[ivanvernon]

I understand this. Moreover, I do even realize that in most cases a good zoom like 28-105 will give me almost as good results as a bunch of expensive lenses. Having so many lenses as I do is redundant and I must sell some of them but it's too hard
Surely, I noticed it. However, a mediocre lens can't become extraordinary even in PixelShift mode. D-FA 50/2.8 must be really very good. By the way, Fenwoodian also describes this lens as "will absolutely blow your mind when it comes to clarity and sharpness!
No, I don't shoot in PixelShift mode very often. I aspire for lenses that give a 3D look more than just resolution. As for the Zeiss 50/2 makro, in my opinion, images shot with this lens show a great amount of somewhat clarity. It's hard to describe but there is something very special in them. At least, this is my opinion at the moment.
I've heard about this lens. It can be really good but I'm afraid its rendering will resemble the rendering of a Sigma Art 50/1.4. I had the Sigma Art lens on Nikon D750. At first, I liked it a lot but then its rendering became unbearable to me. Anyway, the D-FA HD 50 /1.4 will be huge and expensive which I don't like )
I'll wait for it, thank you in advance!

P.S. There is a lens because of which I began to think of buying the 50/2 makro. I had known before that this very Zeiss has a unique rendering but it's rather expensive, so I forgot about it. Then by accident, I acquired a Russian lens Jupiter 37A 135/3.5 for really cheap. This lens blew me away! It captures a ridiculous amount of detail even at the very edges and wide open apertures! And what I also noticed was the clarity. After I played with the lens I told myself that I must find a similar lens but with a normal focal length. And the only candidate that came to my mind was this 50/2 Makro (By the way if anyone needs the best-regarded version of the Jupiter 37A, I have a spare copy.)

---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 06:07 PM ----------


sibyrnes, thank you for your clarification on ZK/ZF-Leitaxed versions of Zeiss lenses. It's strange then why Fenwoodian prefers a Leitaxed version. I guess a stronger bayonet of a Leitax mount can't be the prime objective.
Did I understand correctly that even with the ZK version one has to manually set the right focal length? Why isn't it set automatically if such a lens has the corresponding contacts?

---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 06:13 PM ----------

ivanvernon, thank you for your images shot by the D-FA 50/2.8 macro! However, frankly speaking, I haven't found in them anything special in terms of the lens that was used. As usual, everything depends on a right subject that is captured. As for the 50/2 Makro lens, I saw a lot of images that were quite mediocre and only a few of them that looked incredibly good.[COLOR="Silver"]

ivanvernon, thank you for your images shot by the D-FA 50/2.8 macro! However, frankly speaking, I haven't found in them anything special in terms of the lens that was used. As usual, everything depends on a right subject that is captured. As for the 50/2 Makro lens, I saw a lot of images that were quite mediocre and only a few of them that looked incredibly good.[COLOR="Silver"]

Read more at: Carl Zeiss T* ZK mounts (Distagon, Planar, Makro-Planar) - PentaxForums.com


Thank you for your comments. When you find something better, please let me know because I want it!

[sibyrnes]

sibyrnes, thank you for your clarification on ZK/ZF-Leitaxed versions of Zeiss lenses. It's strange then why Fenwoodian prefers a Leitaxed version. I guess a stronger bayonet of a Leitax mount can't be the prime objective.
Did I understand correctly that even with the ZK version one has to manually set the right focal length? Why isn't it set automatically if such a lens has the corresponding contacts?

With Pentax cameras you must manually set the focal length with all manual focus lens, even Pentax lens. What bugs me is that you have to choose a focal length that is listed. For example, my 25mm Distagon is recorded as a 24mm.

[skyer]

I believe there are a lot of misconceptions in your post, from acutance, distortion in the Zeiss 28 and 3D to what focal lengths are best at isolating subjects. I hesitate to address each one because from your answers to people here, your own opinions seem very strong.

