Someone talk me into or out of this - Zeiss or Canon 50mm

[shawngibson]

I'm getting itchy for going back to the basics again, but this time

with my DRebel. That would ostensibly mean to Canon 50mm f/1.4.

However, I've never shot one of these lenses for any length of time,

and I DO HAVE plenty of experience (and love) for the Contax Carl

Zeiss 50mm f/1.4.

 

Stephen Gandy can sell me an adaptor, and I shoot ALL of my lenses

in manual anyways, never at infinity (10D, DRebel and last weekend

shot with a 20D...I'm sorry but Canon digital AF simply...blows

chunks)...so, whether Canon or Zeiss, in this regard, is no issue.

 

Do any of you have experience with both lenses? For me to do the

Zeiss route, obviously requires a lot of monkeying around, cross-

border buying etc., and the price for the Canon and the Zeiss will

work out to about the same. You know, $500 no effort vs. $500 with

effort and wait.

 

The bottom line is...have any of you ever used both these lenses,

and...would you say the Zeiss version is worth the hassle over the

50mm Canon f/1.4?

 

I certainly know I love the Zeiss...I am quite certain the Canon is

probably just as fine...but...my recollection of the colour

rendition of my previously owned Contax 50s...says to me they're

gonna be hard to beat.

 

Any experience here?Thanks all,

 

Shawn

[hugh_crawford1]

If you want to try an all manual 50mm 1.4 lens, I would suggest the SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 lens. You can get it and a screwmount to eos adapter for about half of what just the Zeiss to eos adapter costs.

 

The Super-Multi-Coated or SMC Takumars are about as close to a Planar as you can get without it saying Zeiss on the front. I love my Takumar - Canon digital combo.

[robin_sibson1]

You may not feel the need for AF - there's many that would disagree with you, but if it's right for you then fine. But trying to use an SLR lens without automatic diaphragm is a pain - and I speak as one whose first SLR was a Wrayflex where you did not have the option! If you are only ever going to use your lens on static subjects with the camera on a tripod, then maybe. For any other applications, forget it.

[jbq]

I'm with Robin here. The automatic diaphragm alone is worth it. And I'm pretty sure that there are quite some other things that'll work better.

 

Maybe you should learn to use Canon's AF. Many people find that it works well (myself included - but it took me a while to get used to it on my 10D).

[les_gyug1]

Shawn,

I switched from Zeiss to Canon in 1998, but kept some of the Zeiss lenses and one body. Earlier this year I bought the adapter and now can use the Zeiss lenses on Rebel XT. Unfortunately, I did not keep the 50/1.4 but only the 45/2.8, so can't do a straight comparison for you, and have never owned a 50mm Canon. The 28-135 that I used as the "normal" lens since 1998 was never quite the same as the Zeiss 50/1.4, but then I wasn't fully expecting it to be. Colours always seemed slightly washed out compared to the Zeiss.

 

I find the 17-85 I now have so useful, that I only use the Zeiss lenses on the XT if there is a real reason to. I basically only use the 45/2.8 when I want a really small set-up (not as small as a P&S, but smaller than 17-85), and 135 when I need 2.8 (which isn't very often, since one can just boost the ISO on the XT). And since I have a pocketable Olympus P&S for when I really want a small camera, I find I almost never use the 45/2.8 on the XT.

 

Out of interest I just took some shots of the geraniums out the front door comparing the Zeiss 45/2.8 and 135/2.8 to the Canon 17-85. It's pretty much a toss-up. The 17-85 wins in straight-out-of-the-camera usefulness (darker, more immediately pleasing to the eye), but after photoshopping, they look pretty similar in colour/ resolution/contrast. That isn't really the comparison you were looking for, but that's all I can do for the moment.

 

Also remember, that switching that lens adapter is not particularly quick, so you need a lens adapter for every lens, otherwise it takes too much time and trouble to make lens switches.

 

Cheers,

Les Gyug

(les_gyug@shaw.ca)

[shawngibson]

OK, thanks guys.

 

There was only one reason for me to go Contax here - a noticably better colour rendition over the Canon, but the weighting seems to be getting worse and worse, and better for the Canon.

 

So...unless someone comes to me with a direct comparison stating the Zeiss is absolutely gonna be better at rendering colour over the Canon, I'll just get the Canon.

 

Thanks everyone, another wacky Shawn problem, basically avoided.

 

Shawn

[shawngibson]

>>Maybe you should learn to use Canon's AF. Many people find that it works well (myself included - but it took me a while to get used to it on my 10D).

 

Funny. And thanks:)

Shawn

[bobatkins]

<em>...I'm sorry but Canon digital AF simply...blows chunks</em>

<p>

Your camera is badly broken. Send it in for service immediately.

<p>

And how can you judge color rendition from a digital image when the color of the image is overwhelmingly determined by the color balance used in the RAW image deconvolution? Even if there is a color balance difference which you can see by not using auto, but by picking a fixed color balance setting, just us a different color balance setting!

