Carl Zeiss 55mm F1.4 Distagon -- Does it get any better?

Symphotic

I'm always talking myself into spending more than I should whenever I get a job I can expense new gear to. But this lens? As beautiful as it might be, I think i could use the money better elsewhere. We just spent the same amount of money for a used imaging sonar system that could bring in a lot more business (it takes pictures under water using sound instead of light.) So for a high quality normal lens, I'll wait for the the next Sigma Art series lens.

Godless

I tried the Zeiss 28mm f/2 Distagon T, and it simply would not give me consistent focus. Even when I used live view, I seemed to miss the focus and could not understand it. So, it must be my eyes....thus, I need AF. Or...well, my 24mm PC Nikkor seems to be able to focus well on the ground glass, and this at f/3.5. So, it remains a mystery to me why I could not get the f/2 lens to consistently focus.

Maybe an f/1.4........?

No, it is not your eyes.

It is the huge field curvature on the 28mm Zeiss that gives you the trouble at large apertures. On the other hand, the focal plane on the 24mm PC Nikkor is pretty much flat, which makes it easier to focus where you want to.

Godless

will this be in your future as it is in mine.

No. I find the Focal lengths around 50mm boring. For the price I could have a second set of 24mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 which give me pretty much everything I desire apart from the things that need a supertele. So I´ll save my dough for something else.

adamz

msmoto - the beauty of manual focus lenses is taht You can't have neither a FF or BF on them. if Your snaps from MF lens are out of focus there's sth wrong with either Your eyes or technique. had the 28/2 also and loved it. unfortunately had to sell it and that's the only one sell I regret.
I think that the lack of AF in zeiss glass is because if it's construction. You can't create exceptional MF lens and AF lens at the same time. in MF lenses the focus ring has to have a much bigger rotation in order to get precise control. in AF the shorter the shift the better - less elements moves = faster AF.

JJ_SO

The MF of most Nikkors is due to the geared function better to use than it was with my old Zeiss lenses, much more accurate and fine. But also very sensitive to unwanted movement, here's the grease damping of the Zeiss focus ring the only advantage.

Msmoto

Let's see...I think i am learning that I should try another Zeiss lens at some time. If this were an f/1.2.....
At present I need to learn how to use the stuff I have....

JJ_SO

Who doesn't? 8-|

And still we collect new things...

Beso

JJ_SO +1!

TaoTeJared

Are you sure, TTJ, Zeiss is doing the AF mechanic / electric units themselves? Or using Sony modules for that?

I'm not sure why A) It would matter or Why Sony would allow them too. I very much doubt Sony would share their patients with Zeiss except for the NEX system lenses. AF systems are nothing new, so they are not unique to a single company. I think it probably comes down to the cost to build and develop the machinery to make AF systems. That is not a small investment if you have never done it before. Considering their lenses are already at a high range and out of most photographers budgets, I would just push the lenses higher, and they would sell less. Economically, it's probably just not viable for them.

@msmoto - yeah, I think I would just have to swap the screen out for a split screen. MF on DSLRs just is not fun at all.

JJ_SO

A) to me would matter because it's a huge difference if a manufacturer can make everything of it's product by all alone or has to buy important fine mechanical precision parts from another company. That means "cheap" standard actuators by I.e. Sony or another company or specially developed units with tight tolerances made by Zeiss. I just doubt, they could do them, even if they wanted. Fast, precisely and tough under several conditions. I think (but don't know) it's easier to make glass elements and deliver them to Sony and they put them together into a housing than develop the glass, the housing and then need to adjust AF units into them.
to me seems not so far away, Sony and Zeiss are collaborating over a decade together. My old DSC 515, 717 and 828 had/have Zeiss lenses.
It's true AF is nothing new but the solution to move some of the 12 elements electrically would be demanding.

TaoTeJared

A) That means "cheap" standard actuators by I.e. Sony or another company or specially developed units with tight tolerances made by Zeiss. I just doubt, they could do them, even if they wanted

Just to point out, if you reversed your logic, "Sony is importing Zeiss glass and since Sony didn't make it they are cheapening their product line." I'm not sure it is accurate. Sony does make good lenses and could probably do it. I just don't know why that thought comes into the discussion. Just seems the consideration of it would be really improbable let alone it happening. But who knows.