At first, I'd like to thank you that you're willing me to help. In no way, I'm saying that my understanding of all the concepts you mentioned is correct. However, you're right that my opinion is quite strong. To some conclusions I had come myself but my mind is still open.

Something to take into account when listening to and judging others' opinions is what their tastes are. For example, I have observed that there are two camps of tastes that often show up lens discussions. One is an obsession with sharpness and extreme detail, and the other is . . . well, it's hard to define, but it is lenses that render more lushly, with rich color saturation and edges of objects showing subtle shadows (i.e., micro contrast effects/sloped acutance) instead of razor edges (i.e., high acutance). Resolution is far more important to a clear photo image than acutance, and some Zeiss lenses resolve superbly without high acutance. As I said, thus far I've never shot with a lens better at that than the Zeiss Sonar 135. So what is your taste? It matters because how you judge someone's report of an "excellent" lens depends on both their and your tastes in lens rendering.

I'm glad you raised this question, it's interesting. I tried to express my taste a few times but maybe I did in a vague way.
Now my taste is the following: I like images with rich color saturation; great clarity; when subjects in focus have very sharp edges so that they [subjects] pop out from the foreground and background; however, such subjects in focus must not be fully isolated from the background and foreground but they must naturally blend one in another; so the background shouldn't be melt away, one must understand what is going on around the subject in focus; there must be a story around the subject but not just parts of different objects without any purpose; the bokeh must be not very harsh but also not too smooth; great resolution is always good but to me sharpness at normal viewing magnification is more important. Well, something like this I guess.

Consider another of your opinions, that long focal lengths aren't so good at producing 3D.

Yes, you're correct I meant just this. However, by "3D" I assume more a "presence effect". it's when a viewer gets an impression as though he/she is standing right in front of a captured scene.
In order to explain my point of view a few words must be said about perspective. As you may know perspective isn't changed by a focal range of a lens, it is only changed by a distance to a subject. The closer the distance the greater the perspective, the farther it is, the perspective is less.
Look at this image - Let's imagine this picture of an "arched door" was shot on a 24mm lens. You can see that after the first arched door there is a second one and then a third one. Now imagine that the same first arched door was shot with similar proprtions but on a 50mm lens, then on 100mm, 200mm, 300mm. It's obvious that in order to preserve the proportions of the first arched door a photographer must go further away from it. Now answer yourself: will the 2-nd and 3-rd arched doors be still visible on images with 100-200-300mm? No, they won't. When one goes away a presence effect becomes less.
On the other side, one gets too close to a subject, there appear optical distortions that also don't add to the presence effect.

Understand me correctly, I like images shot on 85/135/200mm lenses but they are not into the 3Dm they are just different.

Here is another example of how perspective (and the presence effect) changes with lenses of different focal ranges and different distance to the subject -
As one can see in the image shot with a 24mm lens the depth of the scene is very pronounced - it's quite obvious that the closer object is bigger than the farther object. In the image shot with a 300m lens the depth of the scene is almost gone.

I'm sure you know there's a sizable difference between an informed opinion and being opinionated. The opinions I've given you (and others here as well) are after having spent the last seven years buying and selling dozens of lenses. Unlike some you criticized I have, for instance, owned the FA 31, twice actually (the FA 77 twice too) because I wanted to try them a second time after I had more experience with other lenses. In fact I've owned every Pentax Limited lens made and almost every * lens, both primes and zooms. I've also owned a lot of macro lenses, including the legendary Voigtlander 125. My TASTES and years of experimenting have determined my current kit, and not a test chart or expert whose tastes may not match my own. Consequently, I know I don't care for Pentax lenses much, too clinical for my tastes (though I have liked a couple of the Pentax zooms). I also don't like the way macro lenses render for general photography (for macro photography, great). Zeiss and Voigtlander, mmmmmmmm.

