Carl Zeiss 50mm F1.4 for Canon - your thoughts?

[jubeelukas]

Hello!
I am new to this forum and I'd like to know your opinions on the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 lens. I am currently thinking about a 50mm lens for my 7D (for portraiture and street shots - of course for street shots manual focus is something to be worked on). I used to own the Sigma 50mm F1.4 and I quite liked it (sold it because I bought an L lens and had to sell it for budget issues ). I have also tried out the Canon 50mm F1.8 II aka the Nifty Fifty. I also like the Canon's sharpness, but I'm thinking about investing in some better quality glass. So, if you have any experience or thoughts for me, don't be scared to talk out loud
Thanks in advance,
Kevin

 

[MLeeK]

Why not the Canon 50mm f/1.4? Ziess is great, but I think I'd probably go for the Canon version and add in the 85 with it. I'd probably upgrade that flash before I dumped extra frivolous money into a lens I can get for a lot less. If you liked the nifty fifty the Canon f/1.4 will blow you away.

 

[unpopular]

This is the Planar, right? I've had a 1.2 CZ Planar in C/Y mount. It's an amazing lens. It was very sharp, but color and contrast was the most outstanding element. If it's a Tessar, it won't be as sharp, but Tessars are just neat in their own right, and have a classic appeal about them.

There are also older Tessars in M42 from Carl Zeiss Jena, which have become quite popular, but they're really classic style lenses.

Rollei also made a Planar 1.8 in M42, which can be found for about $200-300 on ebay. Currently the ebay market is saturated with these Rollei Planars, and if you don't mind loosing a stop this may be a great way to get into Zeiss MF without dropping a grand in the process. Though you'll want to research this oddball first.

As far as I understand it, Canon doesn't make a real solid 50. They are good performers, but they aren't built as well as some might prefer.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The ZE 50 1.4 isn't particularly special. The design is practically out of a museum.

 

[unpopular]

Just because Planar hasn't changed since the Biotar doesn't mean it's a bad design, it's proven. Hasselblad uses a planar design for all of it's normal lenses.

Just for laughs, here's what ken rockwell has to say about it wide open:

f/1.4​

Soft focus effect. Spherical aberration puts a soft, low contrast veil over a sharp underlying image. This is typical of f/1.4 50 mm lenses. It has high resolution, but low contrast, which results in a soft image.
​

Zeiss 50mm f/1.4

So there you have it. High resolution and yet soft... hmmmm. weird.​

 

[manaheim]

If you buy the Zeiss, you can whip it out at parties and pretty much everyone will want you right then and there.

 

[jubeelukas]

Why not the Canon 50mm f/1.4? Ziess is great, but I think I'd probably go for the Canon version and add in the 85 with it. I'd probably upgrade that flash before I dumped extra frivolous money into a lens I can get for a lot less. If you liked the nifty fifty the Canon f/1.4 will blow you away.

Sure! I just use the flash in nightclubs and the lighting upgrade will be made with studio lighting pretty soon I only need to use the flash on Manual mode anyways, so far it hasnt failed me on the camera, not so good with a transmitter though, but that's alright. I haven't yet had the chance to try out the Canon's 50mm/1.4 but from what I've seen on the World Wide Web, it doesn't seem like a really good performer on 1.4. And so with the Zeiss aswell.. I have also thought about the 85mm 1.8. But since I'm using a crop-sensored camera, I'm looking for a 50mm (80mm equivalent) lens for now (my needs may always change ) Thank you guys for your replies. If there's anything else to speak, speak up I suppose the ultimate 50mm would be the 1.2L then..

 

[unpopular]

One thing I really liked about CZ is how consistent they are, both in terms of knowing what to expect - a Planar is a Planar - as well as how they perform. A lot of time with lesser lenses you'll get into situations where bokeh or flare behaves strangely in one circumstance or aperture or one focus distance, but not in another. CZ lenses are typically very predictable and consistent.

Just when you think you've seen it all:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Schneider-X...t=AU_Lenses&hash=item27c9abce8c#ht_959wt_1041

Tilt-a-whirl bokeh extravaganza!

 

[irfan.in.tx]

Go for it. I have a planar in C/Y mount with an adapter on Canon bodies. If you can get the focus right, acceptably sharp at 1.4, sharp at 2.0 onwards. The color rendition is accurate and micro-contrast is superb.

 

[Derrel]

Check into Lloyd Chambers' payed review/tech site if you really want to complete lowdown on the new Zeiss ZE and ZF manual focus lenses. He also has a free blog, located here:

diglloyd - Blog

Planar 50mm f/1.4...I have seen some good shots from it, and have also seen some dreadful bokeh from it on close-range, natural-world subjects like plants and trees; I think it often displays jarring bokeh when shot at wider apertures at closer ranges. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 EF OTOH, is listed on the Top 100 lenses list of the "ORIGINAL and FIRST North American bokeh guru", MIke Johnston. Johnston wrote the very first series of articles about the then-all-new "boke" or "bokeh" in English published in North America back in 1991. I believe he was the editor of Darkroom techniques magazine at that time. What I find incredibly ironic about the Cosina-made Japanese "Zeiss" ZE and ZF series lenses is the incredibly cheap, squeaky,flimsy, incredibly chitty lens caps that ALL of them ship with! The caps are built like utter crap. THey squeak. THey are flimsy. They fit only moderately well.They are probably made-in-China-craptastic. The caps are worse than old, 1980's $3.99 Kaltar or Generic Brand X aftermarket junk. Even the new, cheap, plastic-barrelled Nikon DX series lenses ALLs ship with a better made, better-designed, better-fitting lens cap. And no--I am not kidding...these $1899 lenses come with the crappiest factory lens caps I have EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE, and I used to work in a camera store!!!

