Over the last couple of years, this little lens (the Zeiss 50mm f1.4 ZE) has become my absolute favorite lens for travel and landscape photography. I love how this lens is so forgiving when i use it handheld for landscape photos. The edge to edge sharpness is quite impressive.
I've collected a few images from my travels the last couple of years and created a post on my website which showcases the impressive IQ of this lens. I wanted to embed a few of the photos here but could not figure out how to do it, so please head over to the below link to check out the samples.
Finally figured out how to embed images here (i had to use http:// instead of https://). Anyway here are a few sample images from my collection. The question i would like to ask is that will i see similar or better performance for landscapes from the 50 Makro ? Im tempted to switch to that lens for its closeup capabilities and that would make it ideal for the 3 lens setup (21ZE, 50Z?? and Canon 70-200 f4L IS) i intend to use for traveling.
I enjoyed your photos, saravk. And yes, the performance of your Planar is excellent.
I have the 50 mm Makro-Planar. Its optical performance is outstanding, but it's a rather large and heavy lens, and focusing it is more difficult (for me, at least) because the focus speed is too quick. I like the slower focus of the 50 mm Planar, but it's hard to justify owning both lenses.
I do very much like being able to focus as close as I want with the Makro-Planar.
Impressive shots, Saravana. I will perhaps go to Uttarkashi some time, not for photography though, but to pursue my spiritual quest/evolution.
Regarding the Makro-Planar 50/2, it may be a good idea to switch to that lens if you like to do close-up shots in addition to landscape. I think it performs at least as well as the Planar 50/1.4, if not a little bit better.
AhamB wrote:
Impressive shots, Saravana. I will perhaps go to Uttarkashi some time, not for photography though, but to pursue my spiritual quest/evolution.
Regarding the Makro-Planar 50/2, it may be a good idea to switch to that lens if you like to do close-up shots in addition to landscape. I think it performs at least as well as the Planar 50/1.4, if not a little bit better.
I've not had both at the same time, I don't know that at distance the difference would be noticeable.
Your replies confirmed my impressions of the Makro Planar..
On the downside it is bigger, heavier, more conspicuous and a bit more difficult to focus (stiffer focus ring and longer travel from min focus to infinity) and costs about double.
On the positive side, it is just as good as the 50/1.4 Planar for landscapes (heard that MP is not so good at the edges. Can someone refute this ??) , with no field curvature (hope im right about this as the field curvature issue is my biggest issue with the 50/1.4) at shorter focal distances, beautiful bokeh and can do Makro as a bonus.
So its a toss up between cost (1.4), ergonomics (1.4) and versatile IQ (2.0). I'm still undecided but leaning towards the Makro Planar for its versatility.
AhamB wrote:
Impressive shots, Saravana. I will perhaps go to Uttarkashi some time, not for photography though, but to pursue my spiritual quest/evolution.
I was at Uttarkashi for the same reasons as well. Spent about a month at the Sivanada Kutir Ashram in Netala. It is the big building on the left bank of the river by the bridge (in the first picture i posted).
philber wrote:
Saravana, don't change your 50. Except for very close-ups, your lens is at least as good as, or better than the MP. And, actually, unless you love to shoot both close-up and wide open, ir is actually a lot better than it is given credit for.
That's reassuring to know. But dont you face issues with its field curvature ? I always seem to miss the focus when i take photos of 'near' subjects (2 to 3 ft). As a result i have no confidence in using this lens for closeups. For longer distances though, i have complete confidence that the lens would produce great results for me every time.
Maybe its an issue with my technique for the closer subjects. But its that lack of confidence that made me look at the Makro Planar as a possible alternative.
saravk wrote:
On the positive side, it is just as good as the 50/1.4 Planar for landscapes (heard that MP is not so good at the edges. Can someone refute this ??) , with no field curvature (hope im right about this as the field curvature issue is my biggest issue with the 50/1.4) at shorter focal distances, beautiful bokeh and can do Makro as a bonus.
There is a good dose of opinion in this, but IMO the 50 Planar has better boke and less field curvature in the extreme corners when stopped down a little. Note that the 50MP only has field curvature and thus softness in the very extreme corners, the edges are fine. The 50MP also carries more DoF, aperture for aperture, than the 50 Planar. I own the 50MP and use the 50 Planar from time to time (a friend has one), and I will likely end up with both.
