NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Jedi on January 14, 2017, 23:40:04
-
Hello!
Can you report, please, your impressions, your opinions, for your personal experience, about the comparison between the Nikkor AF-D 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2?
Do you prefer Nikon or Zeiss for mountain landascapes and (few) indoor environmental portraits, please?
Nikon 28mm is also famous four its spectacular results in low lights, but Zeiss is Zeiss.....
I would shoot with Nikon D810.
Thank you!!!!
-
i've not tried these Twenty-Eights. But I swear by my Zeiss 15mm f2.8 and 21 f2.8 and 25 f2 Distagons albeit heavy. So I also use the smaller 20mm 4f and 20 f3.5 Nikkors. But a D810 could stretch capabilities of the Nikkors, which are nearly as solidly built as Distagons being "all metal" AI lenses.
However the silkiness of Zeiss MF is a world apart :-)
As emphasized several times (following on the likes of the late great Galen Rowell) these Nikkors are lighter and more compact + they do not flare especially shooting into the sun. The Nikkor AIS Twenty-Eights are also great lenses
Do not overlook this classic pancake 28 :-) it only weighs 180g with solid performance : Voigtlander Color-Skopar 28mm 2.8 AI-P SLII
some links etc
https://blog.mingthein.com/?s=voitlander+28mm
http://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-carl-zeiss-distagon-2828-t/
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/28Distagon.html?dglyPT=true
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/28Distagon-compare-Voigtlander28f2_8-PineCreekMine-aerial.html?dglyPT=true
https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/ZF/publish/28Distagon-compare-CottonwoodCanyonFallColor.html?dglyPT=true
https://photographylife.com/lenses/voigtlander-28mm-f2-8-color-skopar-sl-ii
https://joserochaphoto.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/voigtlander-color-skopar-28mm-f2-8-sl-ii-aspherical-review/
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/01/07/a-quick-look-at-the-voigtlander-28-2-8-and-nokton-58-1-4-on-the-nikon-df/
http://www.lenstip.com/369.1-Lens_review-Voigtlander_Color_Skopar_28_mm_f_2.8_SL_II.html
Alternatives
Sony FE 2/28 – The Sony has AF, is faster and it has nicer bokeh. It is also sharper in the extreme corners at f/8 if you don’t correct the distortion, if you do the Zeiss is a little sharper across most of the frame. The FE 2/28 vignettes a lot and it has very significant distortion. It is a little smaller than the Zeiss Distagon if you include the adapter but twice as expensive. Build quality is no contest, the Zeiss wins. See this post for a comparison of both lenses.
Sony FE 4/16-35 ZA OSS – Four times as expensive, two times as heavy but more flexible because it a zoom and because it is stabilized. Distortion is more pronounced. Sharpness at f/8 is very close with an advantage for the FE Zeiss in the extreme corners.
Olympus OM 3.5/28 – A very small and very affordable lens which is only a little less sharp and contrasty than the Zeiss 2.8/28 but it has less field curvature. Build quality is not as nice as that of the Zeiss.
SMC Pentax K 3.5/28 (52mm filter thread) – Even though it usually sells for half the price of the Zeiss 2.8/28 it comes very close to it in performance. I think the Zeiss is a tad sharper but at f/8 the extreme corners of the Pentax are sharper and it has less CA. Build quality is quite good.
Nikon Ai-S 2.8/28 – I don’t own it but from what I have seen and read it is a little weaker at longer distances. The big advantage of the Nikon is that it has a very short minimal focusing distance and floating elements. So it is much more suited for short distance work.
Also check out this interesting comparison on the a7rII on FM with the Pentax 3.5/28, Olympus 3.5/28 and Nikon AI-S 2.8/28.
The Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 T* is a very enjoyable lens and well suited for landscape photography.
Few lenses are built as well and handle as nicely as the Zeiss 2.8/28. To me this is an important aspect of a lens. I don’t shoot for money I shoot because I enjoy the process and the end result.
For my landscape photography the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 performed very well, by f/8 it is very sharp with the exception of a few pixels in the corners. It handles most back lit situations with ease and because it it doesn’t weight me down much I often have it with me.
Of course it isn’t a perfect lens. While the center is excellent from f/2.8 you should at least stop down to f/5.6 for good corners. Vignetting is also very obvious at f/2.8 and to a lesser degree at f/4. The performance drop at shorter distances is a bit of a letdown.
-
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2814af.htm
-
i've not tried these Twenty-Eights. But I swear by my Zeiss 15mm f2.8 and 21 f2.8 and 25 f2 Distagons albeit heavy.
Do not overlook this classic pancake 28 :-)
The Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 T* is a very enjoyable lens and well suited for landscape photography.
Few lenses are built as well and handle as nicely as the Zeiss 2.8/28. To me this is an important aspect of a lens. I don’t shoot for money I shoot because I enjoy the process and the end result.
For my landscape photography the Zeiss Distagon 2.8/28 performed very well, by f/8 it is very sharp with the exception of a few pixels in the corners. It handles most back lit situations with ease and because it it doesn’t weight me down much I often have it with me.
Of course it isn’t a perfect lens. While the center is excellent from f/2.8 you should at least stop down to f/5.6 for good corners. Vignetting is also very obvious at f/2.8 and to a lesser.......
1) Excuse me, but you have said that you haven't tried these lenses!!!!
2) heavy? I use Nikon's 14-24mm, 24-70mm f/2.8 VRII, and 70-200mm f/2.8E FL in my long trekking in the Dolomites!!!!
3) Only Nikon or Zeiss lenses
4) Classic pancake???? The actual Nikon pro 28mm is the Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8G: it seems to be a plastic toy: aren't you agree? It seems to be the 18-55mm DX!!!! I want a solid lens in my hands when I shoot, like Zeiss or old metal Nikkor AF-D lenses, or actual Nikon pro zoom lenses
5) Nikon AF-D 28mm f/2.8 isn't a good performer for the quality I want
-
Said Rockwell probably haven't used the lens either ...