 

[johndizzo]

Would have to agree with a few of the posters above. There is really nothing to write home about with regard to said lens until you stop it down a bit which kind of defeats the purpose of having something with an aperture that big. Also agree with MleeK re the Canon 50 1.4. You can get one for half the price. If you truly feel like MF is something you will be okay with, I would save up a bit more and go with the Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro Planar. If you can find one used, they go for roughly 300-400 more. Picked mine up for a little under a grand. It is a significantly better lens with better sharpness all around. The build, feel and image quality of the 1.4 planar is just not up to par as far as the family of Zeiss ZE lenses goes. Plus, with the MP, you get an amazing 1:2 macro along with a great normal fov general purpose lens.

In a nutshell (as far as going with Zeiss), I would go big or go home. The 1.4 is just not worth it with the comparable alternatives out there.

 

[PhotoBrody]

First off, I posted about the Zeiss about a week ago and got no replies.. why the buzz today? :???: lol

But to answer you - I ended up picking it up, and its incredible. I'm speaking from it being mounted on a 5D - ff.. for your 7D the crop factor will take in and you wont get as big as a picture.. as for the Canon 50 1.4 I've owned that as well, on a 50D. I would never pick the Canon 1.4 over the Zeiss 1.4. You can try out the Canon 1.2, which I've never used but I've seen amazing results.. just remember the skill of focusing manually with the Zeiss takes a little practice to do it quickly and get your shot. But if you nail it, you'll get an amazing result. As for the lens itself, the built is very good, the glide of the focusing is nice and smooth and the bokeh it provides with the wide aperture is amazing also!

 

[johndizzo]

I have owned the Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, the Sigma 50 1.4, as well as both Zeiss 1.4 and the F2 Makro Planar. Yes, I was hunting for the keeper. Assuming you can do without AF, the Makro Planar blows all the others out of the water with regard to IQ and "3D" like imagery. The Canon 1.2 and the Planar 1.4 both have focus shifting issues and are very soft wide open. If you are looking for the highest resolution, best microcontrast, sharpness, and overall IQ, the 1.4 Planar is definitely not the way to go. The color rendition and dampened focus ring are about the only things the 1.4 Planar shares with the rest of the ZE line. As far as the Canon 1.2 goes, it is a great overall lens. But if sharpness is high on your priority list, then it is not the one. The Canon 1.4 is actually sharper overall at various apertures. Yes, the 1.4 is an old lens and is not weather sealed, but it does the job for the money. Double the price for the Zeiss 1.4 definitely isn't justified.

Don't take my word for it, test out both the 1.4 Planar and the F2 Makro Planar and see which one you like better. This is also well-documented consistently by other people in various forums. The Zeiss 1.4 - definitely doesn't make the grade for the cost.

 

[PhotoBrody]

I have owned the Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, the Sigma 50 1.4, as well as both Zeiss 1.4 and the F2 Makro Planar. Yes, I was hunting for the keeper. Assuming you can do without AF, the Makro Planar blows all the others out of the water with regard to IQ and "3D" like imagery. The Canon 1.2 and the Planar 1.4 both have focus shifting issues and are very soft wide open. If you are looking for the highest resolution, best microcontrast, sharpness, and overall IQ, the 1.4 Planar is definitely not the way to go. The color rendition and dampened focus ring are about the only things the 1.4 Planar shares with the rest of the ZE line. As far as the Canon 1.2 goes, it is a great overall lens. But if sharpness is high on your priority list, then it is not the one. The Canon 1.4 is actually sharper overall at various apertures. Yes, the 1.4 is an old lens and is not weather sealed, but it does the job for the money. Double the price for the Zeiss 1.4 definitely isn't justified.

Don't take my word for it, test out both the 1.4 Planar and the F2 Makro Planar and see which one you like better. This is also well-documented consistently by other people in various forums. The Zeiss 1.4 - definitely doesn't make the grade for the cost.

Sorry, I respectfully disagree with this. I'm not saying that the Zeiss 50 1.4 or Canon 1.2 are the best made, but speaking from personal experience and friends that share the same lenses I've seen amazing results. I've never had a focus shift issue with mine, not saying it wont happen - I hope not! But I've had amazing results with mine. And a friend who has the Canon 1.2 has gotten amazing results with that. Both of us shooting on FF Canons though.. I don't know the results on a cropped.. Just Google and find as many images as you can with the lenses and cameras..

This is a good place to start - Advanced Search

 

[Derrel]

I have owned the Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, the Sigma 50 1.4, as well as both Zeiss 1.4 and the F2 Makro Planar. Yes, I was hunting for the keeper. Assuming you can do without AF, the Makro Planar blows all the others out of the water with regard to IQ and "3D" like imagery. The Canon 1.2 and the Planar 1.4 both have focus shifting issues and are very soft wide open. If you are looking for the highest resolution, best microcontrast, sharpness, and overall IQ, the 1.4 Planar is definitely not the way to go. The color rendition and dampened focus ring are about the only things the 1.4 Planar shares with the rest of the ZE line. As far as the Canon 1.2 goes, it is a great overall lens. But if sharpness is high on your priority list, then it is not the one. The Canon 1.4 is actually sharper overall at various apertures. Yes, the 1.4 is an old lens and is not weather sealed, but it does the job for the money. Double the price for the Zeiss 1.4 definitely isn't justified.

Don't take my word for it, test out both the 1.4 Planar and the F2 Makro Planar and see which one you like better. This is also well-documented consistently by other people in various forums. The Zeiss 1.4 - definitely doesn't make the grade for the cost.

Interesting observations!