These are obviously in a Nikon F mount. Their reputation isexcellent but I wonder how the really compare to the original Nikon equivalents. Anybody in the know or compared them?
I own the 25, 50 (f/1.4, not the f/2 macro) and the 100 macro in Nikon mount. I sold the 28 which is a hit or miss amazing lens but too close to the 25 for my purposes
Much heavier (some would say "better build quality") than Nikon equivalents.
Optically, they have that modern Zeiss look: very, very sharp, more "pop" and more highly saturated. I'm getting mine out now for fall colors. With Portra 400, they dazzle.
There isn't a single lens in this whole lineup that isn't highly praised. The 135mm is sort of legendary but massive; the 21 and 35 are exceptionally strong. Weakest is my 50 f/1.4 which is--to put it kindly--"interpretative" wide open. But a lot cheaper than the 50 f/2 macro and just as good by f/2. Actually pretty wonderful at f/5.6 and f/8.
Last edited: