Zeiss ZE SLR Lens on the AF100

Scott Wellington said:
Fellow AF100 junkies...

I too am looking to buy the duclos zf lens set. My wife also shoots nikon, and we could purchase them on an equipment lease from the bank in the name of the business.

the zf 50 2.0 macro vs the zf 50mm 1.4 - i can't decide. the macro is more expensive... but I am wondering when I would use it.

what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

based on what Mattew Duclous (lens junkie/ connoisseur) who does the modding, and other users of both...the macro is a sharper lens. And as such thats the 50mm in there set. When asked why they useds that 50 instead of the 1.4 he said. "We found that the overall image quality produced by the 50mm f/2.0 Macro lens was more favorable than that of the f/1.4 version. The macro version is also larger and easier to work with on small, portable rigs"
http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/zeiss-zf-2-cine-mod-set/
 
While I have not used this particular lens, I do have a Zeiss macro lens, and focus travel is useually farther on a macro lens than on a similar normal focal length lens. Just something to think about.
 
There are no more Contax Zeiss bargains. Anyone priced a CY 35 f1.4 distagon lately? I think focal length to focal length you can find used Leica R lenses for the same or less money than any of the CY Zeiss or current ZF line and they are arguably better made. If you can live with F2.8 R series Elmarits are truly a bargain.
 
dLAND said:
I keep reading on those lenses and it seems that the Nikon version has a MANUAL IRIS RING.

Even though B&H told me that the Canon version has this ring, I have read many reviews that say they don´t. Has anybody used the ZF version to confirm that?
Click to expand...

I have a complete set of these that I use on my AF100, and I can definitely confirm that the ZF version *does* have an iris ring.

The only reason to buy the ZE's is if you want to use them specifically on a Canon body. For use on anything other than a Canon, the ZF is the better buy because it has a more adaptable mount and it has the iris ring. However, the downside to the ZF series is that they focus "backwards" (like all Nikon lenses do).
 
Get the ZF. Avoid the ZE. the Kipon mount is not much good, and electronic adaptors to control iris are expensive, clunky, and not yet reliable. So, just to re-iterate what everyone on this thread has told you, get the ZF versions. They have manual iris.
 
Thanks all for your repplies, thanks Barry for your shared experience on those lenses and for the magnificent books.

My first thought was to go for the ZE so, appart from my AF 100, it would be easy to rent for 5Ds. Anyway, I will follow your advice and get the ZF version. Manual iris is essential.

One last question, does backwards focus mean that the barrel turns on the opposite direction to focus a closer object (for example) or is there anything else that this would affect me?

Many thanks.
 
On the nikon mount zeiss you have manual aperature ring and you can get good adapters like MFT or novoflex. I´ve got a set of the, 35mm 1,4 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1,4. Really great lenses.
 
"We found that the overall image quality produced by the 50mm f/2.0 Macro lens was more favorable than that of the f/1.4 version. The macro version is also larger and easier to work with on small, portable rigs"
Click to expand...

Matthew Duclos explains in the discussion following his blog entry that the the 50mm 2.0 is sharper from corner to corner.

While this is important for shooting on a full-frame sensor (Canon 5D MarkII),, the 2x crop factor on the AF100 does not use the corners, so you get the best of the centre of the 50mm f1.4 which is ...gorgeous.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top