JJ_SO

At the times they were offering glass for Yashica, they started to transfer knowldege and factory units to them. So, it was still Zeiss lens, but made in Japan under "quality control" of Zeiss. And they were producing lots of lenses for Hasselblad. There were quantities. They couldn't do them these days anymore. Quality wise, yes, but no modern technique in them. AF, VR, decent zooms you have to get elsewhere. I'm not complaining, Nikon and Sigma's 35 meet my needs in quality, function and colour rendering very well. I simply don't need overpriced glass with nearly no comfort in a region of focus length I don't use. They can wax lens poetry about manual focus as long as they want, they missed to catch up and are still selling concepts which were outstanding, ages ago. They are selling their name to products where not much Zeiss is inside in my eyes, but I'm aware I've no insights.

The 15/2.8 is something like more than double the price of Nikon's 14-24. Double as good? But anyway, they can ask for any price and it will be paid.

SquamishPhoto

Your bias seems completely without experience. Ever shoot with any of the lenses you're trying to diminish?

Msmoto

I think to appreciate the Zeiss glass one must use it. Even though I had a not so good experience with the 28mm...it could be there was a problem with this lens, I think I am game for another try. Most likely late in the year after a few things are settled.

There is no way to explain the feeling of the Zeiss glass in hand.....very similar to holding a Leica of the old days...Maybe RRS has this feeling in the tripod arena, but what many of us find is the mystic and feel of the equipment is only present with very expensive gear.

I had the same feeling with the Hasselblads and the Sinar view cameras I used many years ago.

JJ_SO

Your bias seems completely without experience. Ever shoot with any of the lenses you're trying to diminish?

Yes. But you miss one point: I'm not diminishing them optically or because of the special flair of the pictures they, no, some of them can deliver. I just don't see a reason to buy a lens withI would miss in 3/4 of my photos the focus, because there's no way to focus manually as fast as an AF, if the subject keeps changing it's distance, is too close or too dark to work hyper focal or use any other possible workaround. And I don't see the difference between Msmotos "RRS can be great, but I can get my photos without them as well" and my "Zeiss may be great, but they are double as expensive as they seem on first glance just because they lack of many features others can deliver".

So, if you can work with their limitations, super. Empty your pocket I prefer the resolution of the Sigma with AF against the flair of the Zeiss 35/1.4 without. On the other hand, I prefer Gitzo tripods which also are overpriced from a certain point of view.

Biased? Why not, everybody is because of his/her experiences. I also try to keep in mind that lens tests are as well biased because you simply can't compare dynamic situations. For the static situations they need to compare, Zeiss can show their partly superb performance although they are not up-to-date with every resolution or even the distortions. But what good is this performance if the shot is blurred because it happened too fast? Believe me, I tried a lot to get good concert or dancing shots with the Planar 1.4/85, but the proportion of keepers and to be deleted ones is lousy.

Msmoto

I am gong to suggest that in the days we had no AF, we did what we had to to get the image captured. I do not doubt the AF is much faster than manual focus in almost all the situations I run in to.

However, there is something irritating about having to focus on the point, then move the camera to reframe the image. And, even in the D4, this occurs as the focus points do not go far enough out to the edges. In these situations, the manual focus is actually faster and allows capturing an image one might not get by the focus/reframe procedure.

In my case, my point of view is because of shooting thousands of manually focused images. And, after all this, I definitely find the focus/reframe technique sometimes irritating.

But, most important in determining our preferences might be our past experiences overall. Having carried around 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras on location and Hasselblads with a 150mm Sonnar and 250mm Sonnar shooting from an eight foot tower on a 28 foot powerboat, and manually focusing all of these, I rather like the weight of big glass, and have no problem other than my vision which would keep me from using a manual focus lens. However, I can certainly understand the preference for AF. And, in motorsports photography, this is the only way to capture the exact moment in all but a few shots.

