Question about CJZ 180/2.8 and 200/2.8 vs Nikkor 180/2.8 ED

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

It seems that there are a number of fans of the CJZ 180 and 200 f/2.8 lenses here. I'll admit, I'm intrigued by them, based on what has been written about them here.

Years ago, I owned a Nikkor 180/2.8 ED. It was one of the sharpest lenses I've ever owned, with great color and contrast. Don't recall the bokeh anymore. But it had great color correction, unlike a New FD Canon 200/2.8 that I also owned. Its CA was horrid, rendering the lens almost unusable in brightly lit situations.

Because of my experiences with the Canon optic, I'm a bit gunshy about buying a lens that does not use some sort of low-dispersion glass or optical formula. I'm guessing that the CZJ 180 and 200 do not contain LD glass, and I don't know about the optical formula.

So, I'm wondering if those of you who own or have used this lens can address the chromatic aberration (or lack thereof) they exhibit?

Thanks,
Michael

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Yes, they have no LD glass in strong light you can get CA with them especially if stupid owner cleaned and removed coatings. You can see plenty of samples with them at mflenses.com/gallery and some of them has small CA many of them don't.

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/

You can found CA here if I remember as well.
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/zeiss/sonnar/200mm/

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Well with my old Canon 200mm f/2.8 IF (New FD mount), I would get mostly cyan and magenta fringing, usually both. It was especially annoying taking photos of anything that was brightly lit with hard straight lines. The fringing was so strong that the photos were unusable.

The Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED I owned later exhibited none of this. Neither did a Tamron 300mm f/2.8 LD that I also owned at about this same time.

Since much of the photography I do is outdoors, and I'm often shooting images which will have straight lines in them, I figure I would need low dispersion glass or some type of APO or aspherical formulation.

Michael

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

In this case, the Nikkor will be your best bet. I have it, and it's very nice, showing minimum, if any, purple fringing compared to other 180mm lenses. Better than a Sonnar anyway.

As to your Canon FD lens, I've heard that IF designs contribute to the purple fringing issue.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

ChrisLilley · Joined: 01 Jan 2008 Posts: 1767 Location: Nice, France

francotirador · Joined: 17 Sep 2009 Posts: 894

This picture is taken with the Nikkor Ai. And have enough CA, and is not backlit. Still, unless the Zebra Sonnar.
Have post processing, high-pass filter.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks for the photo. I decided against the AI Nikkor because it doesn't have ED glass. I can see green and purple fringing in the cactus spikes of your image. It looks to have very good sharpness though and very nice bokeh.

What I ended up doing was a compromise of sorts. I bought the Tamron 30A, the SP 80-200mm f/2.8 LD. I bought one in BGN condition from KEH for a lot less than I would have had to give for one even on eBay, much less than what I'd have had to pay for an AIs 180/2.8 ED Nikkor. I decided on the Tamron 30A zoom because 1) it has LD glass and 2) after looking at the Modern Photography resolution/contrast tests for it at adaptall-2.org, and then comparing them to the same tests for the Nikkor, which adaptall-2.org was comparing to the Tamron 180/2.5. The Tammy 180 outscored the Nikkor by a small margin, but it's a very hard to find lens, and when one does show up on eBay, it usually goes for a lot because it is both a great lens and it is a rare one -- only 3,000 were made. Still, I had experience with the Nikkor and I knew how good it was. So anyway, somewhere along the line, I got the idea to compare the Tamron 80-200 against the Tamron 180, but as I was doing the comparison, I kept noticing a close correlation between the zoom's and the Nikkor's tests. So I looked closer, and what I found was that the 180 ED and the 80-200 LD @ 200mm had scores that were almost identical! !!! So to make a short story even longer, I started looking around for deals on the Tamron 30A and found the one at KEH.

This 80-200 is a big and heavy lens, though. It's longer than the 180mm ED Nikkor, takes an even bigger front filter (77mm compared to 72mm), and weighs a lot more (1359g compared to 800g). So it can be a handful, especially if I'm using it with one of my old Nikon F2s with its MD-2/MB-1 motordrive package. But honestly I don't mind. This lens takes such good photos that I'm more than happy to put up with its weight. Besides, it has a tripod mount -- something that the Nikkor doesn't have. And neither do any of the Zeiss 180s and 200s either, if memory serves.

francotirador · Joined: 17 Sep 2009 Posts: 894

Good luck with the new lens, I'm looking for replacement for my Nikkor. EF 200 2.8 or later of the recommendations of the forum, Elmarit 180/2.8.

Wink

Best Regards
Sergio.