imran

<blockquote>

<p>Ilya E: Ok, so you would have kept Canon too</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if I shot tight head crops wide open < 5 feet from subject :) Yes then I'd consider the Canon or Sigma 85mm. The 16-9 test is with the ZF version on an adapter and close range test results are more scientific to me than a reality in the field.<br>

I find that I'm using my Zeiss much more than the Canon now due to it's ergonomics and image quality. It's a fun lens to shoot with after some practice.</p>

<p>Yes I thought that Ben's comments were a little snobby :) At the end of the day it comes down to personal preference, since both are great lenses. I opted for the Zeiss due to it's compact size, build quality, color and rendition of facial features. If raw sharpness f1.4 - f2.0 at close focus distance was my only criterion than I would have kept the Canon.</p>

<p>Would you mind posting the URL to your post with 100% crops. Wonder why I'm not seeing a sharp difference you mention. At MFD wide open the Zeiss sharpness wide open isn't great, but improves significantly at >5ft on my copy.</p>

<p>Would you mind posting the URL to your post with 100% crops. Wonder why I'm not seeing a sharp difference you mention. At MFD wide open the Zeiss sharpness wide open isn't great, but improves significantly at >5ft on my copy.</p>

<p>Ilya did you focus the lens close-up using the viewfinder or live view? I'm getting sharp results once you compensate for the focus shift issue and calibrate micro-adjustments to get focus confirmation. I usually shoot at least 5 feet away from the subject.<br>

Brad thanks for the link, I'll update by blog post to include it.</p>

<p>Finally decided to sell my Canon 85L and keep the Zeiss 85mm for portraits and travel photography. I've posted a short review and comparison on <a href="http://imransblog.com">my blog</a>.<br>

Zeiss is a harder lens to use due to being only manual focus and exhibits focus shift at close working distances. Although, once you start nailing focus with practice, I found the colors, bokeh and drawing style to be better than Canon.</p>

<p><img src="http://imranaz.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/mg_10031.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://imranaz.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/zeiss_canon_1_4_full.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Imran</p>

I've used the 24 ts-e recently with a Canon 1.4x for shooting products and was pleasantly surprised by the results. Most of the shots were at f11 with a few degrees of shift. I even compared side-by-side with a 35L and the 24 ts-e + 1.4x was slightly sharper at f11 towards the corner of the frame.

 

I'm not sure if my copy of the 24 ts-e is exceptional, but I wouldn't hesitate to use this lens with a 1.4x stopped down.<div></div>

I ended up selling my 5D to get a used 1Ds for around $2k. If you primarily shoot at <ISO 400, then IMO the 1Ds is a better camera than the 5D.

 

1Ds pros: Better colors, focus accuracy & speed, weather sealing, solid body, film like noise characteristics, shutter reponse and sounds like a 1 series camera.

 

5D pros: Better IQ ISO 400+, lighter weight, larger LCD, better software.

 

If Canon came up a 5D replacement with a 1N / 1V like body in Fall, '07 then it will be worth the wait. For now I'm enjoying my 1Ds :)

Just got my Sigma 30mm today and took some indoor shots with a tripod to compare against my Canon 17-40L. Here is my quick take:

 

Pros

 

- Noticeably sharper in the center @ f4 - f8. Center sharpness f1.4 - f4 is remarkable as well.

- Obvious advantage for general low light shooting and portraits

- Smaller size and weight. Seems to fit the 10D / 20D better than the 17-40L w/o vertical grip

 

Cons

 

- Less sharp than the L in the corners @ f4 - f8 (measured focused object in upper left corner)

- Less contrasty than the L overall

- Won't work as well on < 1.5x crop cameras

 

Everything else including bokeh seems to be approx equal between the two @ f4+.