Canon 50 1.4 vs Others

[25asa]

<p>Thanks for all the responses guys. I just check the pricing on the Zeiss 50mm f2 macro and its not too far off from what I'd pay. Its cheaper then the L lens. Is the Zeiss macro really a good one to go with (even if you manual focus it)? Is it any sharper then the Sigma especially in the sweet spot range of f5.6-8? How is the bokeh on the Zeiss? How is micro/ macro dynamics and contrast on this Zeiss? Does it give a 3D look and that classic Zeiss look?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>The Canon 1.4 is incredibly sharp at f5.6 and f8, really phenomenally sharp, it even tests out better than Canon's 100 L IS macro. On straight performance levels the Zeiss is not worth three times the Canon. If you want long throw manual focus then the Zeiss is the only game in town, if you don't need that, losing AF functionality and paying so much more for a fractional IQ difference (if any) at those apertures wouldn't be worth it for most people.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=7&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5">Can you tell the difference?</a></p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>If you're going to shoot mostly at 5.6-8 then the lens you use becomes almost irrelevant. It's wide open when the major differences can be spotted.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>