A good wide angle for the Zeiss ZF

[Antoine Fabi]

Hi,

What would be a good wide angle 20mm and lower that would match a set of Zeiss ZF ?

thanks

Antoine

[David W. Jones]

Zeiss makes a ZF 18/3.5 with a 21/2.8 on the way.

[Nils J. Nesse]

I have the Nikon 14mm 2.8, which is nice but not in the same league as the ZFs.

The Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 zoom is better than any Nikon mount prime in this range. But it doesn't have an aperture ring, so you'll need Doug Underdahl's GDX mount.

Same goes for the Tokina 11-16mm 2.8; better than comparable primes, but no aperture ring.

The ZF 18mm f/3.5 is supposed to be very good, but I'm annoyed at the f/3.5.

[Antoine Fabi]

...exactly, the 3.5 max aperture of the Zeiss 18mm is annoying, and the 20mm 2.8 is not yet on the streets. that's why i was asking...

thanks!

Antoine

[Nils J. Nesse]

As discussed in this thread, what we need is a ZF verson of the 15mm 2.8 they make for Leica and, previously, Contax. That would solve all my problems in life.

Antoine, you should send them an email.

[Sanjin Jukic]

As discussed in this thread, what we need is a ZF verson of the 15mm 2.8 they make for Leica and, previously, Contax. That would solve all my problems in life.

Antoine, you should send them an email.

This is not going to happen.

Registers (flange distances) for ZF is (Nikon F) 46.50 mm and for ZM is (Leica M) 27.95 mm.

They are both totally different optical designs and construction.

[Chris Pickle]

I know it's not as wide as 18 or 20, but Nikon makes a 24mm f2.0. Does anyone have experience with that lens?

Nils, you say that Nikon is not in the same league as the Zfs and I'm truly not trying to argue, but whenever I hear this I get a bit surprised / confused. Are not the Zeiss essentially off-brand something or other? Truly? Ken Rockwell puts them in league with off-brand cheapy lenses. And you can find faster Nikons across the board. I understand the mechanics are supposed to be superior, but.... it seems like I'm missing the upside of the ZF line.

Cheers,
Chris

[Nils J. Nesse]

I know it's not as wide as 18 or 20, but Nikon makes a 24mm f2.0. Does anyone have experience with that lens?

Nils, you say that Nikon is not in the same league as the Zfs and I'm truly not trying to argue, but whenever I hear this I get a bit surprised / confused. Are not the Zeiss essentially off-brand something or other? Truly? Ken Rockwell puts them in league with off-brand cheapy lenses. And you can find faster Nikons across the board. I understand the mechanics are supposed to be superior, but.... it seems like I'm missing the upside of the ZF line.

I actually have the 24mm f2.0 lying on the table in front of me right now. It was one of my favs in the HVX/Brevis days. It's nice; a little soft, especially in the corners, and prone to flare; but definitely workable. Mechanics are better for film work than modern AF Nikon lenses.

I originally bought the ZF lenses to please my rental clients -- when they ask "what lenses do you have" they want to hear "Zeiss". But the mechanics are so much more fit to film work than most Nikons, and having used them, I really feel the picture quality is a good notch above, on most of them.

(Exceptions: The Nikon 85/1.4 is probably just as good as the 85/1.4 ZF; The Nikon 14-24 zoom is at least as good as the ZF 18 3.5, and faster.)

Ken Rockwell is a strange fellow. He only reviewed the 50mm 1.4 ZF, which is one of the weaker in the range, and seemed very negatively biased. And of course Nikon 50mm's are already very good. (Any brand makes good 50mm lenses.) Also, Ken Rockwell is looking for different things in a lens than a Reduser.

I'll say the ZF 100mm is probably the best "portrait" SLR lens available in any mount, and it also does macro.

[Chris Pickle]

I actually have that lens lying on the table in front of me right now. It was one of my favs in the HVX/Brevis days. It's nice; a little soft, especially in the corners, and prone to flare; but definitely workable. Mechanics are better for film work than modern AF Nikon lenses.

I originally bought the ZF lenses to please my rental clients -- when they ask "what lenses do you have" they want to hear "Zeiss". But the mechanics are so much more fit to film work than most Nikons, and having used them, I really feel the picture quality is a good notch above, on most of them.

(Exceptions: The Nikon 85/1.4 is probably just as good as the 85/1.4 ZF; The Nikon 14-24 zoom is at least as good as the ZF 18 3.5, and faster.)

Ken Rockwell is a strange fellow. He only reviewed the 50mm 1.4 ZF, which is one of the weaker in the range, and seemed very negatively biased. And of course Nikon 50mm's are already very good. (Any brand makes good 50mm lenses.) Also, Ken Rockwell is looking for different things in a lens than a Reduser.

I'll say the ZF 100mm is probably the best "portrait" SLR lens available in any mount, and it also does macro.

Thanks for the feedback. I understand the brand name value for clients.

It seems that a fast wide lens is the true weak spot in any SLR option for the Red. You can buy f1.4 35, 50, 85 relatively cheap in Nikons or ZFs, but a fast wide.... kinda sucks to have to consider a f3.5 18mm compared to the rest of the kit.

(we recently shot two films and occasionally used the Nikon 135 f2.0. Very cool lens. I found one the other day in a used camera store sitting on the bottom shelf behind some modern AF lenses. Bought it cheap. Looking forward to shooting some portraits on a recently acquired FE body)

Chris

[Nils J. Nesse]

It seems that a fast wide lens is the true weak spot in any SLR option for the Red. You can buy f1.4 35, 50, 85 relatively cheap in Nikons or ZFs, but a fast wide.... kinda sucks to have to consider a f3.5 18mm compared to the rest of the kit.

I agree totally. To the point of desperation. If the camera was only for my own use, I'd get the Tokina 11-16mm and the Doug Mount. Excellent lens.

And yes, that Nikon 135 f/2 is very nice. I also like the 105mm f/1.8.