Originally posted by jwmster If this isn't out of place, curios how many folks are shooting Zeiss in the native PK mount vs. the Leitax converted mount? and what led you to this vs. a Pentax / Sigma lens?
All five of my Zeiss lenses are ZK mount. It's a bit harder answer the second question as to why I ended up going down the Zeiss path, but it probably came from a combination of some examples of Zeiss images on Flickr and ironically the SMC DA 70mm LTD.
I mainly shot with the Sigma 10-20 (still do a lot with this lens too BTW) but found I was enjoying the extra detail in the 70mm LTD. I actually did a back-to-back comparison between the DA 70mm LTD and the DA* 50-135 (a very impressive lens I was pleased with) and found the prime pulled out more detail than the zoom. I also found the FA 50mm F1.4 stopped down produced lots of details in the landscapes I captured with it when compared with the 10-20. I also had an M28/2.8 and again enjoyed how this lens produced more detail. I also enjoyed the challenge of putting a prime on and going out to capture image at a given focal length. I still do this it seems to 'help me see' an image at a given focal length more easily. So whilst the 10-20 and the 50-135 were good lenses, I felt more interested in using the primes. And whilst I still take the zooms (Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6, 28-70 f2.8, Pentax DA* 50-135) out the Zeiss primes get the most attention from me then these primes: Pentax smc 15 f4 LTD, FA 50 f1.4, and smc DA 70 f2.4 LTD.
But why Zeiss? Well, I started noticing some depth of field preferences in images I was viewing, whether it be wide or tele, and started doing some research on Flickr and via Google. I found a number (though not all) of the images I really liked were images taken with Zeiss lenses. One of the aspects of the Zeiss lenses that I was drawn to was the 3D-like effect that seemed to be replicated regularly by the users of these lenses. Whilst it's not very exciting, this example is one I captured of this particular look:
Whilst it's not as obvious in this size image, it is the type of look that drew me to Zeiss lenses. A better view of this image can be found on the Flickr page by clicking the 'Lukely Lukes steed' link, then left click on the image then press f11 for the fullscreen view. I also notice a similar look from Leica images, but their prices are another level of over the top from the already expensive Zeiss glass. They also render differently, and I guess this is another aspect of why I use Zeiss lenses, as the rendering of the images from Zeiss is different to each of the other lens manufacturers. So you know my preference there.
I was also liking some of the close focusing wide angles shots from the 21/2.8 like this one:
And the look of the telephoto portraits, an example at this link:
Falling Leaves | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Adding to these preferences was the historical aspect of using Pentax DSLR's. That is, I'd found little joy in autofocus on my K10D, so I was routinely manually focusing which when combined with my developing preference for primes, meant that I was not deterred by the need to manually focus if I picked up one or two Zeiss lenses. Initially I was looking at the Makro Planar T* 2/100 and the Distagon T* 2,8/21, both in ZK. When I could I picked up the 2/100 (along with the DA* 300 f4), and decided to trawl the web for a used 21mm as I couldn't find a new one (as a result of the limited production one and by this time it was early 2011).
About 18 months later all my gear was stolen, and of all the things taken that hurt the most was my Zeiss 2/100. Everything else was replaceable (even the M28/2.8) so it became a priority to replace it using my insurance. Then miraculously I found one in Europe, it was paid for by the insurance and I was on a hunt then for any Zeiss ZK lenses I could get. Unbelieveably I had also stumbled onto the Zeiss 21/2.8, but I didn't have the almost $3000 Aus asking price. So I sat on it as opposed to digging into savings.
Some more irony was the arrival of a Zeiss Distagon T* 2,8/25 a week after the break-in. I'd picked this up as the widest ZK I could find online. Then after the 2.100 had arrived via the insurance claim I went back to buy the 21/2.8 (I couldn't resist), but it had gone. That was when I thought I needed to buy as many Zeiss ZK as I can and started to look at the Distagon T* 2/35. Then I found a Planar T* 1,4/85, and finally a Makro Planar T* 2/50. In hindsight I went a bit crazy as I knew how much these lenses were making my photography more enjoyable, and knew they would be harder to find as the years rolled by, especially if the full frame came to fruition.
And that's the story of not only why I like Zeiss ZK lenses, but why I have so many. I don't regret buying any of them, and am still on the look out for the 21...and the 18....maybe the 28...would love the 15 and 135 too....
Not that they make the last two in ZK.
. In summary, I bought Zeiss ZK lenses as I found an interest through images that appealed to me. I bought one and loved the feel of using the lens (particularly once I installed a micro prism matte in the viewfinder), the images they were creating and then with the circumstances of a limited production run and a break-in I couldn't reist the urge to buy more. My interest is not yet sated.
Now, could I get the same from the FA Limiteds? Maybe, but with the micro-prism viewfinder installed I am happy with manually focusing whilst my eyes will allow me to. And one day maybe the 31 or 43 will end up on my camera too, but they have to provide the same enjoyment I get from my Zeiss lenses, and allow me to create images that appeal to me (spot the selfish photographer).
To that end I hope we get the option of a Pentax fullframe, so I can use these lenses on the larger sensor, and maybe a Pentax fullframe will initiate the production of ZK again. In the meantime I will ponder the medium format options too as the detail and depth of field MF creates is closer to what draws me to these lenses.
I hope this answers your questions.
Tas