brian_seay

<p>Nick, wow -- the 18/4 looks very nice -- thanks for posting the examples -- much better than what I've seen of the Zeiss ZF 18/3.5, which has bad gull-winging. I'm looking forward to hearing what you think of the 25/2.8 -- which I've read has curvature of focus plane at short distances, which is typically mistaken for "soft corners".</p>

<p>Arrrgh! I was hoping that Canon would work on their short end -- but not on T/S or at these price points. I thought they'd react to Nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8 G or the forthcoming Zeiss 21mm f/2.8, not Nikon's new T/S lenses.</p>

<p>I'm hoping for upgrades for their badly outdated 20mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/1.8, but it seems to me that Canon's strategy now is to mostly design new EF-S zooms to cater to the consumer market and >$1500 niche lenses to market themselves as "superior" and "cutting edge". Probably a sound business line strategy, but leaves a certain segment (me) underserved. </p>

<p>KEH has at least one appear most months for < $400. Watch and wait...</p>

<p>Obviously you need to spend more time shooting ISO test sheets and brick walls.</p>

<p>More seriously, indeed it would be useful if we could write more specifically about the experiences we have with our lenses. Is "back focus" actually "focus shift" (the tendency of some lenses to move the plane of focus back as they're stopped down)? Are "soft corners" actually "curved focus plane" (which almost all lenses have to some degree)?</p>

<p>I went through a bad thought process about my 50mm f/1.2L -- loved it, read more about it and then hated it. Since then, I've learned to exploit its strengths and avoid its weaknesses and love it again.</p>

<p>I bought a pre-APO 90mm Summicron-R without a lens cap. I figured it would be easy to find a cap to fit it, or at least a "Series 7" UV filter to protect the front element. I bought a B&W UV filter from B&H, but it's too small to fit the threads, and haven't been able to track down a cap. Any advice?</p>

<p>"Overrated", perhaps -- depending on who's rating you're reading and what you're comparing it against.</p>

<p>It has better build quality and is f/1.4, but is more expensive than the Canon f/1.8 Mk II.</p>

<p>It backfocuses much less when stopped down than the f/1.2L, but doesn't have f/1.2 and the AF doesn't perform as well, especially in backlit situations</p>

<p>It has AF, but doesn't have the color or "3D" rendering of the Lecia Summicron-R 2/50.</p>

<p>In 50mm lenses, there are many choices and many trade-offs.</p>

<p>I don't know if there is a difference in performance between ROM and "late pre-ROM". However, there is often a huge price difference between the two -- quite a "ROM premium" that isn't of value when used with a 5D.</p>

<p>No -- it fit without shaving. Not something I'm brave enough for anyway!</p>

<p>I use the ROM version on my 5D. Not only does it work, but in my opinion, it's great! The "3D-ness" of the images can be awe-inspiring.</p>

<p>I tape over the shooting mode dial to hide the fact that I have a camera with "idiot" modes. I always keep it in "Av" anyway.</p>

<p>When I was 15, my 10 year old brother kicked my Sunpack off of my AL-1 -- ruined the hot shoe part of the flash. I melted it back together with a solder gun and used the PC cord from then on, with the flash on a bracket. It acutally looked much cooler then. But, in retrospect, fixing it with a bunch of tape would have looked even cooler and made the camera look like even more of a gimp.</p>

<p>Good used Leica-R lenses can be found for cheaper than new Zeisses -- the Summicron-R 35mm draws very nicely.<br>

The new Voightlander 2/40 and 1.4/58 are under $400US each and worth looking at, although you'll need an adapter for those as well.<br>

I too am looking forward to the 2.8/21 distagon's arrival. However, I'm concerned that today's constraints on lens design (such as the lack of leaded glass) may make it inferior to the 2.8/21 of the past.</p>

<p>To get the full scoop you have to pay, but Lloyd Chambers has extensively reviewed the ZF lineup and the sigma (although not head-to-head). The pay-for review of the ZF line-up has a detailed comparison of the f/2.5CM and the ZF version of the CZ 2/50 makro planar. I think that this is what's closest to what you're looking for that is available currenty.<br>

He also has some remarks and samples from the ZE verison of the 50mm in his free blog at the link below. It appears that the "green dot" doesn't work too well with this lens either.<br>

<a href="http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-12-blog.html#_20081216ZeissZE50">http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/2008-12-blog.html#_20081216ZeissZE50</a><a href="http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html"></a></p>

<p>Yes! Ee-S is permanently in my 5D. With it, my eye is as least as good as focus confirm, even at (perhaps especially at) f/1.2. I've been non-Canon MF lenses a lot since I got it. Despite Canon's claim that it's for f/2.8 and brighter lenses it helps a great deal with the TS-E 24mm f/3.5. You'll notice that the viewfinder is darker with the 17-40mm f/4L and 24-105mm f/4L IS, but not enough darker to want to switch screens to use the darker lenses. Haven't tried manually focusing with f/4 lenses, however. It's only $35, so give it a shot. Also, it comes with the little tool that makes it easy and safe to pop out your focus screen and clean it -- which is nice every couple of months.</p>

<p>Wow. I thought that the Canon EOS forum was fiesty!</p>

<p>I'd like to afford an M8 one day. For now, I'll use my 5D with my 35, 50, and 90 cron and 80 lux. Moving from Canon "L" to Leica "R" was enough of an upgrade for me for now.</p>

<p>Had both when I used a crop sensor. It's 10-22, hands down. Much more useful than the fish for most situations. Sold it to a friend for 80% of what I paid for it when I got a 5D.</p>

<p>It looks to me like the crops show less CA on the II. That's good, but I never thought of CA as being a problem with this lens. While I agree that better flare control and saturation are things that you won't see on crops and an improvement on those fronts would be good, the main complaint about this lens has been sharpness, and per the crops that hasn't been improved. </p>

<p>As for flare and saturation -- while it remains to be seen, I'm guessing that we'll still be using the Zeiss 25 and 28mm (soon to be 21mm) for great color outdoors at wide angles after the 24L II's price drops.</p>

 

<p>While I absolutly love and value the sample crops at the digital picture, a few thoughts come to mind: 1) even Zeiss lenses have sample variation, 2) it's a manual focus lens, so critical focus might not have been achieved in the test shots, and 3) there's more to life than sample crops -- the Zeiss ZF (ZE, ZA, etc.) line is known for its flare control and other desireable characteristics.</p>

<p>Photozone really likes the ZA version of this lens (the ZE is supposedly optically identical), and photozone is quite a hard judge.<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14">http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/374-zeiss_za_85_14</a></p>

<p>That said, Armando's post does give me pause -- unimpressive experiences across multiple samples (although slightly different designs) is noteworthy. And since I have the f/1.2L II I have no plans to buy this lens.</p>

<p>In my opinion, Zeiss made a major marketing error in staging the ZE line -- they released their 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 first, with the likely rationale that they would be the best sellers because they're the most popular focal lengths in the line. They would have been much better off releasing the 100mm Makro and 28mm f/2 first -- the former to show off its unbelievable greatness and the latter to fill a hole in the EOS line with a very high quality wide angle.</p>

<p>In the hospital I mainly used the 24-70mm f/2.8L (on my 5D). I also used the 100mm f/2.8 macro on a Rebel XT and got some wonderful shots with that. When we came home, I found that I wanted to get some pics while the baby was in my lap, so close focus distance was essential. The 35mm f/1.4 is has close enough minimum focus distance (f/2 slightly closer, much lighter weight ) and is probably the right choice on a crop sensor. For the 5D, I got the 50mm f/2.5 compact macro because if I filled the frame with the newborn's face with the 35mm it wasn't too flattering -- I bet you'd get the same effect if you went 24mm on a crop sensor.</p>

<p>Manual focus in dim lighting, especially when using tilt. EE-S focus screen on the 5D can be pretty dark indoors when using a lens darker than f/2.8, and even the difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5 is noticable. </p>

<p>In fact, Canon describes the EE-S only for lenses f/2.8 and brighter, which is somewhat of an overstatement -- I've used it with the 17-40mm f/4 and it's bright enough that I don't bother switching back to the EE-A, but then again I don't try to manually focus the 17-40.</p>

<p>I have no complaints on the 5D Mk I -- the images you can capture with this lens and no other outweigh any complaints I might have (#1 complaint is that it's not f/2.8)<br>

Here's a few examples (not cropped).<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/31735459@N07/sets/72157611144041713/">www.flickr.com/photos/31735459@N07/sets/72157611144041713/</a></p>

Another vote for the 50/2.5 macro. I never would have believed I could get so much sharpness for such a low price.

 

OTOH, if you have a large budget the TS-E 90mm f/2.8 is extremely sharp and has a short minimum focus distance

(much shorter than either Canon 85mm). And the tilt and/or shift might come in handy sometimes as well.

Can't do it. I love mine. I used the f/1.4 for 2 years -- since I got the f/1.2L the f/1.4 hasn't been mounted. I grew to dislike the f/1.4 because it could not AF at all in highly backlit situations. The focus on the f/1.2L is fast and accurate in challenging situations.

 

If you want a lens that is good from f/2.2 to f/5.6, the f/1.2L isn't designed for that range and you're better off with the f/1.4.

 

The Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZE has become available in just the last few days, and it's only a matter of time until it becomes legendary -- for its harsh bokeh wide open. On the other hand, if you want sharpness at the plane of focus and smooth transition to blur at f/1.2, this is your lens.

I have a 5D and both, and I'm glad I do, but I got there in a very different way. I started out with the XT and 28-135mm, and of course 28mm on a 1.6x isn't wide at all, so the 17-40 was a great addition to the family.

 

Then I got the 24-105 f/4L, and wondered "what am I going to do with the 17-40?". Well, the weight difference is very substantial between those two lenses (much more so between the 17-40 and 24-70) and there's a huge difference between 17mm and 24mm (on both full frame and 1.6x). So, I use the 17-40 quite a bit on travels and other times when not doing portraiture. Incredible value for the price, and very nice sized lens.

 

16-35mm is one stop brighter and quite a bit sharper on the wide end (from the test results I've seen, not personal usage). But if you're questioning the need anyway, paying 2x for it over the 17-40mm probably isn't the thing to do.

 

Very true that perspective is very different between 17mm and 24mm -- if that's what you're looking for, the 17-40 is a very worthwhile lens. For that matter, it's very different between 20mm and 24mm. There is some barrel distortion at 17mm, but fixable in software if it's problematic for you.

Brad -- we're close to the same page, but I was referring to the ~24mm range.

 

I too am anxiously awaiting the 21mm CZ Distagon, as well as the 25 and the 28 in the ZE mount!

Almost certainly the sharpest Canon lens south of the 200mm f/2L IS (at 1/5th the price). Minimum focus distance is much, much shorter than either of the 85mm lenses, so it can bring an interesting portrait perspective with incredible sharpness, at least on full frame.

 

I haven't used it for any architectural work (but have found the 24mm invaluable for that). The tilt can add some character to environmental portraits and event shots, but for that I usually move in close with the 24mm.

 

Wonderful question! Technically a lens that is very very hard to fault, but has few acolytes. I too would like to see more examples of how its uniqueness can be exploited outside of the tabletop/product shot world.