't all that great) for a camera you
still
use, but found terrible last week?

Umm, that's a very long way indeed from what Jeremy said.

"Much as I have received enjoyment from my Spotmatics and SMC Takumar
lenses,
they are antiques and cannot be considered professional tools. And I've
grown weary of carrying around all those lenses, filters and accessories.
It may be okay for those times that I feel nostalgic and want to fiddle
around with classic metal equipment, but I find that I spend more time
fiddling with equipment than I spend in actually taking photos. The older
I
get, the less I want to fiddle with equipment and the more I want to
create
photos. It's a dilemma."


lol...you are an interesting sort. those "unprofessional" pentax lenses
suddenly are acceptable?

"Much as I have received enjoyment from my Spotmatics and SMC Takumar
lenses,
they are antiques and cannot be considered professional tools. And I've
grown weary of carrying around all those lenses, filters and accessories.
It may be okay for those times that I feel nostalgic and want to fiddle
around with classic metal equipment, but I find that I spend more time
fiddling with equipment than I spend in actually taking photos. The older
I
get, the less I want to fiddle with equipment and the more I want to
create
photos. It's a dilemma."

"I stand on my assessment that these are no longer professional tools."
"I am not a professional."

it's nice to know he has a fan club though. and speaking of comprehension,
why not look at the cannabilization of the origianl thread.



LOL - Jeremy never said the system was "terrible" - you did. He did say
that the age was why the lenses could no longer be considered professional
tools, which is a summarisation of what he has said before in other threads
about the issue being one of lack of support, not of quality. But he never
said the lenses were 'unprodfessional' in terms of results, yet that is just
the meaning you chose to take in your post to which I was replying.

As I said, read carefully.



Peter