I do respect your opinion and always ask for a piece of advice if I'm not correct. All your lenses are really great! Maybe they are among the greatest 35mm lenses of all times. At the same time though, we are talking about opinions here. There so many characteristics of each lens every photographer choose himself what lens suits his need more. For example, the Distagon 35/2 maybe optically maybe better than the 31 Limited. However, I don't imagine how I will be able to nail focus with it looking into the viewfinder. (I can manual focus very precisely with 77-200mm lenses using a split-image screen.) Also, I like the greenish chromatic aberrations in the blurry background so much that only the 31 Limited can produce! But still, I'd like to try Zeiss lenses If I had such an opportunity. In some situations I'm sure they will be better than my Pentax lenses.

Final note about Leitaxed lenses. I don't think anyone mentioned that shooting stopped down in low light can be difficult viewing through the viewfinder (which is the only way I shoot) because the aperture is letting in so little light. When it's dark, I have to compose wide open, and then count the clicks to the F stop I want.

I mentioned this in a subtle way I asked about "an automatic aperture mechanism" on the previous page. Thank you for your addition! Another point to the ZK version over the Letaxed one.

---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 10:37 PM ----------

With Pentax cameras you must manually set the focal length with all manual focus lens, even Pentax lens. What bugs me is that you have to choose a focal length that is listed. For example, my 25mm Distagon is recorded as a 24mm.

Yes, an automatic selection of the last used focal length would be useful.

[les3547]

At first, I'd like to thank you that you're willing me to help. In no way, I'm saying that my understanding of all the concepts you mentioned is correct. However, you're right that my opinion is quite strong. To some conclusions I had come myself but my mind is still open.

I'm sorry that I deleted my post, I'd hoped to do it before you answered. I was worried it might cause controversy, but your answers to me seem thoughtful. Good luck with your search!

[skyer]

I'm sorry that I deleted my post, I'd hoped to do it before you answered. I was worried it might cause controversy, but your answers to me seem thoughtful. Good luck with your search!

It's alright. Thank you, Les!

[Fenwoodian]

It's strange then why Fenwoodian prefers a Leitaxed version.

I like lenses that operate the same. ALL of my Zeiss lenses are the ZF versions that I adapted to Pentax K mount. I have gotten used to how they operate on my K1 cameras. So, another reason I prefer Leitaxed ZF lenses to ZK versions is that by having only adapted ZF versions all of my Zeiss lenses operate exactly the same.

Also, mastering the use of adapted ZF lenses makes available to me all of the newest Zeiss lenses (i.e. their magnificent Otus and Milvus lines). None of these more modern Otus and Milvus lenses are available in ZK mount (only the ZF mount)!

Finally, within the "Classic" line of Zeiss lenses, I've found that the ZF versions are roughly $300 - $500 CHEAPER than the ZK version (exclusive of the Leitax mount).

I'm not saying that Zeiss lenses are "the best". My favorite images have been taken with Leica lenses that cost $5,000 to $10,000. To my eye, these top end Leica lenses look the best to me. But for what I can afford, I like Zeiss (and some Voigtlander) lenses better than the many Canon, Nikkor, Fuji and Pentax lenses I've owned and used.

[Tas]

A few hours ago I won a lot of the 50/2 Unfortunately, it's a Nikon ZF2 version but the price was rather good. An almost new lens I purchased for $470. Now I'm puzzled what to do next. Should I buy a Leitax adapter or should I sell it with a premium and buy a ZK version for $695-780?

Mate, I think you now have the answer to the question you're seeking, but to know for sure you've got to get it onto your K-1 and 'test the water' for yourself.

With the Leitax adapter you're not losing the ability to shoot that lens on a Nikon camera as the ZF/ZF2 mount can be retrofitted. Therefore you can test the lens on your K-1 and if you don't like it sell it as either an adapted lens (through the forums would be your best bet) or return it to it's original state to sell onto a Nikonian.

To fit the adapter you can either do it yourself, or have it fitted by Fenwoodian or even the Leitax people. So far as trying to sell on for a ZK mount version? It probably wouldn't be worth trying, but that's your choice. Just don't hold your breath as they're the kind of lens people hold onto when they're not swapping systems.

