This is a very, very striong argument for buying a Nikon SLR: Zeiss Lenses For Nikon >> (http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=17216)

Unless they start making them for Canon, too...

Oh, my... Interesting that one of the two that they're coming out with is an 85 f1.4 which is one of Nikon's best. If anybody can top it, it's Zeiss. Can't wait to see it in action. So I s'pose that you'll need a camera that doesn't need CPU lenses for the meter to work, kinda like the F6 in the picture. But then, the people buying this glass already have those cameras.

This is a very, very striong argument for buying a Nikon SLR...

Starting from scratch, ok, maybe, but IMO both Canon as well as Nikor lenses have been on par with Zeiss for many years now. And even if there was a slight bump in quality with Carl's glass, it wouldn't be enough of a difference to make me switch camera systems.

BTW, am I even allowed to BE in this forum??? :D

Wow...

One thing that Nikon does better than Canon is the wides I love so much, and Zeiss does them better still...

Hmmm..

Uwe, who used to be our Digital SLR forum moderator, has been buying some lenses purely for image quality for a while now. He and some of his friends have the EOS 1Ds Mark II. I think they've all been using a Mamiya macro lens, with an adapter, specifically because of the image quality. They have the best camera (uh oh - wrong forum to say that :rolleyes: ) and they buy the lens with the absolute best optics. They aren't concerned with the name on the lens, electronic compatibility, auto focus, or anything besides image quality. For this kind of user, I think Zeiss may be on to something.

For most of us. I think you're right, Steve. Nikon and Canon lenses are excellent, when you buy the good stuff. I think the market will be with landscape, nature, architecture, and other technical tyoes of photography.

Wow...

One thing that Nikon does better than Canon is the wides I love so much, and Zeiss does them better still...

Hmmm..Actually there is a test online that shows that the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Aspherical (which I own) does better than the Zeiss 21mm I think it was :)

BTW, am I even allowed to BE in this forum??? :D
No. None of you are. Except deckcadet and me. :D

No. None of you are. Except deckcadet and me. :D

...that I still own a couple of El-Nikkor enlarger lenses.

So, as Nelson would say, "HA-HA!"... :p :D

...that I still own a couple of El-Nikkor enlarger lenses.


What's an enlarger?

What's an enlarger?Wait a minute. Wasn't that in the first Austin Powers movie? ;)

This is a very, very striong argument for buying a Nikon SLR: Zeiss Lenses For Nikon >> (http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=17216)

Unless they start making them for Canon, too...

Zeiss makes top of the line optics.

They also charge you an arm and a leg for them.

It costs to have the best...

:-)

They also charge you an arm and a leg for them.From the release: "The Pricing will be suitable competitive with similar items in the Nikon F system."

First off, you'd think they can afford a proof reader! :p These are manual focus lenses, and you'll need (I'm guessing) a D200, D1 or D2 to be able to use the in-camera light meter. If you have one of those cameras, it might be a good tradeoff for the look that Zeiss lenses have. Not like AF is always very useful in low light anyway.

Sista, PLEASE!

Once you go dark, well, you know.

Wow...

One thing that Nikon does better than Canon is the wides I love so much, and Zeiss does them better still...

Hmmm..

You can always come back from the Dark Side.

Darth Vader did and you can too!

;-)