Gorgeous comparisons. It reminds me of the Claritin-D commercials where they remove the "film" from the ad and you really see the difference in clarity.
Any idea of the Retail price for the lens? Somewhere in the $4,000+ USD range?
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
What exactly did he mean by 'conventional 50mm lens', what and where is this conventional lens? I can assure you that my 21 year old Nikkor 50mm AF-D 1.8 looks nothing like those awful images from the so called 'conventional' lens!
On my D800 it produces clean, sharp, high contrast images that are so richly detailed, especially in the eyes, that it literally blows me away when viewing the RAW's!
I'm not taking anything away from the Zeiss or Leica lenses, and amazing as they are I'm sure Nikon and Canon can match them, in some respects!
London Fog wrote: What exactly did he mean by 'conventional 50mm lens', what and where is this conventional lens? I can assure you that my 21 year old Nikkor 50mm AF-D 1.8 looks nothing like those awful images from the so called 'conventional' lens!
On my D800 it produces clean, sharp, high contrast images that are so richly detailed, especially in the eyes, that it literally blows me away when viewing the RAW's!
I'm not taking anything away from the Zeiss or Leica lenses, and amazing as they are I'm sure Nikon and Canon can match them, in some respects!
Stopped down I bet it does, but does it look that way at 1.4 wide open?
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
Jose Deida wrote:
Stopped down I bet it does, but does it look that way at 1.4 wide open?
Probably not, but then I'm highly unlikely (never in the studio) to use it at 1.8 or even 2.8. I can assure you of one thing, at 5.6 and 8 the Nikkor is so sharp that you can make out the actual structure of a retina, and each and every single eyelash etc, even from a 3¼ headshot!
I've no doubt that the Zeiss is better, but at what price?
After seeing those I can imagine it would be tough to rent this lens then go back to another 50mm. It made those other 2 lenses (at least in that comparison) look like low-end items and they're certainly not.
London Fog wrote: What exactly did he mean by 'conventional 50mm lens', what and where is this conventional lens? I can assure you that my 21 year old Nikkor 50mm AF-D 1.8 looks nothing like those awful images from the so called 'conventional' lens!
On my D800 it produces clean, sharp, high contrast images that are so richly detailed, especially in the eyes, that it literally blows me away when viewing the RAW's!
I'm not taking anything away from the Zeiss or Leica lenses, and amazing as they are I'm sure Nikon and Canon can match them, in some respects!
In similar lighting conditions my Nikkor 50mm f1.4D looks as bad as his example on my d800. Lots of CA and weirdness. I stopped using it.
London Fog wrote: What exactly did he mean by 'conventional 50mm lens', what and where is this conventional lens? I can assure you that my 21 year old Nikkor 50mm AF-D 1.8 looks nothing like those awful images from the so called 'conventional' lens!
On my D800 it produces clean, sharp, high contrast images that are so richly detailed, especially in the eyes, that it literally blows me away when viewing the RAW's!
I'm not taking anything away from the Zeiss or Leica lenses, and amazing as they are I'm sure Nikon and Canon can match them, in some respects!
Hmmm, I agree with you! What did he mean by a conventional lens comparison? I think Nikon or Canon is pretty good at producing lens. But at the same time like you said, I am not taking anything from Zeiss or Leica as well. I for one would like more clarification on what that Coventional lens was and were used?
The Nikkor 50mm 1.4AF-D is a cheap made in China lens! Horrible.
Well what do you know. it says made in China right there on the lens lol.. Never noticed it before. What I did notice was that its a piece of crap from an optical point of view.
Graham Twomey wrote: Interesting so it looks like we will be able to get MF quality lenses for DSLRs at MF lens prices. Hasselblad 50mm is around $4400.00.
The more accurate comparison would be the 80mm. Hasselblad 50mm is a wide angle.
Hmmm, I agree with you! What did he mean by a conventional lens comparison? I think Nikon or Canon is pretty good at producing lens. But at the same time like you said, I am not taking anything from Zeiss or Leica as well. I for one would like more clarification on what that Coventional lens was and were used?
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
p e p e wrote:
Well what do you know. it says made in China right there on the lens lol.. Never noticed it before. What I did notice was that its a piece of crap from an optical point of view.
I'd always heard that the 1.8 was better, especially pre 2003 versions, i.e non D.
Where did they get the standard 50 mm lenses. No way is there anywhere near that CA, or contrast problem with the most of the brands 50mm. I hate bullshit reviews and promotions like this.
And on the Photokina article with three lenses, yeah right, let's focus somewhere else then say the Nikon lens is crap.....