While I see a D4 with 70-200mm f/2.8 as not a heavy camera, some find it heavy. All of this is about personal experience and preference. No doubt, the Zeiss glass is excellent in almost all cases. And in all but a very few situations, one can probably get the shot with a far less expensive alternative. But, for me, there is something about a fine piece of equipment which is exciting to use. And, if I could afford it, I might have one of those 80MP Hasselblads just because it is fun to use.

Ade

In the MF days, to get critical focus we often had to use a "split image" screen, like this one:

K3 focusing screen, image by Nikon
With just one center-point, "focus-and-reframe" was a given. These days when 51-point AF still seems not enough, we're really spoiled in comparison.

-Ade
ps. With the Fuji X100s, split image focusing is coming back to us in digital form.

donaldejose

Just a point of accuracy on terms used here. Bias is a prejudgment or predisposition in favor of something. Prejudice is a prejudgment against something. Nikon "fanboys" would be an example of people having a bias. Putting down a product without experience with it or much knowledge about it would be an example of a prejudice, not a bias. We all tend to have certain biases and certain prejudices and must make an effort to be objective so our judgments and opinions are more accurate.

While everyone is entitled to their own opinions not all opinions are equally accurate so it is fair to point out both biases and prejudices which affect (or fatally infect) an opinion.

JJ_SO

I'm not saying, don't buy Zeiss. They are still eating from the fame of "the old days" when their lenses were outstanding and top and AF and VR years away from invention. It's a shame they can't compete anymore on all fields. Being optically outstanding and excellent is a god thing. Not providing AF is a loss and I'm kind of sad about. And astonished, they still find admirers (with some good reason). I'd like to see them get up and use their brains for getting on the same level of usability AND outstanding quality instead of pulling back to a field they always were famous for and demand lots of money for it.

And I wanted so set an opinion against some kind of "common sense", which they use as a cheap excuse not to come back to top performance. That is these days more than putting fine glass into a high precision housing. At least in my eyes. Eight times more money than for a profane very good 50/1.4 - I'd rather use the money and travel to places I always wanted to take photographs of but was not rich enough. Good, if one can afford both of it.

birdman

One reason most/all of these German exotics are MF is that they would rather put their efforts into build quality/craftsmanship/materials and not bother with chipping for another manufacturer's AF system. That's my opinion, at least

Golf007sd

Bring this topic back because it would seem we just might see this lens hit the market real soon. Looking forward in reading and seeing some Real reviews in the coming weeks.

Some additional info and photo's to look at.

TaoTeJared

My sources keep telling me "early next year" before anyone (in mass) will get them. They told me if I wanted to put down $3,000 (plus an unknown amount to be added to it later) I could get one of the first batches probably by march. I asked them for their car keys so I could go sell their car at the lot down the street

I love 50's but do not like MF and find it just to limiting with the way I shoot. At that price, it is just a bit too far. Personally I keep abandoning the "support now" on The Petzval lens. For $400 that is a lens that truly has some "style" that could go just as far as one of the most optically perfect lenses for Nikon.

Beso

I plan on buying this lens as soon as I can get my grubby little hands on it. As @SquamishPhoto alluded, there are intangibles associated with Zeiss that are unmatched by any other manufacturer. One can argue value, one can argue location of production, and one can argue manual or auto focus but for some, value is a judgment, quality is a function of control, not location, and focus type can simply be a preference or annoyance.

The last information I saw indicated the lens will be available between fall of 2013 and end of the year. I look forward to this new lens along with the other two that are currently planned in the series.

haroldp

Manual focus cameras like Leica 'm' or older MF SLR's had excellent manual focus aids in the viewfinder (split image, microprism etc.).
Modern DSLR's are designed around autofocus and are difficult and cumbersome to nail exactly with manual focus because the ergonomics are not designed for it.

At F1.4 , even the best lens will be soft if the focus is even slightly off.

Regards ... H

FlowtographyBerlin

@haroldp: Just out of interest, do you happen to know of high-end 3rd party focussing screens to replace the factory screen in a D800? Or can they not be replaced by the user anyway?