From my field notes on the 28/1.4 Nikkor it was sharp in the centre even at the wider stops, vignetting was obvious, and corners needed stopping down quite a bit more to get even sharpness over the frame. Flare resistance was good but not outstanding and image contrast overall not very high. Background bokeh would be soft and smooth unless the background was of the busy kind. Chromatic aberrations are as expected for a lens of this vintage and might require conversion program treatment. A nice lens for portraits and documentary work, but not a candidate for landscapes. The newer f/1.8 version would be better as it definitively is NOT a "plastic toy".
It has the infamous A/M switching ring design that is susceptible to material fatigue and later cracking up, leading to costly repairs.
Not tried the Zeiss lens.
-
1) Excuse me, but you have said that you haven't tried these lenses!!!!
As I said the Zeiss I have are in a class of their own. I bought Used in near mint at substantial lower cost but they are by no means cheap. And i'm sure from the reliable feedback from the likes of Ming Thein and similar experienced and conscientious bloggers on the www (on which I based my decision) that the 28 Zeiss is no different.
I've only tried the 28 f2.8 AI, which was fine but with latest generation of DSLRs esp Nikon D810 i selected Zeiss. And don't regret it. I don't need AF mF is great for landscapes and closeups. Im most fond of the Tiny Twenties - tough Nikkor classics and often use them when carrying telephotos etc + carbon fibre monopod or tripod. And as reiterated on NG, the 20 f4 doesn't flare into the sun
2) heavy? I use Nikon's 14-24mm, 24-70mm f/2.8 VRII, and 70-200mm f/2.8E FL in my long trekking in the Dolomites!!!!
well, all i can say and I'm not being facetious here - each to their own ;) Check out the parallel NG thread active over past couple of days on the 300 2.8 and larger. Spells out outweighing factors
Telephotos tip the balance of the kit one can lug especially in hills and higher. And my choices in central Africa are tempered by the heat etc. It will literally kill many people if they don't treat tropical landscapes with respect, even causians born and raised in the Zambezi valley etc. This especially holds in the hotter seasons (which is most the annual cycle); water is precious, one feeds the tsetse flies etc and the rugged topography and rough substrates exact their forfeit literally in sweat and blood, and more. The bush is often thick even when using elephant paths. These realities are coupled with the need for a certain "nimbleness of foot" where one walks up to and around large carnivores and pachyderms! In the past I carried a pack + a heavy rifle for self protection of colleagues. And in museum work often packed a folding 410 shotgun with dustshot for scientific collecting... Keep gear to the minimum :-) Some of us learnt out survival lessons decades back.
It's no difference in equatorial forests, either in piroque or on foot. And the Congo is no picnic...
On the other hand, here in the Cape Folds Mts it is easy to carry Zeiss and 1 longer lens but again I prefer flexibility. Plus packing other kit for cover overnight or sudden storms (especially Drakensberg and Chimanimanis) and sustenance adds up.
3) Only Nikon or Zeiss lenses
calls the likes of us call fundamentalist, all i've come to need ;D but maybe a Voigt – there’s the 28 and also 58 1.4….
4) Classic pancake????
The actual Nikon pro 28mm is the Nikkor AF-S 28mm f/1.8G: it seems to be a plastic toy: aren't you agree? It seems to be the 18-55mm DX!!!! I want a solid lens in my hands when I shoot, like Zeiss or old metal Nikkor AF-D lenses, or actual Nikon pro zoom lenses
the Nikkor Twenties, and quite a few others – I also swear by the 45 2.8 AIP Nikkor , and there’s the Voigtlander 28. I'm planning to try it later this year
try not to do plastic but it's becoming hard to dodge these days. And it's integral to DSLRs ? in fact, i've seen polycarbonate survive hard knocks but they wear out over the years. Is this not why the new G and E Nikkors carry the encircled "10" for a decade life span max?!
5) Nikon AF-D 28mm f/2.8 isn't a good performer for the quality I want
i would get Zeiss or the Voigt
enjoy your Distagons; they'll sure do full justice in the karst, especially those stunning blue waters against dark greens, and white waterfalls and rock etc ;)
kind regards
Woody
-
Good morning, master. You said: "The newer f/1.8 version would be better as it definitively is NOT a "plastic toy".
I am honored to receive your answer. When you touch and you try to shoot with the Nikon 28mm f/1.8G, it seems to shoot with the Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm DX (or 18-70mm, but there isn't difference for the touch), in my opinion. I think that it's a ridiculos thing that Nikon for a pro prime lens doesn't use metal and it's true first of all for more expensive prime pro lenses, such as AF-S 24mm f/1.4G and 35mm f/1.4G, which are also very expensive!! A photographer who chooses Nikon, professional or amateur (like me) user, don't deserve a PLASTIC bayone, PLASTIC barrel exterior, PLASTIC focus ring. Also if the sharpness is almost excellent, the plastic doesn't ensure constancy and precision for a long time, with a hard use, like a professionist's work use. It's true that today the great brands don't use metal materials as it once was, for commercial reason, I think, but 28/1.8G, 35/1.4G, 24/1.4G are full of plastic, it's absolutely true!!!!! The handfeel when you shoot with one of these lenses and a lens of the '60's years is very different! I'm 40 years old and I shoot from 24 years, with film and mechanic bodies at the beginning (for my great luck!!!), Zenit (no money!!!), Pentax, Minolta SR-T series and Nikon from 2000. I've used old Nikon tanks, indestructible, such as 105mm f/2DC, 135mm f/2DC, 85/1.4D, 80-200mm f/2.8 AF e AF-S (all types), 28-70/2.8, to not speak about AI-S Nikon lenses!!!! Minolta SR-T series lenses, the old Minolta Rokkor MC I serie (for example Rokkor MC 35mm f/1.8, 58mm f/1.4, 135mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.7, 28mm f/3.5) was pro lenses all-metal. Nikon offends me with a plastic pro prime lens if it wants 1800$ for the 35/1.4G and 2200$ for the 24/1.4G: the plastic doesn't ensure constancy and precision for a long time and there isn't the old wonderful handfeel. Zeiss has continued to produce all-metal lenses: for this reason for the fixes focal from 18mm to 35mm I have choosen Zeiss lenses (and I sold Nikon AF-S 20/1.8, 24/1.4G, 35/1.4G, the 28mm f/1.8G even bought, just tried it in store), for portraits I have choosen Nikon AF-S 105mm f/1.4E G (I need AF) and for street Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, and for long trekking pnòy zooms (14-24mm, 24-70mm f/2.8E VRII, 70-200mm f/2.8E VRII FL).
