Zeiss 50 1.4

[maile_lani]

<p>I was just wondering if any of you guys have had experience with the Zeiss 50 1.4. I've read reviews that the canon version is really soft at 1.4, but I can't find any *real* examples! I've been using a Leica 50/2.0 R on my canon with an adapter, and I love it, but Leica lenses fall apart and I'm tired of having to replace it for the same problem over and over. Also, has anyone used it on a film canon? I switch back and forth between my 5Dm2 and my Leica SLR, but I'm thinking of getting a more automated 35mm film camera :) Thanks!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>The Zeiss 1.4 is worse than the Canon wide open, the Makro-Planar f2.0 is sharper, but it should be.<a href="http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=709&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0"> This link</a> is a good illustration. When the Canon is stopped down a little it is a very very sharp lens.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>All the reviews I've read put the Zeiss well behind the EF 50/1.4 with respect to sharpness. My copy of the Canon is blindingly sharp from f/2 or so on, and isn't too bad wide open, either.</p>

<p>(Scott, this is the second time today that you've beaten me to the punch by just a single minute!)</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Hey there Mark, does that make us twins by another mother (and father) ?</p>

<p>I leave it to you now thogh, my watch just finished so I am off to bed.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>Legends have incredibly long lives. The Zeiss legend is a case in point. It is a fact that they have made some great lenses which are still great. However, for most Zeiss lenses others have caught up, or surpassed, the optical quality.</p>

<p>The 50 1.4 is no better than the Contax Zeiss 50 1.4, which the Canon 50.14 does beat. The one Zeiss that meets or even exceeds the legend is the fabulous 21mm. </p>

<p>One thing the Zeiss does give, which is useful to some of us, is a useful DOF scale. The build quality is also wonderful. However, the lack of AF, the lack of advantage or even disadvantage in IQ has me using EOS lenses on my 1Ds3 despite having a shelf full of Zeiss. </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>So, it is soft. It costs too much. It "falls apart." It doesn't fully integrate with my camera. </p>

<p>But it says "Leica" or "Zeiss" on the barrel, so it just <em>must</em> be better, right? ;-)</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I own the Canon 50 F1.4 and the old Contax 50 F1.7. I find my Canon is soft until F2 (indeed I try not to use it at F1.4 or F1.8). It is difficult to compare with the old FD 50 F1.4 but I think that lens was slightly sharper at wide apertures!. At F2.8 it is very good although I suspect the Canon 50 Macro is sharper (i use the old FD 50 F3.5 Macro on my M4/3 bodies and it is amazingly sharp). Since I do not have the Zeiss 50 F1.4 (the Contax 50 F1.4 is supposed to be even better than the 50 f1.7) it is hard to exactly answer your question but I find the Contax 50 F1.7 is a sharper lens - especially at F1.7 / F1.8 for canon. To some extent there are differences in feel between the two lenses. I find that the German designs are sharp across the frame and the colours and low contrast performance are very good - with the Canon lenses I find that they ultimately have higher center sharpness with high contrast subjects.<br>

While the 50 f1.4 is a good buy I have always been a little disappointed with mine - I wish it had the IQ of the 85 f1.8 or the 100 F2.8 Macro. I do shoot film EOS bodies (pair of 1Vs, 1NRS and 3) but on all EOS models I find MF is a pain for critical sharpness without live view so I cannot remember using the Contax 50 on my film EOS bodies (indeed I also shoot Mamiya M645 lenses on a tilt shift adaptor and again cannot remember using them on a film body). When I shoot 35mm film I tend to go with my Leica M6, Contax G series or an old FD body more than EOS.<br>

In terms of your question<br>

I am surprised the Leica falls apart - my M series lenses are bult so well they feel like they would survive a nuclear holocaust!<br>

The my Contax 50 f1.7 is sharper than my Canon 50 f1.4 but is hard to focus on an EOS body<br>

My Canon 50 F1.4 is soft until F2<br>

The only Zeiss I have tested of late (the 85 F1.4) was not actually that good</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Legends have incredibly long lives.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sometimes for good reasons, though. If you can live without modern coatings, some of the Zeiss lenses from the late 30s on are really very fine.<br>

e.g.,<br>

Sonnar 180mm f/2.8<br>

Biotar 58mm f/2<br>

Flektogons<br>

and many others.</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>This link may help</p>

<p>http://slrlensreview.com/web/benchmarks-resources-131/98-50mm-challenge/359-50mm-challenge-canon-vs-leica-vs-zeiss-part-1.html</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I was just wondering if any of you guys have had experience with the Zeiss 50 1.4.

 

So far, it appears the answer is No!