RKD Photographic
Posts: 2,989
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
London Fog wrote: What exactly did he mean by 'conventional 50mm lens', what and where is this conventional lens? I can assure you that my 21 year old Nikkor 50mm AF-D 1.8 looks nothing like those awful images from the so called 'conventional' lens!
I think they meant modern AF lens.
...and you're right about older Nikkor lenses: one of my fave portrait lenses is an old Ai-converted Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 made in 1968.
Many of the newer non-pro Nikkor lenses bear more resemblance to the old Nikon E-series lenses - which were 'good enough', but not to the same standard as 'Nikkor'-branded lenses.
The new lens is also a 55mm, not a 50. 50's are cheap-ish lenses to produce and were - back in the day - intended as a standard lens to be sold to hobby-photographers along with a camera-body. They were never all that brilliant compared to some of the other lenses in the range; especially the f/1.8 or f/2 variants.
I remember Olympus/Zuiko making a 55mm lens way back and that was about five times the price of the 'standard' 50mm...it also was much 'better' than the 50mm...
I dare say if Nikon or Canon were tasked to produce a no-compromise 55mm manual-focus lens with a projected price-tag of €3,000 ($4,000), they could do it and it would be every bit as good as this thing - but just like this, it probably wouldn't sell many units.
Legacys 7
Posts: 33,122
San Francisco, California, US
MFD is still better. But very expensive. Glass wise, Samyang is giving Zeiss, Leica and the others a run for their money in the primes. All manual, but sharp as a tack and very detailed for a much cheaper price.
London Fog
Posts: 5,003
London, England, United Kingdom
Neil Snape wrote: Where did they get the standard 50 mm lenses. No way is there anywhere near that CA, or contrast problem with the most of the brands 50mm. I hate bullshit reviews and promotions like this.
And on the Photokina article with three lenses, yeah right, let's focus somewhere else then say the Nikon lens is crap.....
Yeah honestly, the more I look at that review and comparison, the more it seems like total bollocks! I have no idea what kind of crap (or broken, malfunctioning) lens they used to compare with the Zeiss, but I'd bet a cool 1000 that my Nikkor would give that Zeiss a good ass kicking!
liddellphoto
Posts: 1,678
London, England, United Kingdom
I'm sure this lens will have it's uses but the reason to buy it is amazing performance at wide apertures which to really see means very accurate focusing which means tripod and live view. I can't think what I'd want to shoot at 1.4 to 2.8 like that.
Yeah honestly, the more I look at that review and comparison, the more it seems like total bollocks! I have no idea what kind of crap (or broken, malfunctioning) lens they used to compare with the Zeiss, but I'd bet a cool 1000 that my Nikkor would give that Zeiss a good ass kicking!
I sent them this, hopefully they'll take you up on it and we'll have an unbiased opinion.
I am curious to see if there is any (if so, how much) purple fringing at wide open for the new Zeiss 55mm f1.4. From the video, it looks like the Zeiss 55mm f1.4 controls purple fringing well at wide open.
London Fog wrote: At $4000.00 for the Zeiss, I'll stick with my trusty 21 year old $150.00 Japanese Nikkor!
I am sure there is a reason why Zeiss come out with the 55mm f1.4. From the image shown, it looks like it Zeiss's 55mm f1.4 handles purple fringing well at wide open. Will have to see how it handles when it comes out.
But you are right, $4000 is a lot of money to ask for a 55mm f1.4 lens.
Neil Snape wrote: Where did they get the standard 50 mm lenses. No way is there anywhere near that CA, or contrast problem with the most of the brands 50mm. I hate bullshit reviews and promotions like this.
And on the Photokina article with three lenses, yeah right, let's focus somewhere else then say the Nikon lens is crap.....
This.
Basically, an uncontrolled "study"/demonstration, leaving them free to tweak things to make their product look better. But, they don't tell you what ("conventional" 50mm) they are comparing it to. For all we know it could be some cheap ass plastic lens. And the guy who shot the pics in the 'flower shop' Ho Hum Another uncontrolled, bullshit propaganda piece.
ChanStudio - OtherSide wrote: I want to see how it compares with the Nikkor 85mm f1.8G ($496 USD lens).
Well not a side by side comparison. But, this was my first 'shoot' with the 85mm f1.8G Nikkor. A basketball game.
Existing Gym Light
f.2.8
1/640 sec
ISO 4000
London Fog wrote: .............I can assure you of one thing, at 5.6 and 8 the Nikkor is so sharp that you can make out the actual structure of a retina, and each and every single eyelash etc, even from a 3¼ headshot!
I've no doubt that the Zeiss is better, but at what price?
OK, I would believe the iris, but not the retina. Retinal photography is a specialty and requires special equipment. But, I would definitely believe the rest!!
| 
| 
| edu