However, the main subject of this topic was to know if in low light conditions, of landscapes and of environmental portrait, Nikon 28mm f/1.4 (another solid glass of a time!!) can give something extra, something wonderful and Zeiss no, it was the reason of its f/1.4 at film era, when ISO was only low (today you could shoot at 3200 ISO without problems and the following shoot at 64 ISO).
Excuse for my English.
-
As I said the Zeiss I have are in a class of their own. I bought Used in near mint at substantial lower cost but they are by no means cheap. And i'm sure from the reliable feedback from the likes of Ming Thein and similar experienced and conscientious bloggers on the www (on which I based my decision) that the 28 Zeiss is no different.
I've only tried the 28 f2.8 AI, which was fine but with latest generation of DSLRs esp Nikon D810 i selected Zeiss. And don't regret it. I don't need AF mF is great for landscapes and closeups. Im most fond of the Tiny Twenties - tough Nikkor classics and often use them when carrying telephotos etc + carbon fibre monopod or tripod. And as reiterated on NG, the 20 f4 doesn't flare into the sun
well, all i can say and I'm not being facetious here - each to their own ;) Check out the parallel NG thread active over past couple of days on the 300 2.8 and larger. Spells out outweighing factors
Telephotos tip the balance of the kit one can lug especially in hills and higher. And my choices in central Africa are tempered by the heat etc. It will literally kill many people if they don't treat tropical landscapes with respect, even causians born and raised in the Zambezi valley etc. This especially holds in the hotter seasons (which is most the annual cycle); water is precious, one feeds the tsetse flies etc and the rugged topography and rough substrates exact their forfeit literally in sweat and blood, and more. The bush is often thick even when using elephant paths. These realities are coupled with the need for a certain "nimbleness of foot" where one walks up to and around large carnivores and pachyderms! In the past I carried a pack + a heavy rifle for self protection of colleagues. And in museum work often packed a folding 410 shotgun with dustshot for scientific collecting... Keep gear to the minimum :-) Some of us learnt out survival lessons decades back.
It's no difference in equatorial forests, either in piroque or on foot. And the Congo is no picnic...
On the other hand, here in the Cape Folds Mts it is easy to carry Zeiss and 1 longer lens but again I prefer flexibility. Plus packing other kit for cover overnight or sudden storms (especially Drakensberg and Chimanimanis) and sustenance adds up.
calls the likes of us call fundamentalist, all i've come to need ;D but maybe a Voigt – there’s the 28 and also 58 1.4….
the Nikkor Twenties, and quite a few others – I also swear by the 45 2.8 AIP Nikkor , and there’s the Voigtlander 28. I'm planning to try it later this year
try not to do plastic but it's becoming hard to dodge these days. And it's integral to DSLRs ? in fact, i've seen polycarbonate survive hard knocks but they wear out over the years. Is this not why the new G and E Nikkors carry the encircled "10" for a decade life span max?!
i would get Zeiss or the Voigt
enjoy your Distagons; they'll sure do full justice in the karst, especially those stunning blue waters against dark greens, and white waterfalls and rock etc ;)
kind regards
Woody
I respect you! :D :D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
I have several of the newer f/1.8 AFS wide angles (20/1.8, 24/1.8 ), plus the latest AFS 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 Nikkors.
To diminish their quality and usability by scorning for being "plastic" is miles off the target and very little helpful characteristic. They are all excellent optics, handle quite well, and have proven their robustness under field conditions.
Do remember that the "plastic" involved here is strong polycarbonate and you would be surprised how much of knocks and bumps such designs can take in its stride. The optical designs are all first class and most are noticeable better optics than their MF predecessors.
Some of the lenses you refer to, such as the 105/2 DC Nikkor, has a field record of being quite vulnerable due to the bad construction of the A/M switch. Thus, I had my first 105 DC literally splitting into two on a mountain in the Czech Republic some years ago. The exterior can give misleading impressions. Do note that the 28/1.4 has the same flawed detail.
If you really need to avoid plastic in any form, then the sole option if the first generation of the Nikon F with matching lenses. No digital. Oh wait, even on the Nikon F there are plastic parts :D
-
I have several of the newer f/1.8 AFS wide angles (20/1.8, 24/1.8), plus the latest AFS 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 Nikkors.
To diminish their quality and usability by scorning for being "plastic" is miles off the target and very little helpful characteristic. They are all excellent optics, handle quite well, and have proven their robustness under field conditions.
Do remember that the "plastic" involved here is strong polycarbonatestrong polycarbonate and you would be surprised how much of knocks and bumps such designs can take in its stride. The optical designs are all first class and most are noticeable better optics than their MF predecessors.
If you really need to avoid plastic in any form, then the sole option if the first generation of the Nikon F with matching lenses. No digital. Oh wait, even on the Nikon F there are plastic parts :D
1) Have you used them for 20-25 years, at least, yet?
2) Strong polycarbonate, yes, but plastic, anyway! Don't you ever think that a professional or amateur user, deserve something better? (I repeat)
3) They are excellnt optics, ok, but the palstic don't ensure cunstance like the metal for a long time, I repeat.
4) Great optical design, certainly!!