Stopped down and at landscape distance I prefer the Planar, no doubt. Wide open it depends on use. Close up, the 50MP wins.
p.1 #10 · Landscape samples from the 50mm f1.4 ZE.
Btw, one more image to show that this lens is no slouch at wider apertures. This pic was shot handheld at f2 and no sharpening or noise reduction has been done on the image (default RAW conversion in LR). So i'am very happy with its performance across its aperture range for 'long' distance subjects.
p.1 #11 · Landscape samples from the 50mm f1.4 ZE.
carstenw wrote:
There is a good dose of opinion in this, but IMO the 50 Planar has better boke and less field curvature in the extreme corners when stopped down a little. Note that the 50MP only has field curvature and thus softness in the very extreme corners, the edges are fine. The 50MP also carries more DoF, aperture for aperture, than the 50 Planar. I own the 50MP and use the 50 Planar from time to time (a friend has one), and I will likely end up with both.
Stopped down and at landscape distance I prefer the Planar, no doubt. Wide open it depends on use. Close up, the 50MP wins....Show more →
Very interesting to hear from someone who has used both lenses. Thanks for your inputs.
p.1 #12 · Landscape samples from the 50mm f1.4 ZE.
saravana, the cause of your missed close-up shots in not field curvature, it is focus shift, a well documented problem of this lens. Basically, the focus shifts as you stop down. So, as you always focus wide open, when the camera stops down following your wishes, you end up having focused on a spot different from the one you intended. If your subject is far enough, or if you stop down enough, you have enough DOF that the shifted focust point remains inside the DOD, and all is well. If you shoot wide open, there is no shift at all. But if you shoot, say, at f:2.0 or f:2.8 and close up, focusing accurately through the viewfinder gets you an OOF shot. The 50 f:1.4 isn't the only lens to do this. The 85 f:1.4, or the Canon 50 f:1.2L do it as well (or as badly)...
p.1 #13 · Landscape samples from the 50mm f1.4 ZE.
Thanks philber. I got my terms mixed up. Yes, this is the issue that worries me about this lens, and the main reason i started considering the Makro planar.
Are there any techniques to compensate for this focus shift ?. I assume that shooting through Live view will avoid this issue but i cannot always do that.
If AF micro-adjustment data can be stored for these ZE lenses (on a 5D II) , then perhaps i could deliberately adjust the AF of my camera to either front or back focus to compensate for the focus shift. Will this work ?
p.1 #14 · Landscape samples from the 50mm f1.4 ZE.
saravk wrote:
Are there any techniques to compensate for this focus shift ?. I assume that shooting through Live view will avoid this issue but i cannot always do that.
It requires a bit of juggling but I think one way to deal with it is to focus with the DOF Preview button pressed. Its a cumbersome way to shoot though. If only Canon would allow the DOF preview to maintain the aperture you've chose until you've taken the shot. That would alleviate Focus Shift in all lenses, and if allowed to Auto Focus no one would complain about 50L Focus Shifting.
p.1 #15 · Landscape samples from the 50mm f1.4 ZE.
plasticmotif wrote:
I've not had both at the same time, I don't know that at distance the difference would be noticeable.
Anyone here used both at distances?
Boris posted a comparison of both lenses and the sharpness was perhaps a tiny bit better on the MP50/2. The most striking difference was that the MP50 didn't have any CA except at the borders/corners, whereas the P50/1.4 showed more CA across the frame. This was a shot of a castle in a snow covered landscape with trees. The CA surprised my because I have never seen any lateral CA with my Contax 50/1.4, but I don't have the 5Dmk2 but the 5D classic.
I only see a bit of CA in the crops of Saravana's second shot, which happens to have snow in it.
p.1 #16 · Landscape samples from the 50mm f1.4 ZE.
bluetsunami wrote:
It requires a bit of juggling but I think one way to deal with it is to focus with the DOF Preview button pressed. Its a cumbersome way to shoot though.
Thank you so much. I just tried it and found immediate success. And the process was not as cumbersome as i thought it would be. The focus ring of the 50/1.4 is so buttery smooth that i could easily operate it using just my middle finger (while the thumb is pressing the DOF Preview button). It took very little adjustment on my part, and all i need now is to make this a habit and i should be fine taking closeups with the 50/1.4.
100% crops before & after using the DOF preview for focussing.
With this my biggest complaint against the 50/1.4 is eliminated and i see no reason to replace it with the MP now. Thank you all so much for your inputs.