[scott_ferris]

<p>But that is not unusual and it shouldn't surprise you Brad :-).</p>

<p>In my defense I did post a good comparison link and was remembering the input of a very vocal Zeiss advocate here on the EOS forum, who posts infrequently now, but eventually had to admit their Zeiss 50 f1.4 and the fast 85 were both well below their Canon counterparts and sold them both, presumably to a different Zeiss fan.......</p>

<p>They did say the 50 Makro was very good though, but then so is the Canon Macro 50 for a fraction the money.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Zeiss lenses are "Zeiss" in name only now, anyway.</p>

<p>I have three Zeiss lenses, two Jena Sonnars and one Jena Tessar, and would love to acquire one of the fabled Biotars. But I have no interest whatsoever in the current "Zeiss" line-up, knowing that EF lenses are so much better and cheaper.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Brad the Contax SLR lenses are Zeiss (The real one not Cosina!). I suggest that the OP tests it. I went fully prepared to buy the 85 F1.4 but found the performance quite disappointing. Interestingly the (much less ambitious) Voigtlander 90 F3.5is a good performer</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>I used to have the Canon 50/1.8 but it rolled on the floor and smashed into small bits. The 50/1.4 was better built and great at first, but the focusing became slower and stickier until seizing up altogether - this seems to be a common problem. I took it to Canon for repair but they were unable to fix it because of 'orange liquid' inside the lens (I don't remember dunking it in orange juice but who knows), but kindly cleaned it so I could at least use it as a manual focus lens.<br>

I didn't want to buy a replacement 50/1.4 because it would most likely degrade in the same way, and the 50/1.2 is too pricey, so a used Zeiss 50/1.4 seemed like a good choice. If I'm going to have to manually focus I may as well use a lens designed for it!<br>

I can't give you side-by-side comparisons since I had largely stopped using my Canon 50mm. I will say that the Zeiss has a distinct look noticeably different from Canon lenses. It seems decent enough at f/2 and painfully sharp by f/4. (An example would be http://www.flickr.com/photos/7500206@N08/5939602235/in/set-72157627080881735/ - my Flickr account has many more examples, of varying quality, mostly on full frame but some on 1.6 crop.) Wide open you get some unusual artefacts in the out of focus areas which you either love or hate, gone by f/2 or so.<br>

The Canon is also capable of making some lovely images but I never quite found it as fun to use as the Zeiss. Partly this is the novelty of having a manual focus lens. Needless to say the Zeiss is much better built - also the lens hood protects it to some extent acting as a crumple zone (I dropped mine and bent the hood but the lens was fine).</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>I test drove the Zeiss lens, 50mm, f/1.4 and at the full f-stop, yes... it definitely gives a soft focus, esp. the edges. For the ultra-price, I could not see from departing with an old and reliable Olympus 55mm, f/1.2. Yes, it has some softness too, but it is great as a portrait lens. And yes, it's all manual, and I prefer it that way in the studio.</p>

[ken_max__parks]

<p>I test drove the Zeiss lens, 50mm, f/1.4 and at the full f-stop, yes... it definitely gives a soft focus, esp. the edges. For the ultra-price, I could not see from departing with an old and reliable Olympus 55mm, f/1.2. Yes, it has some softness too, but it is great as a portrait lens. And yes, it's all manual, and I prefer it that way in the studio.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I have experience with both the old (Contax) and new Zeiss 50mm 1.4. I don't care where you look: corners, center, anywhere, I would pick the Canon. But I hate the lack of good DOF scale, for tripod landscape work where I want to know DOF, of the Canons. </p>

<p>I'm not a Zeiss basher, I own a shelf full. And the 250 Superachromat is one of my favorite all-time lenses, as is the 120 Makro-Planar. BUT, the new 50mm, 85mm, forget it. Time has passed them by unless you like a lower contrast, lower resolution look. Many folks who say they love Zeiss cite the "creaminess, the smoothness of tonality". This really is just the look of older, less optimized optical formulae with lesser or no coatings. If we look at the best Zeiss lenses, the 250 SA, the 100, the newer 50mm, all for medium format, they have a sharp, high contrast look that looks much like the best lenses from Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Mamiya. I think some folks like the romantic notion, and the "guru status" that comes from being able to identify a certain look of optical performance from a certain nation or company. Not so. The best, most modern, highest contrast and highest resolution lenses have a look that defines accuracy, not nationality or a particular company.</p>

<p>I would love for the Zeiss 50 to be some state of the art defining ultra resolution, fantastic bokeh lens. I would love that set of strengths from any company, and if it had superb construction like the Zeiss, all the better! But that lens, unfortunately, is not the Zeiss 50mm 1.4. </p>