 

This is digital. Stuff like color balance, distortion, vignetting etc. are no longer serious problems - unless you want them to be. You're not shooting slides anymore...

[jbq]

Shawn: don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the AF of the 10D is perfect, just that when I first got it I had a hard time getting it to focus on exactly what I wanted, and that with time I learnt how to do it fairly reliably. I still wouldn't mind upgrading to a 1DII for the 45-point sensor.

[digitmstr]

>>...I'm sorry but Canon digital AF simply...blows chunks<<

 

My 10Ds AF is good enough to take pictures of sports events and birds in flight. Your camera may be broken or in desperate need of adjustments.

 

Where do you get the $500.00 figure for a Canon 50mm f/1.4? Do you mean USD or other? You can get one for $299.00 at B&H, in New York.

 

Actually, I had bought a Contax 50mm f/1.4 on Ebay about 8 months

ago, with the adapter. I promptly sold it back. I prefer the prints made with the Canon many times over. Like everything else, it's a personal preference. I though the Canon's color were more natural (Contax was too warm for my taste) and the contrast was better as well.

 

One thing you'll have to get used to when using 3rd party lenses is focus and stop-down-before-you-shoot routine, which can be a PITA. ALso, you won't be able to use an EX flash with the camera in M mode, only in Av mode. Unless of course you put the flash in M mode as well.

 

Ultimately, I ended up selling all my old manual focus lenses (Nikon, Contax, Pentax, Zenitar, etc...) and am now shooting with Canon glass exclusively.

 

For those who already have other lenses it's great that the Canon EOS system allows us to mount just about ANY lens one might have laying around. In fact, even old Nikon lenses work better on an EOS (the metering actually works) than they do on the new Nikon D cameras. How's that for irony?

[shawngibson]

Sorry, I'm just going by my experience...with 3 cameras...I get more out of focus shots when that little beep happens...and I go click with the shutter...then when I use my eye...

 

For example, in MF, I can still hear the beep, but when it beeps...I fiddle a bit, and I can see, visually with my own eye, that it comes into better focus at a point other than where it beeped...very slightly of course.

 

That's with the Rebel and the 10D. Unfortunately, I can't comment on the 20D, only used it in AF for one day, not even the whole day, was a friend's camera.

 

It is CERTAINLY possibly my techniques sucks...I'm simply more comfortable with MF, I admit that...but...I know I felt a lot better even with my old Nikon F4 in AF, than the Canons I've used.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone, and it might be my fault, I can only note my experiences...none of which have been good with Canon AF.

 

But again, it might be me.

 

Shawn

[shawngibson]

OK, well...let's sort this out. Here is how I autofocus.

 

I always have only the centre on, or occasionally i switch to the far right, if I am shooting full length portraits (head's closer to the indicator).

 

I half press...wait for the beep, and shoot, or recompose and shoot if needed.

 

That's 99% of the time how I use AF.

[shawngibson]

...I usually focus on the eye of my subject.

[digitmstr]

Shawn - try this: set the AF button *separate* from the shutter button. I forget which cf number it is (may be 14 but, ck the manual). I set my AF to be the old AE lock button. Now, I can work faster and more precisely. Ck it out...

[digitmstr]

>>or recompose and shoot if needed<<

 

Ah! the focus-and-recompose technique is generally not a good idea, though there are *some* exceptions. Not only does the plane of focus change but, other issues come into play, especially when the AF functionm metering and shutter functions are ALL on the same button.

 

I just think that having AF, AE and shutter functions ALL on the same button is NOT a good idea. Choosing the right focusing point manually is also the best way to achieve focus, IMO. That's what I do and so far, so good.

[shawngibson]

Yes, definitely, and that was the first thing I did when I had a 10D - CF4 I think it was (I actually posted here to figure out how to do that). Not possible with a DRebel, not even with the Wasia crack:(

 

I've often thought that the short period of time for recomposing may be an issue, and that's one of the reasons I like MF.

 

And to be fair, what I said earlier, was not an attack against Canon...i.e., my negative statement. It was meant merely to be a personal statement, not a sweeping criticism, even though, obviously, that is certainly how it read. I should watch my language more often...

 

There is, however, also another reason I like to manual focus...it absolutely forces me to look at the shot. I sometimes am in a blur in the middle of a shoot, paying attention (or trying to) to too many things. Manual focusing forces me to have 100% of my attention on my subject. I definitely loose some, but I gain some too.

 

Shawn

[jon_austin]

"I half press...wait for the beep, and shoot, or recompose and shoot if needed."

 

This may be (one of) the problem(s) you're experiencing with autofocus, particularly if your depth of field is relatively shallow, or you're relatively close to your subject, or both.