Anyhoo, I don't think you'll regret the decision you've made as even if you don't like it you will know for sure whether it provides what you're looking for. If you're anything like me though, your Zeiss 2/50 will be a lens you will enjoy immensely and be one of those lenses listed under: "They'll have to peel it from my cold dead hands".

Oh, and this thread is about sharing images captured with Zeiss lenses on Pentax cameras, so you know, once you've got that 2/50 on the K-1...hint...hint...

Tas

[skyer]

Thank you, guys, for your kind support! It's a pleasure to talk here!

Yes, Tas, with the Leitax adapter a Zeiss lens can be switched back to Nikon and then be sold to a Nikonian. However, as far as I understand, the looks of such a lens won't be original anymore Of course, the lens won't look too ugly but still the price of it must be lower than before (or higher if it is sold to a Pentaxian ).
As for the ZK version, I think that 1) writing the right Exif information, 2) focusing with a bright focusing screen when a lens is stopped down and 3) not messing up with switching mounts - all of this is an advantage over the ZF version.
My purchased ZF2 lens is still abroad at the moment. The seller of the ZK version is abroad too on his holidays ) When they both arrive in my country I guess, I'll try to ask the seller if he would swap his ZK version for my ZF2 Maybe it will be a win-win scenario for both of us.

Fenwoodian, Les, why do you shoot with Pentax cameras if you primarily shoot with non-Pentax lenses? Sony cameras with WYSIWYG viewfinders are better suited to work with manual lenses. With Nikon cameras, it won't be necessary to mess with Leitaxing.
As for me, I use a Pentax camera because of three things:
1) I like "Pentax colors" very much (jpeg/PDCU), 2) I like some of the Pentax lenses, 3) I like the controls and features of Pentax cameras.

---------- Post added 10-24-17 at 12:01 PM ----------

Fenwoodian, could you share your thoughts on differences between a common Zeiss lens and a common Leica lens. Zeiss lenses are famous for their 3D-pop and what are the main features of Leica lenses (except for their great mechanical part)?

[les3547]

. . . Les, why do you shoot with Pentax cameras if you primarily shoot with non-Pentax lenses? Sony cameras with WYSIWYG viewfinders are better suited to work with manual lenses. With Nikon cameras, it won't be necessary to mess with Leitaxing. differences between a common Zeiss lens and a common Leica lens. Zeiss lenses are famous for their 3D-pop and what are the main features of Leica lenses (except for their great mechanical part)?

When I finally decided to give digital cameras a try (after years of film cameras) I chose Pentax because of (like my profile says) . . . its compactness, in-camera SR, price, its interesting history, and to gamble that some company might want to reestablish it as a world-class system (which I think Pentax has). I didn't know anything about Pentax lenses, I just assumed with all that was available I'd be able to satisfy my needs. Today the number one big reason (besides the money already invested in Pentax) is in-camera shake reduction. I also really like Pentax's ergonomics, plus its sensor quality is close enough to the best available for a lot less money than the top Nikon, Canon or Sony.

It's exciting to build a system—I've enjoyed doing that with everything from computers and our music system to even the equipment/supplies I cook with. Yet I know too there's a time to shift the focus from system building to system using. My photo system is far better than I am a photographer, but I really enjoy using it and am looking forward to improving.

[cqua77]

My Zeiss 50mm f1.4 in ZK mount is currently listed in sales section

[Gedeon]

I have zk (18, 28, 35, 50 and 85mm) and leica-r with leitax (50, 80 and 135mm)... zeiss is clinical, contrasted, with very hight optical quality ... but except the 28mm which has a strong personality, I find that leica produces a more artistic résult, more atmospheric, more traditional than zeiss. It's a combination of factors, an alchemy between the hues, the bokeh, the patterns in the background blur ... I have the 85mm zk and 80mm summilux, and most of the time the zeiss stays on a shelf for the benefit of sum ... same for the 50mm (summicron vs distagon) ... the only cases where I prefer the zeiss, are conditions of rain, stormy days, situation or my ZK really excel ... otherwise to exploit the light, leica is simply unbeatable, just some artificial lights, a twilight, or warm dawn to transformer it in hot, vermilion and silky lights... I do not say that all leica lenses sound well, no , but some pieces have a magical ability to restore these kind of atmospheres ..

