Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/85 ZE

<p>Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/85 ZE <br>

Has anyone tried this on a Full frame yet?</p>

<p>I'd love to hear how the Zeiss performs next to the EF 85/1.2 L II. I have the FD 85/1.2 L, and it's by far my favourite prime.</p>

<p>"next to the EF 85/1.2 L II."<br>

For we in the unwashed masses, it's not the 85/1.2LII that it's to be compared to, it's the 85/1.8. Were it to provide a substantial improvement in performance, it'd be an option. The weight, bulk, and price of the 85/1.2 mean it's not a lens that would get thrown in my camera bag every day, whereas I could see using the Zeiss as part of a 3-lens kit. The review at the following site pans the Canon 85/1.8, so Zeiss has a chance here. Interestingly, it looks as though Zeiss will have a harder time competing with the cheap Canon 35/2.0, which, said site claims, does very well in the f/5.6 to f/16 range landscape types will use.<br>

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/2</a></p>

 

<p>Well - at least in one regard it stands up to 85/1.2 - the price...</p>

<p>David, is this the review you meant?<br>

<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10</a><br>

That doesn't read as a panning to me. I would be very surprised to find a review of the 85/1.8 that is anything but complimentary. For the price, its the sharpest Canon prime I have ever used, and for that reason the Zeiss 85 doesn't really interest me. The Zeiss 50/1.4 and 35/2 are another matter though! :o)</p>

<p>"That doesn't read as a panning to me"<br>

I'm looking at the full-frame "blur index" for the 85/1.8 and not being happy; I'd hope the Zeiss would do quite a bit better (the Zeiss 100/2.0 Macro, according to those tests, should be way more useful at f/2.0 than the Canon 85/1.8, but macro lenses test well wide open). I have the Canon 100/2.0, and the 50/1.4 is sharper at f/8. I should shut up and buy the Sigma 70/2.8.</p>

<p>"it stands up to 85/1.2 - the price..."<br>

It appears to be about $500 cheaper than the 85/1.2; that's just enough to make me think that it's "US$1000 and change" as opposed to "almost US$2000". While I'd expect the 85/1.2 to be the better lens, it's nice to have the slightly more plebian option. Assuming, of course, that it performs. From that site, it seems the Zeiss 50/1.4 isn't enough of an improvement over the Canon to write home about.</p>

<p>-- "I'm looking at the full-frame "blur index" for the 85/1.8 and not being happy"</p>

<p>Franky, I doubt the Zeiss will make you any happier ...<br>

<a title="Zeiss85 vs EF85" href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=481&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2" title="Zeiss85 vs EF85">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=481&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=106&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>" doubt the Zeiss will make you any happier ..."</p>

<p>Oops. No joy here either...</p>

<p>Usually I run pretty controlled tests, but in this case I have not yet. So these are general feelings.</p>

<p>I have the Canon 85 1.8, the old Contax Zeiss 85 1.4, the Contax Zeiss Macro 100, the Canon L 135. I use them on a 1Ds2. The Zeiss 100 gets used a lot for product shots due to great sharpness, closeup ability, and nice ability to focus with the slow, smooth old fashioned helicoid along with DOF scale. </p>

<p>I use the Canon 85 1.8 for grab shots of the kids and it's a very nice lens, as everyone knows. Lately I started using the 135 L, a bit long for me, for the same purpose, and have been really impressed with its ability wide open. Background blur is really great, both in degree as well as soft, pleasant quality. </p>

<p>While I was playing around with the 135 L I threw on the Zeiss 100 Macro. Wow, fantastic sharpness, it's laser-like at the focal plane, with nice blur, but it's not fast so the background is not way blurred out. It's ability to pull detail out of shadows, like details within the eyes, micro-detail in the iris and its coloring, is amazing. it reminds me of the old medium format Zeiss 120 Makro for Hasselblad. This 100 is a beautiful lens for sharp portraits if you don't need extensive blur.</p>

<p>Now to the Zeiss 85 1.4. I was so impressed with the Zeiss 100 I was excited about the 85. I did not miss focus, but the sharpness when wide open did not impress me, and the out of focus areas are not what I had hoped for. I prefer the Canon 1.8's blur wide open.</p>

<p>This is the third time I have owned a Zeiss 85 1.4. When I was shooting Contax I bought a used German one, was not thrilled, sold it and bought a new one made in Japan, sold it with my Contax system, and now this. Each time it fails to really impress me.</p>

<p>I do not know if the new one is the same design, so you do have to consider that.</p>

<p>I am interested to see if anyone has compared the 85 F1.2 and 85 F1.8 Canon EF lenses. I have the FD 85 1.2 and it is probably my favourite 35mm portrait lens (the Fuji GX 680 180mm F3.2 blows it away). The FD 135 F2.0 is also a great lens but it is a bit long for most portraits etc...</p>

<p>"compared the 85 F1.2 and 85 F1.8 Canon EF lenses"</p>

<p>The usual suspects are at the following link.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/index.htm</a></p>

 

<p>I think the Canon 85 1.8 is very hard to beat. I own it as well as the 1.2 II and they are both great lenses. The 1.8 is much lighter, smaller, and has faster AF. I would not hesitate to buy it.<br>

Here is the 1.8 on a 5D:<br>

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/50940887/original</p>

<p> </p>

<p>While I absolutly love and value the sample crops at the digital picture, a few thoughts come to mind: 1) even Zeiss lenses have sample variation, 2) it's a manual focus lens, so critical focus might not have been achieved in the test shots, and 3) there's more to life than sample crops -- the Zeiss ZF (ZE, ZA, etc.) line is known for its flare control and other desireable characteristics.</p>

<p>Photozone really likes the ZA version of this lens (the ZE is supposedly optically identical), and photozone is quite a hard judge.<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14">http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14</a></p>

<p>That said, Armando's post does give me pause -- unimpressive experiences across multiple samples (although slightly different designs) is noteworthy. And since I have the f/1.2L II I have no plans to buy this lens.</p>

<p>In my opinion, Zeiss made a major marketing error in staging the ZE line -- they released their 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 first, with the likely rationale that they would be the best sellers because they're the most popular focal lengths in the line. They would have been much better off releasing the 100mm Makro and 28mm f/2 first -- the former to show off its unbelievable greatness and the latter to fill a hole in the EOS line with a very high quality wide angle.</p>