Which Zeiss?

[DrongoPhoto]

I'm a Canon 7D owner and I've been looking to add a Zeiss prime to my collection. I will mostly be using this for video work but I also like the challenge of a manual focus lens, not to mention the Zeiss look. I'm trying to decide between the 35mm f/2 and the 50mm f/1.4 and I can only afford one. At this point I'm leaning toward the 50 for the price advantage and the speed, but I've been reading that it's very soft wide open.

Does anyone have any experience with these lenses? Any thoughts/opinions would be helpful.

Thanks.

 

[gsgary]

Whats wrong with the Canon 50mmF1.4?

 

[DrongoPhoto]

If it was just for photo work, nothing, really. It's a decent little lens and a very good buy. I love my 85mm f/1.8 but it has all the same issues: It's not a very good video lens because it doesn't have hard stops on the manual focus ring, it breathes too much and it doesn't have the same "pop" as the Zeiss glass.

 

[Christie Photo]

My first thought is to ask what you'll photograph with your new lens.

-Pete

 

[Mike_E]

So what would you mainly be shooting (subject matter) with it?

Were it me I'd go for the 35mm. The 50mm is a jack of all trades but you know the downside of that. Since you already have an 85mm you might want the "full stop" .

 

[Derrel]

You definitely ought to look at digital lloyd's web site for some Zeiss lens reviews. At the prices you'll be paying, you will most assuredly want to have a completely accurate opinion and evaluation of any Zeiss ZE series lens you buy for your Canon system. (Lloyd Chambers is the guy who runs the site. Google.)

If my memory serves me correctly, the Zeiss 35/2 might be the model they make that has extreme field curvature. I saw a blurb on a Zeiss lens on MIke Johnston's The Online Photographer blog, and he showed a Zeiss photo that exhibited very strong curvature of field at closer distances, and as I recall, it was a 35mm ZE series lens. Mike was using the photo as an example of what field curvature looks like, and I must say, it is not what a lot of people really want in a semi-wide lens.

 

[Mike_E]

There goes Derrel with the cold water again.

If you don't mind manual focus it would seem that you have a very large field to choose from, especially when you consider the adapters available.

 

[Derrel]

Hey, it's "only" $1,004 from B&H Photo for the 35/2 ZE...I did a bit more looking around; I think I would rather have their 35 f/2 than their 50mm lens.

 

[DrongoPhoto]

Thanks everybody. I'll be using this for master shots in video and artsy, editorial work for photos. And yeah, I do have a lot of options if I want to play with adapters. I'm a little overwhelmed so I'm looking at the big names.

Hey, it's "only" $1,004 from B&H Photo for the 35/2 ZE...I did a bit more looking around; I think I would rather have their 35 f/2 than their 50mm lens.

Care to share your reasons?

 

[usayit]

Functionally, adapted lenses do not compare to the Zeiss ZE mount lenses for the EF canon system. Unlike adapted lenses, the ZE lenses have the appropriate electronics to support AF confirmation, EXIF info, and support for exposure modes.

So the decision should between an ZE or the EF equivalent. Too bad I don't have any information about how the Zeiss optics compare to Canon.

 

[DrongoPhoto]

For those interested, here are the links for the diglloyd Zeiss reviews:

diglloyd: Mini review of Zeiss ZF.2/ZE35mm f/2 Distagon for Nikon/Canon/Pentax
diglloyd: Mini review of Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar for Nikon/Canon

Now I'm also thinking about the makro planar because of the distortion advantage but that one's even more money. Plus, I'm already in love with my 100mm f/2.8L Macro.

I really wish I could find more lenses that work well for both stills (zoom range, AF) and video (hard stops, speed) .

The real issue here is I'm also thinking of buying the 16-35 L to bridge the gap between my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and my 24-105, which I find to be a little slow for most of what I'm doing. I don't want to double (triple) up on the 35mm focal length with the Zeiss, but I think I would love it for video and use it more often on my crop sensor than the 50, which becomes too long for a "normal" lens.

I wish I knew for sure if Canon was going to come out with a 14-24.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Nikon makes a nice MF 35mm f/1.4 which is yet another stop brighter for your video, and they also have an inexpensive, but really nice 50mm f/1.2 that's manual focus too. I have a friend with a 7D who just bought the 50 1.2 and it's amazing to work with in video.

50mm f/1.2:
Nikon | NIKKOR Normal 50mm f/1.2 AIS Manual Focus Lens | 1435

35mm f/1.4:
Nikon | Wide Angle 35mm f/1.4 AIS Manual Focus Lens | 1429 | B&H

 

[DrongoPhoto]

I think I have it narrowed down. Sort of. I'm buying two lenses now and here are my choices:

Zeiss 35mm f/2 AND Sigma 50mm f/1.4

or

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 AND Zeiss 50mm Makro f/2

The second option is a little more expensive. I'll mostly be using the Sigma for low light photos with some video thrown in and the Zeiss for video with some fun photos, no matter the focal length. I need a "Normal" video lens for my 7D so I like the idea of the wider Zeiss, but I know it's hard to shoot candids in bars with a 50mm.

After renting it, I've ruled out the regular Zeiss 50mm due to the size (awkward for me), focus ring (too narrow) and barrel distortion. The makro is much better in all of these areas.

I guess I'm just looking for a second (and third) opinion.