[Fenwoodian]

I have zk (18, 28, 35, 50 and 85mm) and leica-r with leitax (50, 80 and 135mm)... zeiss is clinical, contrasted, with very hight optical quality ... but except the 28mm which has a strong personality, I find that leica produces a more artistic résult, more atmospheric, more traditional than zeiss. It's a combination of factors, an alchemy between the hues, the bokeh, the patterns in the background blur ... I have the 85mm zk and 80mm summilux, and most of the time the zeiss stays on a shelf for the benefit of sum ... same for the 50mm (summicron vs distagon) ... the only cases where I prefer the zeiss, are conditions of rain, stormy days, situation or my ZK really excel ... otherwise to exploit the light, leica is simply unbeatable, just some artificial lights, a twilight, or warm dawn to transformer it in hot, vermilion and silky lights... I do not say that all leica lenses sound well, no , but some pieces have a magical ability to restore these kind of atmospheres ..

.
Gedeon, I'm not surprised by your comments.

But maybe you are not comparing the best and most modern Zeiss lenses to your Leica lenses?

I would like to point out the the Zeiss ZK 18, 50, and 85 lenses are all optical designs that were significantly changed/improved with the release of the newer Milvus versions. I can say from personal experience that the Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 lenses are much better than their older ZK "Classic" versions.

I wonder if you might think a bit more highly of Zeiss lenses if you were shooting the latest Milvus line?

[Gedeon]

maybe these new Zeiss lenses are high level ... but modernity is it necessarily quality assurance? the zeiss 85mm planar came out (I believe) in 2009, the summilux 80mm that I acquired is dated ... 1986. yet I find that it develops more obvious qualities for me. Now I'm so curious....😊 but put a leitax ring on a milvus is just like climbing the Everest with sandals, a pretty damn hell 😁

[Fenwoodian]

maybe these new Zeiss lenses are high level ... but modernity is it necessarily quality assurance? the zeiss 85mm planar came out (I believe) in 2009, the summilux 80mm that I acquired is dated ... 1986. yet I find that it develops more obvious qualities for me. Now I'm so curious....😊 but put a leitax ring on a milvus is just like climbing the Everest with sandals, a pretty damn hell 😁

Gedeon, I live in Wisconsin in the USA. I see that you live in France.

It would be fun if we could get together and shoot the same subjects on our Pentax K1 cameras. I'd use my Zeiss Milus 85mm and you'd use your Leica 80mm lens. But alas, it will never happen because we live so far apart.

I agree with you, putting a Leitax ring on a Milvus lens is "hell" (I've done it twice).

I like experimenting with different lenses on my K1 camera. I was considering purchasing another Zeiss ZF Milvus lens and converting it. But now I'm thinking that I may scrap that idea and instead purchase a Leica R 80mm Summilux and Leitax adapt it to Pentax K mount. I am looking forward to someday comparing these two lenses myself.


Dave

[Fenwoodian]

.
Lately I've been shooting my Zeiss lenses into the sun on my K1 camera. As most of you know, most of the Zeiss lenses produce really nice sunstars when stopped down and shot into the sun.

Also shooting into the sun will often produce flare, which sometimes looks quite nice.

Anyway, yesterday I was shooting my Zeiss 25mm f/2 into the sun wide open. To my surprise, I captured the below image, which to me looks like it has a weak sunstar. This surprised me because I thought that you'd only get sunstars by stopping the lens down.

What do you think of this lens behavior?

[IMG][/IMG]