5) My old 24-70mm f/2.8 (my first 24-70mm, not VRII) crashed in mountain and it separated into two definite parts for a little fall; in the past also my old AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 "double ring" (second version of the 80-200mm f/2.8, not the pump, not the AF-S) crashed, on a rock on the terrain and remained unhurt: you know that it's obvious....., plastic vs metal!!! 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D, 85/1.4D, 105/2D DC, 135 f/2D DC, 28/1.4D, 300mm AF f/4 were thank and not lenses for digital cameras, but they were another thing. Nikon has choosen this street and I have choosen Zeiss.
But, master, what do you think about Nikon 28/1.4D vs Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2 in low lights conditions for color rendering?
Thank you, master!
-
Mr. Rorslett, do you remember what kind of message you have posted in my address for big/long quota like this directly above your post? Or messages of this sort allowed for SOME members only? Would you clarify, please? Thank you!
-
Mr. Rorslett, do you remember what kind of message you have posted in my address for big/long quota like this directly above your post? Or messages of this sort allowed for SOME members only? Would you clarify, please? Thank you!
Excuse me, Have I done something wrong in the forum?....., in the messages?
-
Not sure what you refer to here? We aim to treat member on a like footing.
Extensive quotes are very rarely, if at all, required. However, the admins try to avoid editing them by shortening when the member themselves ought to do this.
The very long quote could have been shortened to something like this
As I said the Zeiss I have are in a class of their own. ....
enjoy your Distagons; they'll sure do full justice in the karst, especially those stunning blue waters against dark greens, and white waterfalls and rock etc ;)
kind regards
Woody
Even shorter versions would be possible.
-
Hello!
Can you report, please, your impressions, your opinions, for your personal experience, about the comparison between the Nikkor AF-D 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2?
Do you prefer Nikon or Zeiss for mountain landascapes and (few) indoor environmental portraits, please?
Nikon 28mm is also famous four its spectacular results in low lights, but Zeiss is Zeiss.....
I would shoot with Nikon D810.
Thank you!!!!
This Nikkor is a relict from film era. Needs to be closed to 5.6 to be accessibly sharp to its corners. Contrast is on the low side, so, the color, accordingly. Actually, is not very bad even today, but clearly shows its age. Zeiss is simply better of almost every respect, but, vignettes much wide open. Yet, sometimes, into the sun, harder to focus. Please note, it is my experience only! LZ
-
I strongly prefer the plastic and rubber on the outer surface of lenses and cameras as they do not feel cold to touch in very cold (-15C to -35C) temperatures as metal does. Also I have experienced a Zeiss lens' manual focus to jam and break in the cold in conditions where Nikkors perform flawlessly. I think too tight tolerances and lack of sufficient outdoor testing are responsible.
The 24-70 has since been improved mechanically (E version). This type of lenses (wide to tele) have extending structure for various reasons (one is optimal use of the hood at different focal lengths). Most f/2.8 telezooms have internal zoom which makes them more robust but it doesn't make them go from tele to wide angle does it. It is extremely difficult to make a lens change from wide angle to tele and maintain high image quality.
I do think manual focus of AF-S 24/1.4 and 20/1.8 should be improved to avoid the play when changing direction of turning the ring. However the optical results from these lenses are excellent and I do think the 24/1.4 is very robust.
-
Excuse me, Have I done something wrong in the forum?....., in the messages?
Nothin wrong from your side. It is concerning myself only! THX! LZ
-
Nothin wrong from your side. It is concerning myself only! THX! LZ
ok!
-
It is extremely difficult to make a lens change from wide angle to tele and maintain high image quality.
It's true.
-
To Ilkka Nissilä: you said: "I do think the 24/1.4 is very robust."
[/quote]
Ok, it's your opinion...., I respect it and I enrich with it.
What about the feeling the touch when you shoot, have you ever tried mf lens off past years?
What about low light conditions and environmental portraits of Nikon 28/1.4D and Zeiss Distagon 28/2?
-
1) Have you used them for 20-25 years, at least, yet?
These lenses will outlive me for sure.
2) Strong polycarbonate, yes, but plastic, anyway! Don't you ever think that a professional or amateur user, deserve something better? (I repeat)
This is a basic misunderstanding of materials. For most designs, polycarbonate shells are the equal or better approach. Try shooting in very cold weather to learn the importance of material choice.
3) They are excellnt optics, ok, but the palstic don't ensure cunstance like the metal for a long time, I repeat.
Feel free to have this opinion., I don't share it. You should not overlook the presence of metal inside the casing.
...4) Great optical design, certainly!!
5) My old 24-70mm f/2.8 (my first 24-70mm, not VRII) crashed in mountain and it separated into two definite parts for a little fall; in the past also my old AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 "double ring" (second version of the 80-200mm f/2.8, not the pump, not the AF-S) crashed, on a rock on the terrain and remained unhurt: you know that it's obvious....., plastic vs metal!!! 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D, 85/1.4D, 105/2D DC, 135 f/2D DC, 28/1.4D, 300mm AF f/4 were thank and not lenses for digital cameras, but they were another thing. Nikon has choosen this street and I have choosen Zeiss.
All lenses will break if too much impact is encountered. Trust me, I have been present at too many such occasions than I care to remember. The question is more whether or not it can be fixed later. The typical PJ-style lenses such as 24-70 are *designed* to break when too much force is encountered, this is in order to protect the lens optics, and the camera/mirror box. There is a metal alloy section to the rear that will deform and break away under such impacts. This allows the Nikon techs to rebuild the lens to specification within 10-15 minutes, say during the recession between two halves of a football match. I've have seen the procedure live. Camera survived unharmed.
...
But, master, what do you think about Nikon 28/1.4D vs Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2 in low lights conditions for color rendering?
Thank you, master!
My thoughts on the 28/1.4 are already posted and don't need to be repeated. As I stated before, I haven't used this particular Zeiss lens and thus hold no preset opinion of it.
-
If mechanical robustness is the main issue then the AF-D 28 mm f/1.4 should be excluded as it shares the unreliable plastic M-A ring - so another option is needed
-
These lenses will outlive me for sure.
