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

haroldp

I do not, but I have not spent any real energy looking.

Back n the MF SLR days, the debate between split image and microprism advocates was as contentious as any of today's tech debatre.

When I want manual focus, I use Leica, whose RF was always faster than any SLR MF, and some of whose lenses are incredible..

It was the advent of Auto focus that almost eliminated RF cameras from the market.

.... H

TaoTeJared

@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?

They all can be replaced fairly easily.
KatzEye was one company but I don't see any for the D800. I run across ads for them here and there - should be easy to find one. Now quality (brightness, clearness) is a bit unknown. I would be willing to bet Nikon makes them but are not easily found on their site.

JJ_SO

@TaoTeJared do you think, a magnifying eyepiece dk-17m could improve manual focus?

FlowtographyBerlin

@JJ_SO: I'm not TTJ, but... I used a lot of manual focus lenses back in my short Canon 5DII phase, and I started out with the factory focussing screen. And then in the following order (which implicitly means the previous solution didn't work):

• AF-Confirm chip on the adaptor (built-in with Nikons, I think): Was a pain in practice, lots of fiddling.
• Magnifying eyepiece: You did see more detail, but the problem was more that the modern focussing screens don't blur the parts of the image enough that is out of focus, so you can't really tell what's in focus and what's not. At least not when it's critical.
• Canon Focussing Screen optimized for f/2.8 lenses, meaning more realistic lens blur visible on the screen: Improved a bit, but was still not enough for manual focussing
• Canon Focussing Screen with Split-image: Too tiny split image for actually being able to use it.
• KatzEye Focussing Screen: Finally the one I had been looking for and should have gotten in the first place. Split image with microprism ring like "in the old days", big, usable, done.

JJ_SO

Thanks @Flowtography

I was just thinking the magnification eye piece is not too expensive to give it a try.

Golf007sd

Well...who is going to place the order for this toy?

Will it be from B&H or Adorama?

Golf007sd

DenverShooter

If I used 55mm focal length I would put it on my buy list.

Denver Shooter

shawnino

I own the old 50 f/1.4D. I have no complaints about this lens. I do realize the Zeiss-55 is almost certainly superior. 99 times from 100 when my 1.4D yields an unsatisfactory image, it's squarely the fault of the exceptionally handsome fellow pressing the button.

So I asked myself: when do I use my 50? The answer: when I want to blend in as much as possible, and be as un-noticed as I can be. So while I'm sure this Zeiss will be amazing, if I get one of this series it'll be at a focal length I use when I'm less concerned about being conspicuous.

Msmoto

Well, now I guess I need to sell more than a house and motorhome....two Zeiss lenses...the 135mm f/2 APO and now this 55mm f/1.4. Back to manual focus.....

So, what does one use this focal length for? It is actually a "long normal" lens for my use, not long enough for a portrait lens, but maybe it is the one to carry around...no too large for that.....mmmm the good news....more in this line up from Zeiss...an 85mm and a wide angle....coming in the future....

shawnino

Well, now I guess I need to sell more than a house and motorhome....two Zeiss lenses...the 135mm f/2 APO and now this 55mm f/1.4. Back to manual focus.....

Heresy! Nikkor 135mm f/2 DC can never be improved upon!

My first piece of Zeiss is either going to be the 15mm f/2.8, the 100-makro, or if there is indeed a fast-85 coming maybe that one. This 55mm will undoubtedly be spectacular, but I can't make it work in my own setup.

Msmoto

Well, I agree, my 135mm f/2 Nikkor is an exceptionally sharp lens. Maybe I will just take it out for a spin in the next few days. I have seen folks complain about the focus speed but have never seen how this was a problem.

I suppose what I would like to do is run a real world test between the Zeiss APO 135mm f/2 and my Nikkor. My guess, the results would be hard to see a difference until the enlargement size would be in the several feet category. But, Michael Erlewine suggests the Zeiss lens is one of the very best he has seen.

Who knows....?

autofocus

@Msmoto, please post a photo taken with your 135/f2. I was just looking for one on eBay to see what they are going for. I have friend that swears by his and his photos suggest it is pretty remarkable. I'm just not sure about how much use I would have for it at that focal length, minus portraits of course.

NSXTypeR

Eh, I'm pretty happy with the Nikkor 50mm 1.2. I do need to use it more often though.

