<p>I recently got a dSLR (Canon 40D) to properly enter the digital photography field. After using it and a Canon 24-105L, I also added a few AF confirm adapters to try some of my old Zeiss glass for my 159/167/RTS III days. I got 1 adapter locally and 6 more from Hong Kong. I also added a used (but extremely mint) Canon 200mm f/1.8 USM from Henry's Photo in Ontario.<br>
In the last year, I took some 3000 frames on the 40D before deciding I liked the camera and wanted a better one. I found a second hand 7D with 7000 exposures on it. I can now make certain conclusions regarding Zeiss/Canon glass on a semi-pro digital camera.<br>
The 24-105L is a workhorse lens but I was troubled from the time I first picked it up by its lightweight/plastic feel. It has the same weight as my old Zeiss 28mm f/2.0. I understand people want lenses they can actually carry around all day with out getting exhausted, and compromises need to be made. I think it achieves a good balance. Going from manual focus from my Zeiss lenses to this lens with its IS / USM was a big difference, as big as being able to use a monopod. Some people rave about its optical quality. I don't. Maybe I got a dog of a lens? I know its a bit of a waste to use it on an APS C sensor but I want to be able to shift to full-frame at some point.I may play around with the new focus adjustment feature in the camera to see if that helps.</p>
<p>The Zeiss glass all worked as good as I hoped it would with the soul exception being my 28mm f/2.0 Distagon. Optically it was superb, but it had a stiff focus and sometimes I would not get a precise focus on nearby objects. A $400 "clean/lubricate/adjust" plus a new helicoil mechanism fixed all that. Buttery smooth and the glass is again clear as water.<br>
With the adapters, I get a focus confirm in the camera. For those who don't know, you access them by a sub menu in the camera that you get when you attach the lens and press the DOF three times quickly. For there you program the chip in the adapter with focal length and maximum aperture.<br>
I got an 18mm f/4 Zeiss (Japanese version) because I couldn't justify whatever Zeiss wants for the new 21mm f/2.8 ZE. The only trouble so far is there are NO THREADS to add a polarizer to the front. The polarizer makes a great difference in photos with lots of sky.<br>
The 28mm 2 AEG takes pictures of sharpness and great color that I remember. I dug up some old photos taken on Ektar 25 and some old 25/64 speed Kodachrome. I actually think the pictures will be sharper on the 7D than on film, except for the ones on K25. I have taken some HD video with this lens on the 7D. First few looked bad: yellow cast until I realized the white balance was left on daylight. The few I have taken outside are stunningly clear and crisp. I had considered four years back selling this for $500. I'm glad I didn't.<br>
35mm f/2.8 PC Zeiss. AEG Sharp at f2.8, really REALLY good at f4 to f11. Metering seems problematic when shifted, so I bracketed. I see from reading in the 7D manual this can be an issue. I thought this lens wouldn't be all that useful in a 1.6X sensor.<br>
The 45mm f2.8 "Pancake" I remember it was a backup lens and for good reason: Hard to use focusing, not particularly sharp. Small and got sharper at 5.6. I won't bother keeping this one.<br>
50mm f/1.4. I used this lens for 60% of my 35mm shots and was seldom disappointed. On the Canon it is not very sharp because it has fungus in the lens from being stored badly. Bother.<br>
50mm f/1.7 MMJ Got this lens back (along with my old 159MM) from my brother. Works well enough and is quite sharp with good color rendition.<br>
85mm f/1.4 AND 50th Anniversary f/1.2 Both lens are very sharp on the 40D and 7D. I got these from someone wanting to sell some camera stuff to a friend (thank you Betty Demarche) who sent them to me. In a small beat-up case they pulled out while telling me they'd rather have a point and shoot rather than this: a 167MT with an 85mm f/1.4 mounted AND this stunning 85mm f/1.2 she inherited from her father. I paid $350 for the 167/85 1.4 but I won't relate what I paid for the 1.2 because it would embarrass me. Both lens are very sharp and I think the 1.2 is a bit of a waste stopped down if you used it with faster films. Stopped down, both are equally good but I would need to use a mono/tripod to to take advantage. I did miss the focus on many wide open shots due to the narrow depth of field. Much better average now with focus confirm.<br>