This is a basic misunderstanding of materials. For most designs, polycarbonate shells are the equal or better approach. Try shooting in very cold weather to learn the importance of material choice.
Feel free to have this opinion., I don't share it. You should not overlook the presence of metal inside the casing.
All lenses will break if too much impact is encountered. Trust me, I have been present at too many such occasions than I care to remember. The question is more whether or not it can be fixed later. The typical PJ-style lenses such as 24-70 are *designed* to break when too much force is encountered, this is in order to protect the lens optics, and the camera/mirror box. There is a metal alloy section to the rear that will deform and break away under such impacts. This allows the Nikon techs to rebuild the lens to specification within 10-15 minutes, say during the recession between two halves of a football match. I've have seen the procedure live. Camera survived unharmed.
My thoughts on the 28/1.4 are already posted and don't need to be repeated. As I stated before, I haven't used this particular Zeiss lens and thus hold no preset opinion of it.
Excuse me, i didn't remember your answer about comparison between Nikon 28/1.4D and Zeiss: it's true, you have answered, yet, excuse me.
Thank you for your opinion about points 1), 2), 3), 4), 5).
-
Hi Jedi
some Zeiss ultrawide photos were posted in this Lens section - but only 21mm and 15mm i think, including sunset conditions. Some flare issues in direct sun, but fine on post sunset dusk skies. Posted earlier this month or December. I cannot say about comparisons of Zeiss 28 2.8 vs Nikon 28 1.4, without searching NG. Also those external links posted above include photos and more, and they represent months of photography and comparisons. As on NG all kindly shared
I strongly prefer the plastic and rubber on the outer surface of lenses and cameras as they do not feel cold to touch in very cold (-15C to -35C) temperatures as metal does. Also I have experienced a Zeiss lens' manual focus to jam and break in the cold in conditions where Nikkors perform flawlessly. I think too tight tolerances and lack of sufficient outdoor testing are responsible.
... Try shooting in very cold weather to learn the importance of material choice.
Being a luddite in the tropics ;) This has never even occurred to me.
All lenses will break if too much impact is encountered. Trust me, I have been present at too many such occasions than I care to remember. The question is more whether or not it can be fixed later. The typical PJ-style lenses such as 24-70 are *designed* to break when too much force is encountered, this is in order to protect the lens optics, and the camera/mirror box. There is a metal alloy section to the rear that will deform and break away under such impacts. This allows the Nikon techs to rebuild the lens to specification within 10-15 minutes, say during the recession between two halves of a football match. I've have seen the procedure live. Camera survived unharmed.
One Fascinating salvage story !
On the subject of MF Nikkors and Zeiss being metal is to be brutally honest lies, the attraction also lies in the strong aesthetic aspect! Thus some fly fisherman still use bamboo split cane rods, yet graphite is better. But i will never own a plastic rifle - walnut retains unmatchable old world values even though modern synthetic ploymers are stronger (look at modern military specs). While I miss my FM2 and still keep my F3 (bought as a student with an inheritance) I should mention (off topic from Twenty Eights) that the 18-55 on an old DX was ideal for geological fieldwork where I often carried a 15 lb sledge hammer etc. Somehow I never dropped this outfit. Yet my 300 2.8G VR2 fell off the monopod earlier this month and is absolutely fine but likely it was buffered by the neoprene camou cover, and the robust rubberized hood (whose virtues Bjorn has endorsed as superior to that fitted to the 200 f2). Still 2.9 kg lands hard from 5+ft. Major damage to the D500 attests to this!
I upgraded from DX for super optics, better prime ultra wides and proper flash for closeups + optimal sensors on DSLRs and again I concur the Df, D810 and D500 meet my complementary requirements. Polycarbonate is here to stay.
On the AFD arena I switch my MF AF especially carefully on my 70-180 Micro-Nikkor, after Bjorn told us last year his had broken! I only keep the AF option where I shoot over longer distances.
On a more general note to Everyone, true to the essence of NG forum, the above quotes exemplify just a couple of many interesting points shared - Important and most Fascinating Lesson in fact. A remarkable strength of NG lis grounded in the diversity of conditions under which we all Do photography. And it's global spanning the supercontinents. I won't mention how many centuries of accumulated experience if summed ;) ;)
This is just great. It is to be respected and maintained. Above all, a wealth of unique wisdom to be learnt from that enriches many lives. I continue to learn how little I know!
As they say in Mozambique, Aluta Continua! May we continue learn more of the diversity of new and classic gear ;)
kind regards
Woody
-
If mechanical robustness is the main issue then the AF-D 28 mm f/1.4 should be excluded as it shares the unreliable plastic M-A ring - so another option is needed
The subject of the topic is between Nikon AF-D 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2, which is all-metal: the words about the plastic are an off-topic discussion. If you read the topic from the beginning and its title you undestrand it. I would have no doubts if the comparison was between a "plast" lens and the Nikon 28/1.4D, but, I repeat, the comparison is:
Nikon AF 28mm f/1.4D vs ZEISS DISTAGON T* 28mm f/2 , about color rendering in low light conditions, for landscapes and environmental portrait.
-
Being a luddite in the tropics ;) This has never even occurred to me.
One Fascinating salvage story !
The plastic melts at 50°!!!
-
As an engineer it is quite obvious that Nikon choose materials for a lens from many years of experience.
If you bump an aluminum lens hard it will get a permanent deformation and or break.
At will be rendered useless,,,
If you do it to polycarbonate it springs back into the original shape or break.
Often the lens will still work until you can get it repaired,,,
From an engineering point of view and for tough professional use the outside polycarbonate with internal housing of the optics in a cast aluminum or magnesium design is optimal.
Repairing and working on lenses for many years it is quite apparent that the current 1.4 AFS lenses and the fixed FL longer lenses, will be very sturdy over time due to no extension of the outer lens housing, the 2.8 AFS Zooms are more fragile due to the extension of the lens tubes and the relative weak design of the internal zoom guides, here you need to always use the lens hood as protection.
