Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus Distagon T* Lens - for Nikon F Mount

[zixaw]

During an interview it was revealed that the main reason that Zeiss does not make AF Canon or Nikon lenses is because they have not been licensed to do so.

Whereas for Sony A mount, E mount and Fuji X mount, they have the license to do so.

 

[jeff7id]

During an interview it was revealed that the main reason that Zeiss does not make AF Canon or Nikon lenses is because they have not been licensed to do so.

Whereas for Sony A mount, E mount and Fuji X mount, they have the license to do so.

Also...
Why should Nikon or Canon share their lens technology with Zeiss, so Zeiss can create AF lenses for them ? Nikon or Canon do not need help from Zeiss to create lenses.

 

[Kit]

Everyone needs everyone in the industry. If you adopt a protectionist's approach, your users will lose out. When they lose out, you lose them.

 

[tomcat]

Could it just be that Zeiss didn't want to pay any licensing fee for it? It certainly didn't stop Sigma from doing so it would seem.

 

[NazgulKing]

Could it just be that Zeiss didn't want to pay any licensing fee for it? It certainly didn't stop Sigma from doing so it would seem.

I think Sigma just reverse engineers most of the protocols, which is why they have to update the firmware from time to time.

 

[jeff7id]

I think Sigma just reverse engineers most of the protocols, which is why they have to update the firmware from time to time.

Not only Sigma, but Tokina and Tamron can produce AF lens for Nikon as well...

 

[Dfive]

Reality is Nikon is scared s##tless that Zeiss will actually make a better product if they was AF.... IMO ;p

A good deal of Zeiss ZF.2 Optics exceed the Nikon equiv in many areas.

 

[NazgulKing]

Reality is Nikon is scared s##tless that Zeiss will actually make a better product if they was AF.... IMO ;p

A good deal of Zeiss ZF.2 Optics exceed the Nikon equiv in many areas.

I wouldn't be too certain of that. Zeiss probably has some kind of motorized lens somewhere in the catalogue, just too expensive for mere mortals to buy. The reality is all these consumer lenses are just good PR for Zeiss, since their core business transcends consumer optics.

 

[jeff7id]

Reality is Nikon is scared s##tless that Zeiss will actually make a better product if they was AF.... IMO ;p

A good deal of Zeiss ZF.2 Optics exceed the Nikon equiv in many areas.

So, do you say that Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZF.2 exceed AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G ?
Or Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 ZF.2 exceed AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED ?

I know that Zeiss price is more expensive than Nikkor price. But more expensive is not always better.

 

[Dfive]

So, do you say that Zeiss Planar T* 85mm f/1.4 ZF.2 exceed AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G ?
Or Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 ZF.2 exceed AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED ?

I know that Zeiss price is more expensive than Nikkor price. But more expensive is not always better.

Yeah Nikkor in 85mm is better... I find the 100 Zeiss better and 1:2 is ok for me also.

Build quality Zeiss take the pants of Nikon.... Ohhh Nikon pls bring back AI-S Lens Quality.

 

[daredevil123]

It is funny how Sigma is able to make a lens that performs better than both Zeiss and Nikon, build better than both Zeiss and Nikon, at prices MUCH lower than either Zeiss or Nikon.

In the end it is all about market placement and brand equity.

 

[jeff7id]

Yeah Nikkor in 85mm is better... I find the 100 Zeiss better and 1:2 is ok for me also.

Build quality Zeiss take the pants of Nikon.... Ohhh Nikon pls bring back AI-S Lens Quality.

Build quality which take the pants of Nikon...
What's your definition of Build Quality ? Metal cosmetics ?

For me optic & the lens coating are the most important, of course it would be better if can have all together

 

[NazgulKing]

It is funny how Sigma is able to make a lens that performs better than both Zeiss and Nikon, build better than both Zeiss and Nikon, at prices MUCH lower than either Zeiss or Nikon.

In the end it is all about market placement and brand equity.

Well, AF is a bit iffy on the Sigma I hear, especially on Canon bodies.

 

[Dfive]

Build quality which take the pants of Nikon...
What's your definition of Build Quality ? Metal cosmetics ?

For me optic & the lens coating are the most important, of course it would be better if can have all together

All together....... some Nikon are good, most new lens are crap build quality IMO though... Exceptions are the 70-200 2.8's, 200 f2, PC-E Lenses, and all super tele's... frankly metal lenses DO have their place, but are harder, take longer and more costly to produce.

So here we are in the worlds of plastic fantastic.... am sure by the time a D6 is on the scene this will also be a composite plastic.

 

[daredevil123]

Well, AF is a bit iffy on the Sigma I hear, especially on Canon bodies.

Only because they had to reverse engineer the lens software... doesnt take away from the fact that they are able to produce a much better lens than C, N and CZ and price it much cheaper...

 

[Dfive]

Only because they had to reverse engineer the lens software... doesnt take away from the fact that they are able to produce a much better lens than C, N and CZ and price it much cheaper...

Agree... I love my 35 and 50 ART Singma's.

 

[daredevil123]

Agree... I love my 35 and 50 ART Singma's.

I am still resisting the 50... not sure how long i can hold out...

 

[Dfive]

I am still resisting the 50... not sure how long i can hold out...

Don't resist it.... like a good nude model.