200mm Canon f/1.8 USM. A stunningly sharp optic in a heavy package. I got a chance to use one at an persons business (he now has TWO of them, and NO I will not tell you his address ;) , even wide open, hand-held at 1/30 second, you can see the sharpness. One of the first photos I took with my own lens was of my former neighbors baby. She was just learning how to crawl and lift her head up so I got the lens out with a monopod for support. I took a quick burst of four photos and reviewed them to see if I got her in focus. On the computer, you can count the eyelashes. The backround is superb. On the basis of this photo, her baby was chosen for a advertisement. <br>
I also took some photos for the fireworks at the 2010 Vancouver "Symphony of Fire" With the downtown area plugged with crowds of people, I elected to take photos from Cypress Bowl, about 6 MILES away. From there, I can plainly see the outlines of people standing in the windows of building overlooking the water, provided the light was on inside.<br>
70-210 f/3.5 Zeiss. Really great zoom lens. I had owned a Tamron but found it to be not up to Zeiss standards (What is?) The zoom range on it is nice from a short tele to a longish one. Great for picking out a section you like without moving closer. It works well on the Canon but I find I don't need it as much now. In macro settings, it is very useable.</p>
<p>All in all, I find the Zeiss glass I use with my Canon to be of excellent quality with a better feel than most of Canons lenses. I won't keep the 45 or 200 f3.5 as they don't really fill a need like having a second lens on a backup body.</p>
Zeiss Lenses
in Canon EOS Mount
Posted
<p>I recently got a dSLR (Canon 40D) to properly enter the digital photography field. After using it and a Canon 24-105L, I also added a few AF confirm adapters to try some of my old Zeiss glass for my 159/167/RTS III days. I got 1 adapter locally and 6 more from Hong Kong. I also added a used (but extremely mint) Canon 200mm f/1.8 USM from Henry's Photo in Ontario.<br>
In the last year, I took some 3000 frames on the 40D before deciding I liked the camera and wanted a better one. I found a second hand 7D with 7000 exposures on it. I can now make certain conclusions regarding Zeiss/Canon glass on a semi-pro digital camera.<br>
The 24-105L is a workhorse lens but I was troubled from the time I first picked it up by its lightweight/plastic feel. It has the same weight as my old Zeiss 28mm f/2.0. I understand people want lenses they can actually carry around all day with out getting exhausted, and compromises need to be made. I think it achieves a good balance. Going from manual focus from my Zeiss lenses to this lens with its IS / USM was a big difference, as big as being able to use a monopod. Some people rave about its optical quality. I don't. Maybe I got a dog of a lens? I know its a bit of a waste to use it on an APS C sensor but I want to be able to shift to full-frame at some point.I may play around with the new focus adjustment feature in the camera to see if that helps.</p>
<p>The Zeiss glass all worked as good as I hoped it would with the soul exception being my 28mm f/2.0 Distagon. Optically it was superb, but it had a stiff focus and sometimes I would not get a precise focus on nearby objects. A $400 "clean/lubricate/adjust" plus a new helicoil mechanism fixed all that. Buttery smooth and the glass is again clear as water.<br>
With the adapters, I get a focus confirm in the camera. For those who don't know, you access them by a sub menu in the camera that you get when you attach the lens and press the DOF three times quickly. For there you program the chip in the adapter with focal length and maximum aperture.<br>
I got an 18mm f/4 Zeiss (Japanese version) because I couldn't justify whatever Zeiss wants for the new 21mm f/2.8 ZE. The only trouble so far is there are NO THREADS to add a polarizer to the front. The polarizer makes a great difference in photos with lots of sky.<br>