TaoTeJared

I would really like to say I would get the Zeiss 55mm F1.4 but I'm sticking to what I said above - missing too many shots, and MF with DSLRs is just not my cup of tea. My work/clients just doesn't move slow enough, and expected shots that are needed to high to chance missing stuff with MF. I'm still hoping to see a Nikkor 1.2 AF.

There are a lot of great lenses out there - Some have made their careers using just a couple of focal lengths, I think one could still really make a career today doing the same. I just don't have that luxury to pick/create situations that I could do that yet.

Just a note, $4,000: I have been looking at picking up a used M8.2 or really banged up M9 to match with my existing few rangefinder lenses and both of those are in that price realm.

Msmoto

@autofocus......images from my 135mm f/2 Nikkor

On the D90:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/6771269531/sizes/o/in/set-72157629055356347/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/6771266529/sizes/o/in/set-72157629055356347/

and on the D4, an entire set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157632105107291/

mikep

well, personally i have no interest in this, as i find no issues with the nikon 50s. i have the 1.4g and i am happy with its performance across the board. i cant ever remember taking a pic with my 50 and being disappointed with the performance of the lens ..... my technique however is another story.

paying that much money for some extra sharpness in the corners @1.4, to me, is not worth it

lack of AF ... no thanks

on a side note, notice how all these zeiss promotional vids are mostly "talk", and not backed up with images, and the images that they do show is just a bunch of pixel peeping in lab conditions. if it is such a great lens and so much better than the rest, then shut your mouths and post some pictures, and we will see any differences for ourselves, right?

Beso

well, personally i have no interest in this, as i find no issues with the nikon 50s. i have the 1.4g and i am happy with its performance across the board. i cant ever remember taking a pic with my 50 and being disappointed with the performance of the lens ..... my technique however is another story.

paying that much money for some extra sharpness in the corners @1.4, to me, is not worth it

lack of AF ... no thanks

on a side note, notice how all these zeiss promotional vids are mostly "talk", and not backed up with images, and the images that they do show is just a bunch of pixel peeping in lab conditions. if it is such a great lens and so much better than the rest, then shut your mouths and post some pictures, and we will see any differences for ourselves, right?

That's quite the rant. Thank you for sharing. There are third party pictures and reviews available for those who are open minded enough to look.

haroldp

We easily forget that at F1.4, the chance of anything in the corners or edges being in the plane of focus rounds to 0 unless shooting landscapes at infinity (in which case, why F1.4 ) . Even the slightest out of focus condition will totally obscure any differences in inherent sharpness.

My Nikon F1.4 D is quite good in the center at F1.4, and it's chance of having the center in focus *(with AF) at F1.4 in those circumstances where I would use these settings is greater for me than any MF on a modern DSLR.

MF on my M9 with 50 Summilux (asph) is an entirely different matter as it is designed to facilitate MF.

I have not used it, but I ave heard good things about the 50 sigma f1.4.

Regards .... H

Golf007sd

I'm lusting for this lens....someone plz throw some water in my face.

shawnino

@golf007sd: do you do a lot of studio/tripod work?

shawnino

Interesting rumour piece on the main blog

Nikon 58 1.4
Half the price, 40% the weight of the Zeiss, AF.

Golf007sd

@shawnino: Not as a professional. In fact, I don't make any money from my images. Photography is Just a hobby. With all that said, this lens got my attention when it was first introduced, moreover, I like the focal length. Looking forward in seeing some feedback on this glass so I can decide which way to go. My plan has been to get the 300 2.8 VRII next.

SquamishPhoto

Go to a camera store that carries Zeiss lenses and try a couple of those out to see what its like to manually focus a lens with deliberately dampened focus and a throw to match. If you can't see yourself shooting successfully then it might not be wise to simply order the new Distagon.

As for the 300mm f2.8, I'd get the 200mm f2 since you already have a TC that you use on your 70-200mm that will give you the extra reach plus you get the magic of the f2. Im obviously biased, but I've owned a 300mm f4 and a 300mm f2.8 and I don't miss either of them after getting the 200mm f2. :]

Msmoto

@Golf007sd

Go for it....300mm f/2.8VRII and while you are at it....maybe a 600mm f/4......and....LOL

Squamish mentioned somewhere about the new Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO....and I am drooling after this one as well. Need to go to B & H and test drive it first, however....