Actually looking at lens hoods gives you an idea of how strong polycarbonate is, old aluminum lens hoods are bent out of shape extremely easily,,,, The polycarbonate lens hoods stay in their shape or break at the mount,,,
On a general note:
Please feel free to enjoy old and new MF lenses most us here have our shelves full of them,,,
The same goes for the plastic lenses,,,
However stating one is better than the other is plain wrong!
The 28mm 1.4 AF-D is a nice lens for environmental portraits and reportage PJ style shooting, not for nature scenes as a general lens - sold mine years ago, the new series of 1.4 is vastly superior.
Seems to me your focusing way too much about focal length! Instead focus on lens signature!
If you want the best and strongest all round Manual Focus lenses you should switch to or add a Leica M camera to the kit an buy their Lenses!
They make 21mm 24mm 28mm 35mm 50mm 1.4 lenses that you seem to like,,,
The Leica 35mm 1.4 ASPH FLE is the only one I currently own,,, and it is a engineering photography marvel!!! All hand build! Very similar performance to Nikkor 1.4 series but a little better image quality, yes they also cost three times as much,,
They also make slower lenses like their 24mm I have, no distortion and sharp wide open at 3.8 over the entire frame! These lenses you don't need to stop down unless you like more depth of field! They take photography to an whole other level! Especially for us who love photography as a profession and a hobby.
The Leica M 50mm APO 2.0 is even better than the Otus 55mm!
Leica M lenses are build to another philosophy, they are build to be compact / portable and outstanding.
-
Thank you, Erik Lund, finally one user that knows Nikon 28mm f/1.4D!!! I agree about the Leica's system superiority, but i have no money to buy products of Leica brand! I couldn't sell my Nikon lenses to buy Leica lenses, I love them!!!
-
The color difference between Nikkor and Zeiss is a complete non issue in these digital recordings, the software conversion of the RAW file is what you should look into re this, there are many alternatives for conversion programs with vast different look and feel with a click of a button,,,
-
The plastic melts at 50°!!!
He he funny :o
Actual fact is well above 100° C - and by then you will find me in the bar with a cold drink,,,
On a serious note I have been shooting at our steel melting furnace, when it was still in service, poring of the molten steel metal into molds - Up close, all dressed in thick leather I had to have the camera in front of my face - or the heat would be unbearable,,, So yes 28-70mm AFS 2.8 is approved for working in the heat literally! The lens hood survived!
-
The subject of the topic is between Nikon AF-D 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2, which is all-metal: the words about the plastic are an off-topic discussion. If you read the topic from the beginning and its title you undestrand it. I would have no doubts if the comparison was between a "plast" lens and the Nikon 28/1.4D, but, I repeat, the comparison is:
Nikon AF 28mm f/1.4D vs ZEISS DISTAGON T* 28mm f/2 , about color rendering in low light conditions, for landscapes and environmental portrait.
you for yourself wrote that you want a solid lens and (as you could read) i just was telling you that the 28/1,4 as one of the lenses of your choice has got a plast issue, so in case there is off-topic you started it.
and Jedi if you carefully review your general writing and replying style here in this thread you might get the idea of considering whether it is both respectful and polite
-
Thank you, Erik Lund, finally one user that knows Nikon 28mm f/1.4D!!! I agree about the Leica's system superiority, but i have no money to buy products of Leica brand! I couldn't sell my Nikon lenses to buy Leica lenses, I love them!!!
Oh really? And what about my post? It looks like me only have a real practical knowledge with both lenses on D810! Yeah, wasting of my time for nothing... LZ
-
Dear Jedi,
I concur with the 2 last posts by MILLIREHM and LongZoom. They have both made a most +ve impression on me in their enthusiasm and sefllessly sharing great experience. They are among many experts here on NG. I for one have only been on this site some months but have learnt more than I can begin to summarize, and it is not stop. Just on this Thread today, is not the clarification on polycarbonate vs temperature extremes Surely, one major Nugget of Wisdom? All these threads weave topics together, and the result is consilient knowledge.
I still rank myself as a novice trying to learn. Like you tell you us, I started with Nikon film cameras in 1983.... you asked about Zeiss. What appears to be available has been shared "collegially".
Have you chased up the free open links on the www shared above? These alone represent hours of research on just a few lenses, and I have 500+ pages A4 filed and only on the Nikon fit system, which I mine when these questions are posted. I'm sure this is trivial compared to the real sages on NG
kind regards
Woody
-
However, the main subject of this topic was to know if in low light conditions, of landscapes and of environmental portrait, Nikon 28mm f/1.4 (another solid glass of a time!!) can give something extra, something wonderful and Zeiss no, it was the reason of its f/1.4 at film era, when ISO was only low (today you could shoot at 3200 ISO without problems and the following shoot at 64 ISO).
Excuse for my English.
The Zeiss 28/2 (modern era, ZF ) has pronounced curvature of field wide open. Therefore, it is poor choice for low-light, wide-aperture shooting of flat or infinity subjects(mountains all at infinity), since the center will be sharp(at f/2, f/2.8) but the sides will be blurry. It requires at least f/4 and sometimes f/5.6 to give even sharpness across the frame at infinity focus. For portraits and other subjects positioned in the center, the side blurring and focus curvature can be used for a good effect.
Just because it is metal doesn't mean it is well-designed. I have a Zeiss ZF 50/2 Makro(overall, a really nice lens) that has a rear-element group that becomes loose and wobbly because it is [apparently] designed that way.
-
you for yourself wrote that you want a solid lens and (as you could read) i just was telling you that the 28/1,4 as one of the lenses of your choice has got a plast issue, so in case there is off-topic you started it.
This is the beginning of my topic:
"Hello!
Can you report, please, your impressions, your opinions, for your personal experience, about the comparison between the Nikkor AF-D 28mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2?
Do you prefer Nikon or Zeiss for mountain landascapes and (few) indoor environmental portraits, please?