 

For a treatment on this topic (and apologies if you've already seen it):

 

http://thyokel.freeserverhost.com/Photography/FocusErrorProblem.htm

[awindsor]

I am in awe of Shawn (and/or his optometrist). I have nothing against manual focus (I always do a double take when I see MF since I automatically expand it to Medium Format) indeed I still shoot an entirely manual 6x6.

 

The finder on my 6x6 comes with a focusing screen split image micro prism collar focusing aid, a magnifier, and is a couple of inches on each side.

 

The 300D comes with a postage stamp at the end of tunnel and no focusing aids. There are now split image micro prism screens available for the 20D but I don't know if you can get them for the 300D (since in theory the screens are not user interchangeable). Is there really enough snap to judge critical focus at f1.4 ?

[victor_moss]

Just a comment on the article on focusing and recomposing error. I have seen this before (on some other website btw). It appears to me that the article gives a rather long explanation of a simple fact that when you tilt your camera the plane of focus moves tangentially on a surface of a sphere (whose center is in the camera and radius equal to the distance of focus). The author seems to have misunderstood how focus and 'recompose' is supposed to be done, namely, by moving the camera on its original plane. In practice, one can do that by 'sliding' the camera on an imaginary glass wall right in front of the camera. In the setup illustrated in the article, this is achieved even easily by raising the tripod. The second tip with AF is to check focus through the viewfinder and correct manually before shooting (easier with a FTM focus lens). The combination of both seems to work for me without losing much time choosing focus points (which are rarely where I want to be in any case).

[shawngibson]

Thanks guys...

 

>>Is there really enough snap to judge critical focus at f1.4 ?

 

No, there isn't:( Indeed I have not been down there for a while unless the light calls for it.

 

And actually that really leaves me not wanting to lose the beep, which I would if I switched to Zeiss...because...I still rely on the beep...but I use it as a starting point, and then I use my eye from there. I simply can't explain why I am better than autofocus (maybe it's my technique, as I readily admit), I just know that, after the beep, most of the time if I move in or out manually, slightly, to my eye, it ends up more in focus in the viewfinder (and my images confirm this). Further, when I rely simply of AF, when I go click at the beep, I get more out of focus shots on the card.

 

Humm...I love split screens. THAT, indeed, might be the one solid reason I've seen to switch to a 20D. And better high ISO :)

 

I almost feel like I have to apologize for loving manual focus, in a thread I wanted to be a this-or-than lens, but I just don't understand why...I have to justify it. Indeed, I shot for a decade almost solely manual, from Contax to Nikon to a pair of Pentax 6x7s...and no one ever made it feel like I was doing something wrong by 'being manual'. Even when I got an F4, I MFed it most of the time...AF was a neat toy, nothing else to me.

 

Weird how things change.

 

Maybe a 20D ain't such a bad idea...if there is a split screen available for it...haha...if also it works with a Zeiss lens attached. That'd be heaven...good digital, and my own comfort of Zeiss lenses.

 

Some of you guys already think (probably rightly) I'm a nut, so feel perfectly free to think so even more.

 

Oh well.

 

Take care, and thanks again:)

 

Shawn

[digitmstr]

I love Manual Focus...but, not on a 10D, 300D or 350XT! That is one of the reasons I sold my ENTIRE arsenal of manual focus lenses.

 

I don't think anyone took anything you said *personally* but, it is a huge strectch of a statement to say that the EOS systems can't auto focus. There must be a reson why you can't get proper focus with your 300D or 10D.

 

As for the lens, I would again suggest you do what I did and go Canon. The 50mm f/1.4 is actually an extremely well regarded lens (and deservedly so) and you will NOT be disappointed by its optical performance.

[neild]

I shoot all my shots with my 10D manual focus, as I only use Olympus manual focus lenses on it (via an adapter). It's not as easy as with a full-frame camera (with its full frame viewfinder!). In bright daylight, it is easy, but in dim/dark light I do get a number of duds that were focused badly. I always focus with aperture wide open, then stop down before taking the photo - tricky technique if you want action! But yes, I do tend to 'see' more of what I'm looking at, so from this point of view, it's a good idea! However, for the dRebel with its 1.6 crop, maybe you should get yourself a 28mm lens - it'll give about the same field of view on the dRebel as a 50mm would on a film SLR...

[shawngibson]

Actually, if this is correct, there's a split-screen available for the 300D: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,13383817

 

Any comments/experience?

[phyrpowr]

I think it was Popular Photography (boo, hisss) did a 50mm test about two years ago, Contax 1.4 edged out the Canon 1.4 (or it could have been vice versa) by only the very smallest of measurebator margins, not enough difference for me to see in the mag's pix

[chiswick_john]

Focus and recompose errors assume that the lens has a flat plane of focus - most do not but gently curve and so focus and recompose is very accurate. Talk to anyone who uses a Leica M - a far more accurate focus device than AF - focus and recompose is the only way. The only lenses with flat fields of focus are specialist copy and macro lenses.