Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 for landscapes on Nikon D810:is it a right choice?

[Jedi]

Good morning, I would buy a great prime lens for mountain landscapes, for my Nikon D810, focal 85mm. I have tried my Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4G for this purpose (mountain landscapes), but I don't like it for this kind of shoots, I think that the Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.4G was born as a portrait lens. I didn't sell it, because I like it for portrait, but i would buy a great lens of 85mm for my Nikon D810 for mountain landscapes. I'm thinking to buy the Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4: is it a right choice for mountain landscapes, or it is a portartait lens? I have also the Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII FL, which is a great, great lens, but  I want a better performer lens, very superior to the 70-200. Excuse for my English, it isn't good. Thank you!!!!

[Erik Lund]

Not sure what it is precisely that you don't like about the 85mm AFS 1.4G?

It has a fantastic rendering close and far with a beautiful Bokeh from wide open and down to f/8, fairly low vignetting,,, I have no issues ever from using it as a landscape lens.

Also it is one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses,,,

[Bjørn Rørslett]

It so happens that I just returned a Carl Zeiss Planar 85 mm f/1.4 ZF.2 to the dealer. I had high hopes and none survived the first testing period. Despite its hand-signed certificate , the optical performance was simply utterly disappointing. I now understand that decentering and other optical troubles are well known to occur with this lens.

Get a Nikkor instead.

[Jedi]

Not sure what it is precisely that you don't like about the 85mm AFS 1.4G?

It has a fantastic rendering close and far with a beautiful Bokeh from wide open and down to f/8, fairly low vignetting,,, I have no issues ever from using it as a landscape lens.

Also it is one of the sharpest Nikkor lenses,,,

Yes, I'm agree with you about bokeh for portrait, but I have noticed that it's less sharp than my 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII FL in landscapes shoot (at f/5.6 or f/8); the 70-200mm is a zoom, 3000$ of zoom, but always a zoom and when I bought the 85mm I hoped it was sharper than the 70-200mm; its bokeh for portait is fantastic, but its sharpness at infinity is a little disappointment for me.

[Jedi]

It so happens that I just returned a Carl Zeiss Planar 85 mm f/1.4 ZF.2 to the dealer. I had high hopes and none survived the first testing period. Despite its hand-signed certificate , the optical performance was simply utterly disappointing. I now understand that decentering and other optical troubles are well known to occur with this lens.

Get a Nikkor instead.

Good morning, excuse me, but I have seen a fantastic shoots (95% portraits) with the Zeiss 85mm, there weren't problems for their authors.....

However, with this topic i would understand if the Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 is an only portrait lens, or I can use it for lanscapes with excellent results.

[simsurace]

There is also the new Zeiss Milvus which is a new optical formula (also bigger and heavier) and the Zeiss Otus.
Both should be sharp enough for landscapes.

I'm wondering why you are looking beyond the 70-200 for landscapes. The zoom is much more versatile. Maybe you are looking for a lighter package, then the above Zeiss lenses would not be suitable. However, the 70-200/4 is half as heavy as the f/2.8 versions and is very sharp and a nice lens for landscapes, but of course still not as compact as a prime.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I do not return lenses without adequate testing,  ...,  that 85/1.4 Planar was one of the worst performers I have seen for years.

Although I had already paid for the lens, one look at the test images and the dealer refunded the costs.

My point in bringing this up is that not even the 'Zeiss' branding does guarantee a good performing lens.

[rosko]

Are you sure you need a so wide aperture for landscape ?

Even if you stop down to use use your lense at its best (2 stops) you have still plenty light with a ''normal'' lens (f/2, f/2.8. f/3.5 ), unless you make night landscapes...

I am very happy,  for instance, using my Voitglander 90mm apo lanthar. Light weight, sharp and, in addition, not very expansive.

Don't fall into the trap consisting , when you see very beautiful shots, to believe you could do the same shots with the same lens : filters can enhance a picture, also the framing, lights and post-processing.

Just my opinion...

[simsurace]

I do not return lenses without adequate testing,  ...,  that 85/1.4 Planar was one of the worst performers I have seen for years.

Although I had already paid for the lens, one look at the test images and the dealer refunded the costs.

My point in bringing this up is that not even the 'Zeiss' branding does guarantee a good performing lens.

That's sad. Sample variation has been said to be quite low with Zeiss, but bad luck can strike anyone. Will you order a replacement?

[Michael Erlewine]

Why not use a wider lens for landscapes, like the Zeiss Milvus 18mm, which has a great reputation?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

That's sad. Sample variation has been said to be quite low with Zeiss, but bad luck can strike anyone. Will you order a replacement?

No, I stay away from that  brand from now on. Do note this was an item carrying a signed test certificate to indicate it performed to specification, yet what did it deliver? Look below to see a corner of a landscape shot.

[bjornthun]

Which version of the Zeiss 85/1.4 ZF.2 are you discussing, the Classic or the Milvus? They are entirely different optical designs.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Why not use a wider lens for landscapes, like the Zeiss Milvus 18mm, which has a great reputation?

Many successful landscape captures are done with longer lenses.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Which version of the Zeiss 85/1.4 ZF.2 are you discussing, the Classic or the Milvus? They are entirely different optical designs.

ZF.2 is presumable the 'Classic' version?

[Jedi]

There is also the new Zeiss Milvus which is a new optical formula (also bigger and heavier) and the Zeiss Otus.
Both should be sharp enough for landscapes.

I'm wondering why you are looking beyond the 70-200 for landscapes. The zoom is much more versatile. Maybe you are looking for a lighter package, then the above Zeiss lenses would not be suitable. However, the 70-200/4 is half as heavy as the f/2.8 versions and is very sharp and a nice lens for landscapes, but of course still not as compact as a prime.

Yes, the zoom is more versatile, but I'm a crazy trekker who walks a lot with his 65 litres backpack, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 VRII and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII FL with several Zeiss prime lenses, for the most important shoots (with prime lens I use the tripod). I bear the weight. I want more that the quality of 70-200mm (more sharpness): I can't buy the Otus, because it's too expensive for me for a prime tele, I'd choose to spend money for a wide-angle prime lens or a zoom (and so I did, with Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28 and 35 Distagon).
However I have no considered Milvus series: is it more great, better, than Planar T?