Nikon 28mm is also famous four its spectacular results in low lights, but Zeiss is Zeiss.....
I would shoot with Nikon D810.
Thank you!!!!"
Clear! Nothing about plastic!
-
Let the matter be. No need to reiterate.
You have been warned about potential issue concerning the AFD 28/1.4 and chose to pay no attention. The issue relates to plastic.
-
Oh really? And what about my post? It looks like me only have a real practical knowledge with both lenses on D810! Yeah, wasting of my time for nothing... LZ
Hello, you have written: "This Nikkor is a relict from film era. Needs to be closed to 5.6 to be accessibly sharp to its corners. Contrast is on the low side, so, the color, accordingly. Actually, is not very bad even today, but clearly shows its age. Zeiss is simply better of almost every respect, but, vignettes much wide open. Yet, sometimes, into the sun, harder to focus. Please note, it is my experience only! LZ".
Also if you haven't used Nikon 28/1.4 and Zeiss 28/2 with Nikon D810, you could know the spectacular rendering of the Nikon 28/1.4 anyway, if you have done shoots with them with film or with another Dsrl body pro or semipro, aren't you agree? So you could have written: "This Nikkor is a relict from film era. Needs to be closed to 5.6 to be accessibly sharp to its corners. Contrast is on the low side, so, the color, accordingly. Actually, is not very bad even today, but clearly shows its age. Zeiss is simply better of almost every respect, but, vignettes much wide open. Yet, sometimes, into the sun, harder to focus. Please note, it is my experience only! LZ".
-
Oh really? And what about my post? It looks like me only have a real practical knowledge with both lenses on D810! Yeah, wasting of my time for nothing... LZ
Film, D4, D5, D810 you could have seen the nature, the character, the temperament of the 28/1.4D, aren't agree? Why do you have written : "..... wasting my time for nothing..."? Excuse me, I don't understand.... Have I misunderstood?
-
The Zeiss 28/2 (modern era, ZF ) has pronounced curvature of field wide open. Therefore, it is poor choice for low-light, wide-aperture shooting of flat or infinity subjects(mountains all at infinity), since the center will be sharp(at f/2, f/2.8) but the sides will be blurry. It requires at least f/4 and sometimes f/5.6 to give even sharpness across the frame at infinity focus. For portraits and other subjects positioned in the center, the side blurring and focus curvature can be used for a good effect.
Just because it is metal doesn't mean it is well-designed. I have a Zeiss ZF 50/2 Makro(overall, a really nice lens) that has a rear-element group that becomes loose and wobbly because it is [apparently] designed that way.
Thanks!
-
Let the matter be. No need to reiterate.
You have been warned about potential issue concerning the AFD 28/1.4 and chose to pay no attention. The issue relates to plastic.
I don't understand English very well, excuse me. Can you repeat please what's the issue? The issue is for the regulation, the rules of the forum, or about the feature of the Nikon 28/1.4D?
-
However, I'm happy to use Zeiss lenses for the wide angles and not Nikon, so Nikon lenses up 70mm, with AF and I respect the choice of all of you!
-
If a heavy metal lens is dropped, the resulting dents and deformations often harm internal parts of the lens or its glass elements.
If a lightweight polycarbonate(partial) lens is dropped, the resultant "bounce" or crack in the shell often protects the internal elements of the lens and its glass elements.
It's just physics, my darlings, just physics..............
Of course, when lens accidents happen -- and they surely do -- we can't be sure either of the above scenarios will result.
Now, I know that plastic lens mounts are not specifically addressed in this thread. But I came across an article which relates to the "plastic" discussion in this thread. Roger Cicala over at LensRentals.com sees literally thousands of lenses pass through his business. He has written about plastic lens mounts versus metal lens mounts at this link: Assumptions, Expectations and Plastic Mounts (https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts/)
I think some of you might be surprised by the results.
Mamma Lee would like to remind everyone that when a poster is using English as a Second Language in an international community, then we must all be generous, kind and supportive in our interpretation of the post.
-
Roger Cicala over at LensRentals.com sees literally thousands of lenses pass through his business. He has written about plastic lens mounts versus metal lens mounts at this link: Assumptions, Expectations and Plastic Mounts (https://wordpress.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts/)
Excellent publication, based on facts. Thanks for the link.
-
I don't understand English very well, excuse me. Can you repeat please what's the issue? The issue is for the regulation, the rules of the forum, or about the feature of the Nikon 28/1.4D?
The 28/1.4. Should be obvious.
-
The 28/1.4. Should be obvious.
Ah, ok!! I I was thinking to alongside the Nikon 28/1.4D to the Zeiss 28/2 (which is already in my kit) for this peculiarity, but it doesn't seem to be necessary...., i have understood......
-
It's just physics, my darlings, just physics..............
Very valuable insights, inclusive of tact. Link on plastic lens- mounts; about to chase up that WWW url. i have the 28-200 G zoom with aspherical boost etc, which i've yet to test as a "fieldwork" lens to record sampling sites....
thanks very much
yours gratefully
woody
-
Lenses are precision optic devices. They are not meant to be used like hammers or to be dropped.
Of course, sooner than later some will fall, but surviving the fall is a matter of luck.
I will invite you to drop from 1m a plastic against a metal lens into concrete floor. Afterwards, maybe you'll have a different approach.
A lot of moons ago, during an anatomy lecture, the teacher held two skulls, one from an adult and one from a child. Dropped both from ~2m. The adult one smashed, the child one rebounded like a ball. You know why? Because of the fontanela (closed at adult age) could absorb the shock, and rebound due to plastic/elastic properties...
-
Photographic gear are tools thus they have commonality with hammers. Yet they are badly suitable for such service.
Treat the photo gear with the respect it deserves, that a better approach.
-
Plastic against metal......, plastic against metal......, plastic against metal......., yet.....
Bye bye!!!!!
