Zeiss ZE 50 mm f1.4

[robert_edelman1]

<p>I have been intrigued about the Zeiss ZE 50 mm f1.4. Maybe it's nostalgia for the all-metal lenses of yesteryear. I have used the Canon EF 50 mm 1.4, and I find that it is a reasonably good lens in regard to image quality. It's small and light. But it is fragile. It may be my imagination, but I loved the photos that my FD 50 mm 1.4 (breech lock) produced compared to the EF version, even though both lenses seem to have similar optical designs (7 elements in 6 groups). The EF lens that I used was not a "bad example", as it was serviced by Canon, so I know that it was working properly. The best way that I can put it is the EF version doesn't do much for me. It's OK, but not great. Maybe I'm asking too much. That is why I researched the Zeiss EF. I also researched the Sigma lens, but have pretty much ruled it out because of its size and focusing issues. The Sigma also appears to not be as sharp compared to the Canon when it is used with smaller apertures.<br>

I know that the Zeiss is manual focus, and can be used with focus confirmation in EOS cameras. It is built by Cosina in Japan. One can buy other Zeiss 50 mm 1.4 non-ZE lenses and an adaptor for EOS and save some money, at the cost of having to use stop-down metering, etc., but I want to stay with the ZE version for this post. From the reviews that I have read, the ZE is soft at 1.4, but sharpens by 2.0. The background blur (bokeh) at f1.4 has been criticized as being too harsh. It supposedly has high contrast (I have seen it described as "microcontrast", whatever that means). Most of the information that I have looked at about the Zeiss is 8 months old, or older. So, I am posting these questions for those of you who have experience with the Zeiss ZE 50 mm 1.4:<br>

What is your experience with this lens? Is it difficult to focus, even with focus confirmation? Do you need a different focusing screen, or can you get by with the standard 5D screen? Are you pleased with the photos that you get with this lens? What are its weak spots, and what are its strengths? Is the lens worth the extra cost as compared to the less expensive Canon EF 50 mm 1.4?<br>

Thanks in advance for you input.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Robert, we seem to have some photographic experience in common, at least with repect to our gear. I used (and still use) FD gear, and the FD 50/1.4 is one of my all-time favourite lenses, and was certainly my most used prime. So when I decided to take up the EOS system, naturally the first lens I got was the EF 50/1.4 (which, as you have surmised, does have the same optical formula as its FD cousin), and I couldn't be happier with it. It is, as you say, less robustly built than an FD lens (what EF lens isn't?), but I have found that its IQ is nothing short of superb. I find it to be super sharp (even wide open, where it's supposed to be deficient), and to have very smooth bokeh. In fact, the EF normal prime is so good that I unloaded my Contax Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 because I didn't find it to be much if any better.</p>

<p>But I don't have the ZE 50/1.4, and your experience with the EF 50/1.4 might be different than mine. All I can say is that it's going to be a long while before I think of getting another EF 50mm prime. </p>

[robert_edelman1]

<p>Thanks, Mark, for your input. Glad to hear from another FD user. Perhaps Canon will update the EF 50 1.4 with a ring motor and more robust mechanicals. After all, as you say, optically it is a good lens. I was just wondering if the contrast or some other optical property would make the Zeiss more or less desireable for some people. Obviously, much of this is subjective. </p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I have experience with Contax C/Y lenses and the Tamron and Tokina 2.8 zooms on Canon cameras, and I can say that if you shoot the same thing with a Zeiss prime and a good EF-S zoom you have to really try to see the difference. Where I do see a difference is when I am using a tripod and magnified live view for focusing. A well-damped manual focus lens and magnified live view lets you put the focal plane exactly where you want it with ease. It can be done with undamped AF lenses, but it is easier with MF lenses. Focusing accuracy and motion blur are often bigger issues than small differences in lens quality.</p>

<p>If you don't mind stop-down metering a contax/Yashica 50mm 1.4 and an adapter is a lot less expensive than the new ones. If someone gave me a ZE lens I would use it in preference to my C/Y glass, however.</p>

[robert_edelman1]

<p>Stephen, I have to agree with you that motion blur and focusing accuracy are more significant to image quality than the small differences that are found between quality lenses. Still, the images I get, for example, from the EF 200 f2.8 L (using some sort of support, of course) are special.<br>

Thank you for mentioning the feel of a well-damped manual focus lens. I think that is an important reason why I miss those older manual focus lenses. Some of the autofocus lenses also have a good feel when manually focused. This is particularly the case with some of the macro lenses where, as you know, manual focus is often used. The EF 50 mm 1.4 lacks that dampened feel when it is manually focused.<br>

I can't try any EF-S lenses as I have a 5D. As you know, the larger sensor on the 5D is more demanding on lenses, as it will show optical aberrations that are cropped out by an APS-size sensor.<br>

Yes, the Contax/Yashica lenses with an adaptor is a less expensive alternative to the ZE lens. Still, considering that the lenses are used and are out of warranty, the C/Y lenses are still not cheap.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you want to see something amazing for a solid metal lens, see if you can find a Zeiss Jena Biotar 58mm f/2 in any of the mounts that have converters for EOS cameras (e.g., M42, Exakta) and try it on your EOS camera. You'll be amazed.<br>

As this lens shows, the main problem with the old lenses is that their coatings are not up to current standards, but if you can avoid flare, there are actually surprisingly few modern lenses that are better.</p><div></div>

[peter_foiles2]

<p>I have the 5D2, EF 50/1.4 and ZE 50.1.4. The strength of the ZE is contrast, images can really pop. From 1.4-2.8 the EF is a little sharper, from 2.8 on there is not much to choose from between the two. For build quality the ZE has it all over the EF, not even a fair fight. The downside of this is the ZE is much heavier than the EF, if you want a light lens the ZE is not for you. As for manual focusing, focus confirmation, in my experience, confirms that you are close not that you have achieved critical focus. If you are shooting stopped down landscapes that is fine. If you want critical focus at wide apertures and close distances then you want the "S" focusing screen or better yet live-view.</p>

[robert_edelman1]

<p>JDM, the Zeiss looks like a fun lens to try. It is only f2, though. <br>

Peter, your answer is very helpful. What could be better than the experience from someone who has both lenses. Thanks to you both.</p>