Focusing with a Zeiss lens.

[ricardo_gomez2]

<p>I have a Canon 50D and after several rentals, have decided that the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 is the lens for me. I know I know.. I got expensive taste.. But the lens rocks!<br>

The only issue I'm having with it and trying to resolve is focus. I have great eye sight but if I don't use the focus indicator, my focus can be off. I've upgraded the view-screen and that helped just a tiny bit. A colleague told me that modern cameras don't like manual-focus lenses and it's something I have to live with.<br>

Any other tweaks you folks could recommend? </p>

[stp]

<p>I also like Zeiss on my Canon 1Ds. I don't feel I have a problem with manual focusing. If the photograph allows, stopping down will help, as will live view. That's true regardless of AF or non-AF lenses. AF doesn't always nail the focus either.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>A bit of historical perspective might help. In the olden days, we would focus either on the ground glass, or focus using a focusing aid, often a split prism. Phase detect autofocus in modern DSLRs, in fact, places very tiny split prisms and dedicated sensors at the AF points. In almost every way, manually focusing using the in-focus indicator is not at all different from using an old fashioned split prism focusing screen. Go ahead and get your Zeiss, confident that you're doing nothing unnatural by using the AF "focusing aid". (Maybe turn off the beep, though, so it doesn't drive you or nearby people nuts as you rack back and forth testing the focus.)</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>I agree with Stephen, Live View is the way to go. You can magnify the screen for pinpoint accuracy. I feel, however, that using the lens wide open helps me a lot. The narrow DOF helps you see the plane of focus better, then stop down. Not great for moving subjects for obvious reasons. The last segment of this video deals with some of these issues.<br>

<a href="

[scott_ferris]

<p>Ricaardo,</p>

<p>Just playing devils advocate, did you rent the Canon 35 f1.4 before making your decision? If you haven't you should, it focuses with amazing speed and accuracy. Lenses might "rock" but out of focus shots don't sell (generally).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I completely agree with Scott. A fast lens is not much good if you can't get it in focus wide open. This is not a problem with the Canon 35L.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Yes... the things people do to squeeze out a couple more theoretical line pairs. Another example of one lens being sharper in theory, but not so much in practice. </p>

<p>As to the OP, there should be a couple of companies that sell a split-prism (i.e. what was in MF SLRs) viewfinder screen for the 50D. I've never mucked about with one in an AF camera, but it should solve your problems. I've heard good things about the KatzEye screens, but be prepared to part with 100 bucks or so for the screen (and more if you need someone to install it for you). </p>

<p>However, keep in mind that the split-prism will only allow you to focus on something in the center of the frame, so the indicator lights may be the way to go for off-center subjects. This was perhaps the best (and least recognized) benefit from the introduction of AF... being able to handle off-center subject with fast lenses where focus-and-recompose simply doesn't work. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Personally I'd buy the Canon. Unless you have time to mess around with live view and eyepience magnifiers to get focus, the Canon will give you a lot more sharp shots than the manually focused Zeiss will. While AF isn't perfect, I'm willing to bet it's better than you (or me) 95% of the time unless you can put the camera on a tripod and use live view at 10x for focusing. Not exactly convenient unless all you shoot are landscapes.</p>

<p>It's possible the Zeiss might be sharper in theory, but as you may have found, even the slightest focus error will ruin any sharpness edge it might have over the Canon.</p>

<p>Manually focusing a wideangle lens, even an f1.4, on a current DSLR using the viewfinder screen is a bit of a hit and miss process (even assuming that the screen is in perfect registration with the sensor).</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Bob, good point about the screen registration... definitely not a DIY to change the screen with a fast, wide lens unless you are really mechanically inclined and very patient. </p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>It has been my experience with my XTi and 7D that the camera can do a much better job of focussing than I can using manual focus. If you have the time to use Live View on each shot a manual focus lens might be better, but it's not for me.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't own a Zeiss lens but I did rent one (21mm) recently. What I found was that if you focus from close focus and out into the shot, the focus aids are right on. If you focus from infinity back, then they are off.</p>

<p>Test this type of thing out and you will probably solve your issue. I discovered it in a few minutes while in the field. Testing near your computer would help you get this issue resolved quickly. It wasn't even bothersome to do it this way once I knew what I needed to do--shot with it for 4 full days.</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Gomez. </p>

<p>I’m OLD. Over my lifetime I have accumulated close to 200 lenses. They are from all eras, price/quality ranges and formats. I have the CZ 50mm F:1.4 for use with my manual focus Contax 35mm cameras. It has the best color/sharpness/contrast ratio of any lens I’ve ever used or owned. </p>

<p>The Feb 1999 issue of Popular Photography magazine did a 50mm F:1.4 “shootout”. The CZ won, hands down. It was the only entry to have three A+ in the 20”x24” column. The lp/mm charts were the best. The printed sample (one from each camera) was the best. </p>

<p>Their writers were definitely Nikon Guys back then. In comparison tests they used hype and the latest buzzwords for Nikon products no matter where they ranked. Having the CZ come out on top must have really rankled them. It even beat the Leica Summilux-R, lens of the self appointed Brahman. </p>

<p>I bought mine new in the early 2000s. It was the “green dot” model. I don’t know if they have kept up their quality. I do know that my sample is unbeatable. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[scott_ferris]

A.T.

