Just after opinions on these two lenses and the advantages/disadvantages of both. Clearly the 1.4P is cheaper by some margin, smaller, lighter, faster – although I understand it’s soft wide open. But I find myself leaning towards the MP for it’s close focusing and generally higher quality images?
I am just in the process of selling my 7D and getting a 5DII, I already own the 35/2 ZE plus Canon 70-200L (sold my other lenses as they are EF-S). I think the 50mm (whichever one) will sit quite nicely within that trio of lenses. *
There is quite a lot of discussion and samples on this topic in the ZE/ZF/ZM thread, but it could take a while to finish it. In summary, and partly IMO (boke quality):
- The 50MP is sharper everywhere except the extreme corners wide open
- The 50MP has more DoF at a given aperture (!)
- The 50MP has somewhat clinical rendering, and not that much character, apart from the generic Zeiss style
- The 50P is soft until about f/4, although f/2.8 is okay
- The 50P has a more gentle, classical rendering style, and more fluid, calmer boke
- The 50P generates 3D much more easily
- the 50P is at least as sharp when stopped down to f/5.6-f/8
It depends a lot on what you want. I bought the 50MP first and ended up buying the 50P as well, but lots of people have one or the other. The 50MP is very good when you want to get as much depth of field as possible around a subject which stands alone in space, while keeping the total depth of field small. The 50P can isolate more easily, but at some cost to sharpness when close to wide open.
I did some comparison shots in the above-mentioned thread, specifically to demonstrate the last point, as well as the muddy/soft 50MP extreme corners wide open.
You can search this topic as there are several threads comparing these lenses.
Both are fine lenses. Personally I went with the 50MP. I use it for landscape, portraits and doco style shooting. It never disapoints. A solid performer from f2 and from close range to infinity. Some prefer the drawing style of the f1.4.
Both are great lenses and have their different strengths and weaknesses which Carsten has nicely summed up above. I have both, contax N 50/1.4 and ZE 50/2MP. A great combo as I have AF with the N 50 which is nice for walk-around,travel and portraits. And the 50MP for landscape, macro, and pano's. Try both and see which one fits your shooting style better.
I think one should make the choice depending on distance to subject. Planar for landscapes and medium-long distances and Makro-Planar for closeups and medium-short distances. The former has "wild" bokeh and low sharpness close up, which is reversed to smooth bokeh and good sharpness at a few meters and beyond. The latter seems to be the other way around, at least regarding the bokeh.
Makten wrote:
I think one should make the choice depending on distance to subject. Planar for landscapes and medium-long distances and Makro-Planar for closeups and medium-short distances. The former has "wild" bokeh and low sharpness close up, which is reversed to smooth bokeh and good sharpness at a few meters and beyond. The latter seems to be the other way around, at least regarding the bokeh.
My 50MP is excellent for medium to far distance scenic vista type landscapes stopped down.
carstenw said above that it's soft until f/4, well, I don't use the lens for landscapes or anywhere where extreme corners are important so will definitely not comment on the performance in that regard, but imho, [lack of] sharpness @ 2.8 and smaller apertures is definitely not a real world issue, it's simply plenty sharp.
Good luck with your decision (I really don't think you can go wrong with either).
I own like Wayne the N50f1.4 and the ZE50f2.
Hmm, I can't agree that the 50f1.4 is soft if not stopped down to at least f4. Mine is tack sharp even at f1.4 outside center. Pls refer to https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1084188/0#10329098
Christoph
You can see that people love this P50. If you just read online review without actually using it, you may miss the real quality lens.
My 50 is not that sharp at 1.4. But I find big part of it because it is very difficult to focus because of haze wide open.(un corrected SA) My eye can't not tell it is in correct focus or not for its low contrast, I bet same thing happened for Camera focus confirmation as well So people will miss shots easily with this P50. However, resolution seems better than it looks suggested so wide open is usable with slightly PP to increase sharpness/contrast/clarity.
This will be my desert island lens for DSLR. It is just too versatile to ignore.
grasmuc wrote:
I own like Wayne the N50f1.4 and the ZE50f2.
Hmm, I can't agree that the 50f1.4 is soft if not stopped down to at least f4. Mine is tack sharp even at f1.4 outside center. Pls refer to https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1084188/0#10329098
Christoph
I guess we have different standards. I look at the two crops you posted at that link and I conclude that your copy isn't that sharp wide open One could argue back and forth about this, but keep in mind that I *do* consider the 50MP to be sharp wide open, as long as you don't need the extreme corners.
The 50P is also a lot better at medium to large distances. Close up it isn't so strong.
Mar 01, 2012 at 04:00 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I also agree with Carsten. The 50/1,4 is not tack sharp even at f/1,4. And certainly not at close distance. It's a very nice lens if stopped down a bit.
I own both the 50/1,4 and the 50/2. In the beginning I used the 50/2 lens a lot more than the other. But after a while the 50/1,4 grows and I used it more and more. