Modern Zeiss lenses on Nikon FM film camera

AndyWest

AndyWest

Messages
8,400
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

I want a 35mm f2 or f1.4 for my Nikon FM2n. I know there are plenty of Nikon lenses that would work but I was thinking of going mad and getting somethig like a Zeiss Distagon or Milvus to go on it instead. So a few questions.

1: Would one of the ZF.2 lenses work. I'm guessing they will as they are MF lenses with an aperture ring.
2: If money is not an issue, would I still be waisting my time?

I'm not keen on using something like a Leica M6 but I want some uber quality glass on the front.

Thank
 
I confess I don’t know the answer to this, but certainly something to check is that the lens you want has the indexed collar thing which is connected to the aperture that engages with the body to tell it what aperture the lens is set to. This way the camera meter will still work.

edit to add, just checked - the curiosity for the better of me. They work fine apparently.

Money wise, they are all excellent lenses by all accounts, so no, I’d say money not wasted :)
 
Last edited:
1. Yes, they'll work fine.
2. No, while they'll out resolve most film, if you use a great lens on something like Acros 100 or Portra 160 you're going to get results that will be strikingly close to 645 if your scanning/printing is up to standard.

That being said, there is some native Nikon glass that's every bit as good as their Zeiss equivalents (and Leica ones to be honest). The 28mm 2.8 AIS and 105mm 2.5 AIS are two that spring to mind. Voigtlander's F mount lenses are also worth a look at.

One great thing about the Zeiss/Voigtlander lenses is that they have CPU contacts so they'll work seamlessly with the digi bodies too, even the Z Nikons with the FTZ adapter.
 
The only waste is that unless you shoot pan F all the time, the lenses will out perform the film in terms of resolution, however you may find that the rendering is still worth it.
 
The resolution that you get is less than the lower of the individual resolutions of film and lens. If both film and lens achieve 100 lpm, the combination gives 50 lpm. If the lens manages 200 lpm, the combination improves to 67 lpm. Figures approximate, as I wanted to do it without a calculator. Therefore, a better lens will give higher resolution on the negative, even if both it and a lesser lens outperform the film.

I used the simplest form of Katz' empirical equation.
 
Thanks everyone, much appreciated.

So Zeiss and Voigtlander aside, what 35mm would you reccomend to go with the 50mm f1.4D? I have had a Nikon 35mm f2D before which was pretty good. How about the 35mm f1.4D?

I will be getting the 28mm f2.8 AIs at some pount.
 
Last edited:
H'mm just saying:- I can see the point in buying top lenses that can be also used on a digi, but in my opinion other than a 19 or 20mm lens (or lenses for AF) it seems pointless spending out for other expensive lenses as a 35mm film camera can never compete with a decent medium format camera.
I realised this many moons ago in club comps when 35mm e.g. 11X14 prints were placed next to MF and LF prints.
 
35mm has a size and weight advantage over 645 or larger format, but if the objective from buying better lenses is improving image rendering and resolution then there's no competition between that and the larger format.
 
I have been seeing some images that look like medium format and was suprised when i found the image was taken by a Contax G2 with their Zeiss lens.

And that's another thing...... I do find the quality of images differ hugely, so much more than digital. When looking at digital images on flickr they all have great clarity and sharpness where as film the images can look like digital or the opposite where colours are muted and the image is soft and they have a strong film look. With film it's down to the lens used and the film itself which will deturmin the outcome. The camera is just a box with a shutter whether it's a Olympus Trip or a Leica M6. So...having a decent lens should get me some of the way to a sharp image.
 
AndyWest said:
I have been seeing some images that look like medium format and was suprised when i found the image was taken by a Contax G2 with their Zeiss lens.

And that's another thing...... I do find the quality of images differ hugely, so much more than digital. When looking at digital images on flickr they all have great clarity and sharpness where as film the images can look like digital or the opposite where colours are muted and the image is soft and they have a strong film look. With film it's down to the lens used and the film itself which will deturmin the outcome. The camera is just a box with a shutter whether it's a Olympus Trip or a Leica M6. So...having a decent lens should get me some of the way to a sharp image.
Click to expand...

As much as anything that's likely more about Flickr & typical users post-processing choices as much as the medium. But absoilutely yes, a decent lens will help to get a sharp image.

Film or digital (without following the link to Flickr)?
by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

Before dawn - Essaouira by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

by Toni Ertl, on Flickr

One of these was shot with a modern digital era lens, one with an AF era film lens and one with a MF era lens.
 
Without looking at the flikr page I really could not say which is which. I do however like the rendering of each one as it suites each subject.

The top one looks spot on with sharpness. The middle is very sofy but looks amazing as it has more 'feel' to it and the bottom one looks too sharp and digital.

off to look at twhat was used for each......
 
Top was a Samyang 85 f1.4 MF and bottom a Nikon 28 f3.5 from the 70s, both on XP2 with a Nikon F301 body. The centre is a Sony/Minolta 50 f1.4 A mount (i.e. film era AF) on a Sony A7III. :)
 
OK, I still don't know which lens was used on which camera apart from the middle one. I'm stunned at how good the other two are. So what lens was used for the 1st and 3rd images?
 
Too slow typing!! LOL

I have had a couple Samyang lenses in the past and they have been brilliant. I'm glad the 85mm works well as that is another focal length I want. May look at the 35mm f1.4 for general shooting!!!!

Thank you for the effort you have put in!!
 
Last edited:
You're welcome. The Sammy is an absolutely super lens, and relatively good value - and would also be completely compatible with your FM2n.

The Sony/Minolta 50 f1.4 has a lot of coma wide open, and that helps create the super-silky OOF areas.
 
Last edited:
Samyang are amazing value. I have a few 7Artisans lenses for my Fuji and they are good too. I don't think they do Nikon F mount though which is a bit of a bummer!! LOL
 
AndyWest said:
Samyang are amazing value. I have a few 7Artisans lenses for my Fuji and they are good too. I don't think they do Nikon F mount though which is a bit of a bummer!! LOL
Click to expand...

F mount is going to disappear now for new lenses, though there's still a great value used market. It's sad that Nikon F is the least adaptable of all the lens mounts, so although you can adapt Nikon to other cameras easily, it's not true in reverse.
 
Very true but as you say there is a huge amount of used lenses out there going back to the beginning of time :LOL:
 
Oh dear I prefer the digi centre shot :( anyway ignoring bokeh, micro contrast, lens perspective etc etc and just the results from lens resolution you can sort out the "mens from the boys" with crops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top