The 28mm 2 AEG takes pictures of sharpness and great color that I remember. I dug up some old photos taken on Ektar 25 and some old 25/64 speed Kodachrome. I actually think the pictures will be sharper on the 7D than on film, except for the ones on K25. I have taken some HD video with this lens on the 7D. First few looked bad: yellow cast until I realized the white balance was left on daylight. The few I have taken outside are stunningly clear and crisp. I had considered four years back selling this for $500. I'm glad I didn't.<br>
35mm f/2.8 PC Zeiss. AEG Sharp at f2.8, really REALLY good at f4 to f11. Metering seems problematic when shifted, so I bracketed. I see from reading in the 7D manual this can be an issue. I thought this lens wouldn't be all that useful in a 1.6X sensor.<br>
The 45mm f2.8 "Pancake" I remember it was a backup lens and for good reason: Hard to use focusing, not particularly sharp. Small and got sharper at 5.6. I won't bother keeping this one.<br>
50mm f/1.4. I used this lens for 60% of my 35mm shots and was seldom disappointed. On the Canon it is not very sharp because it has fungus in the lens from being stored badly. Bother.<br>
50mm f/1.7 MMJ Got this lens back (along with my old 159MM) from my brother. Works well enough and is quite sharp with good color rendition.<br>
85mm f/1.4 AND 50th Anniversary f/1.2 Both lens are very sharp on the 40D and 7D. I got these from someone wanting to sell some camera stuff to a friend (thank you Betty Demarche) who sent them to me. In a small beat-up case they pulled out while telling me they'd rather have a point and shoot rather than this: a 167MT with an 85mm f/1.4 mounted AND this stunning 85mm f/1.2 she inherited from her father. I paid $350 for the 167/85 1.4 but I won't relate what I paid for the 1.2 because it would embarrass me. Both lens are very sharp and I think the 1.2 is a bit of a waste stopped down if you used it with faster films. Stopped down, both are equally good but I would need to use a mono/tripod to to take advantage. I did miss the focus on many wide open shots due to the narrow depth of field. Much better average now with focus confirm.<br>
200mm f/3.5 AEG Good lens. sharp and light enough to use by hand. Good utility but rather slow optically. I did use it to take some photos of some optics I've been working on and people remarked on how good the contrast was : http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3596087/page/16/view/collapsed/sb/5/o/all/fpart/2/vc/1<br>
200mm Canon f/1.8 USM. A stunningly sharp optic in a heavy package. I got a chance to use one at an persons business (he now has TWO of them, and NO I will not tell you his address ;) , even wide open, hand-held at 1/30 second, you can see the sharpness. One of the first photos I took with my own lens was of my former neighbors baby. She was just learning how to crawl and lift her head up so I got the lens out with a monopod for support. I took a quick burst of four photos and reviewed them to see if I got her in focus. On the computer, you can count the eyelashes. The backround is superb. On the basis of this photo, her baby was chosen for a advertisement. <br>
I also took some photos for the fireworks at the 2010 Vancouver "Symphony of Fire" With the downtown area plugged with crowds of people, I elected to take photos from Cypress Bowl, about 6 MILES away. From there, I can plainly see the outlines of people standing in the windows of building overlooking the water, provided the light was on inside.<br>
70-210 f/3.5 Zeiss. Really great zoom lens. I had owned a Tamron but found it to be not up to Zeiss standards (What is?) The zoom range on it is nice from a short tele to a longish one. Great for picking out a section you like without moving closer. It works well on the Canon but I find I don't need it as much now. In macro settings, it is very useable.</p>
<p>All in all, I find the Zeiss glass I use with my Canon to be of excellent quality with a better feel than most of Canons lenses. I won't keep the 45 or 200 f3.5 as they don't really fill a need like having a second lens on a backup body.</p>
<p> </p><div>
</div>