-
A lot of moons ago, during an anatomy lecture, the teacher held two skulls, one from an adult and one from a child. Dropped both from ~2m. The adult one smashed, the child one rebounded like a ball. You know why? Because of the fontanela (closed at adult age) could absorb the shock, and rebound due to plastic/elastic properties...
the strengths of cartilage, pre-ossification vs ossified!
what a wonderful example ;D ;D
-
For anyone still in doubt I can, from extensive experience in the field, say, that the current AF-S G Series is very sturdy well build.
The only exception I am aware of seems to be the 2.8/60 Micro which seems to have a quality issue in the AF-System. In this forum we found 3 of these suddenly stoped working. In my case the repair was roughly half of the lens price. I might have done something wrong to break it by accidentialy activating AF via button while turning the focussing manually at the same time.
28mm? For me 28 is over. It is OK on DX, but on FX it either feels to long I take the 24 or too short I take the 35.
I had the Sigma EX 1.8/28 which was very sharp but harsh in skin, unsharp parts and transitions. Not recommended. And I loved the 2.0/28 NC-Auto Aid. Switching to FX the lens got no use anymore and was sold.
-
here's a test report i'd logged. Somewhat disappointing news for the patriot. On re-reading, i now remember this pushed me toward the 25 f2 Zeiss, with pancake 28 2.8 Voigt' also an option.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/585-zeisszf2528ff
summary appended below
i've no more to add to this entertaining thread :-) have a great week :)
>>>
As a German website we'd love to report that we've seen another great Zeiss lens (home, sweet home after all) but at the end of the day the proof is in the pudding (or maybe in the "Kraut" here) and it just doesn't taste all that good. The Zeiss Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF performed pretty good in our Nikon APS-C review but it didn't impress during our full format lab tests. The resolution capabilities are simply sub-standard for such an expensive prime lens (@ ~800EUR/US$). The border quality is quite poor at large aperture settings. Same goes for the heavy vignetting here. The situation improves at medium apertures but the quality remains comparatively moderate. Lateral CAs are fairly low which helps a bit in terms of subjective quality perception. The amount of barrel distortion is about average for a prime lens in this class.
So, technically, the Distagon 25 is no doubt the weakest wide angle of the Z-family and it's no wonder that, according to the rumor mill, Zeiss considerd to redesign the lens. However, there's one feature of the lens we haven't discussed, yet.
The Zeiss lens is capable of focusing down to just 17cm (min. object to front element distance: 6cm) which is a fairly unique feature in an 25mm lens. It is this feature, that despite its optical flaws makes the lens fun to use in the field nonetheless. The unusual and unique look of close up images taken with a fast wide angle lens defines the niche where the Distagon 25 shines.
Just like the rest of its family, the Zeiss lens is built to the highest standards. Some users may complain about the lack of AF but, frankly, this is usually a non-issue for an ultra-wide lens. The focus confirmation is available in the viewfinder and in very critical (for example close focus) scenes Live-View can give you a helping hand.
-
The original question was about the Zeiss 28mm f/2, not the 25mm models ...
-
The original question was about the Zeiss 28mm f/2, not the 25mm models ...
apologies - Monday am.....
here's the correct link, confirms curvature at faster than f4 as summarized above
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/586-zeisszf2820ff?start=2
We weren't really impressed by the T* 25mm f/2.8 but the Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2 ZF plays in a very different (better) quality league. The lens is sharp straight from f/2 and it reaches excellent quality levels around f/5.6. There's some field curvature at f/2 and f/2.8 which may be a problem in certain scenes (out-of-focus corners) though. Lateral and longitudinal CAs are moderate and nothing to worry about for most subjects. The moderate degree of distortions is about average for a prime lens in this class. A real weakness is the annoyingly high amount of vignetting at large aperture settings. The bokeh is not the most pleasant one, but still ok for a wide angle lens.
Just like the rest of its family, the Zeiss lens is built to the highest standards. Some users may complain about the lack of AF but this isn't really a significant flaw for a wide-angle lens. The focus confirmation is available in the viewfinder and in very critical (for example close focus) scenes Live-View can give you the needed guidance. That said, it remains a bit of an anachronism these days.
The price level is quite steep but the performance level is accordingly impressive.
-
I had the chance to try both lenses very briefly but I didn't buy any of them.
For your intended usage, I would favor the Zeiss (contrast, drawing style, bulk), but please be aware of the caveats regarding field curvature. You have to learn to use this to your advantage in landscape shots.
I don't think that any of the two lenses you asked about is truly optimal for your use case. But between the two, I would choose the Zeiss.
I like the look and feel of traditionally-built metal lenses, but I'm wary of confusing aesthetics with robustness or durability. I am more careful with my metal lenses and maybe I'm less likely to drop them. But they scratch more easily and when they are dropped, they are almost certainly going to be bent. In fact, I managed to stupidly drop my ZF 35/2 from 1.5m onto stone tiles last summer; the lens hood was badly bent out of shape and there was slight misalignment that had to be fixed. If you're interested in optical quality besides look and feel, restricting yourself to all-metal lenses is not wise. As others have suggested, I think the AF-S 28/1.8 would probably beat both of your suggested lenses for your use case, and there are many more lenses with similar focal lengths that may be worth trying out.
-
I added some pics and thoughts a few weeks ago when OP wanted to know difference between Zeiss and AFS 28mm. I think thread got lost as it died there and then.
Both have field curvature. Zeiss more microcontrast. Af extremely useful even at 28mm.
I like that focal length - learnt it on 28Ti and now Coolpix A too. I think iPhone generation has made this a semi default viewpoint - witness easy availability of 28mm with most systems and fixed point and shoots (Leica Q)
Note that Zeiss although metal and heavy are also potentially prone to failure of CPU.
http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dUXD
If you really want longevity in Nikon, old AI etc is the way to go.
-
Well,,, yes the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 Ais is still in production and will definitely fit the bill ;)
-
The 28/2.8 AIS also a lens that is easy to get second hand, as the production volume is significant. Roland Vink's page claims > 200 000 of these lenses have been made.