 

That is as maybe, but I'll wager you can't focus it a tenth as fast, or as accurately, wide open as a 50D can a 35 mm

f1.4L. When I shot manual focus I expected a critical sharp keeper rate of 3-4 frames per 36 roll of film, around 10%, now

with AF I am dissapointed in less than 90% critical sharp image keeper rate. Of course a lot depends on your working

style and subject matter, but short of live view and tripods even an eagle can't come close to matching modern AF system

performance.

[Brad_]

>>> Any other tweaks you folks could recommend?<P>

 

No tweaks, but you didn't mention what you shoot. I think that's key, and a huge factor in making a decision, owning both the Zeiss

35/2 and the Canon 35/1.4.<P>

 

If you have plenty of time to focus, ie you're shooting things that are relatively static, enjoy manual focusing, like heavy lenses that

exude quality, then the Zeiss *may* be a good choice.<P>

 

If, on the other hand, you shoot dynamic subjects, for example street photography like I do, and want to shoot at wider apertures, forget

about it. You'll be frustrated. As it seems you are now.<P>

 

Optically both lenses are great. It's how you shoot that should drive you to one lens or the other. When I'm out with my 5DII, the

Canon 35/1.4 is the only lens I use. It's superb for what I like to shoot.<P>

 

Not a typical spontaneous street shot, but this would have been a "no way" with the Zeiss wide open, No problem with the Canon 35/1.4:<BR>

<center><img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Ahmad.jpg"><BR>

<I>

Ahmad • San Francisco • ISO100, f/1.4, 1/1250 sec • ©2011 Brad Evans

</I>

</center>

[esfishdoc]

<p>Ah... if only Henri Cartier-Bresson could tell us what he thinks of autofocus...</p>

<p> </p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>A.T. : Who cares about test charts and magazine reviews... the only real standard for lens performance is performance in the field. In this case, while you may have the "sharpest" lens under controlled conditions, unless you are shooting under absolutely controlled conditions, every AF lens will outperform the Zeiss. </p>

<p>Additionally, your Contax has a finder optimized to work with MF glass. The OP does not sans spending a lot more cash on a third-party split prism finder as well as having it professionally installed, shimmed, and aligned. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> Ah... if only Henri Cartier-Bresson could tell us what he thinks of autofocus...

 

I don't think that would change a thing...

[scott_ferris]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p>HCR wasn't using an f1.4 wide open and the cameras he was using were optimised for manual focus, the 50D is not; not withstanding, most of the time he used deep DOF and zone focused. I have never said you can't manual focus, but can you, hand on heart, suggest a fast manual focus lens is a good choice to use on a modern AF DSLR for general subjects?</p>

 

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Ferris…</p>

<p>You would probably win that bet, but on the other hand I do not know because I’ve had no recent experience shooting wide open. When I bought my Argus AF with the F:4.5 Cooke style lens in around 1938 and used Dufaycolor rated at 6-8 ASA I had to do many of my shots wide open. I did not own a flash. </p>

<p>Now I have access to faster lenses, faster film and powerful flashes. I shoot most often in the F:8 to F:16 range if I can. I got used to that shooting stereo slides where one needs depth of field to get full use out of the stereo effect. In addition I lack the sophistication and taste to enjoy a photo where 95%+ of the frame is out of focus. Ah reckon I just ain’t artsy. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Meddaugh…</p>

<p>Thank you for your participating response to me in your Dec 4, 12:17 post. I would like to respond. Unfortunately I find it to be such a combination of unsupported claims, <em>Non Sequiturs </em>and in general <em>Petitio Principii </em>that I could not adequately do so with my limited energies. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>A.T.</p>

<p>I'm not either, but I do appreciate that there is little point in paying premiums for lenses unless you are also using them close to wide open, at least sometimes. Modern lens designs and manufacturing techniques are so efficient that every lens is sharp at f8 and even cheap lenses distortions are very easily corrected.</p>

<p>My personal favorite aperture is f5.6, but on many occasions that won't cut it. I will pay premiums for lenses that give me additional functionality, be that IS, a usable faster aperture, faster focus etc, I see zero point in paying a premium for a lens that vastly reduces functionality, like no AF choice. And I would point out that one of my most used lenses on my EOS EF cameras is a manual focus only lens, but it offers functionality no AF lens can give me.</p>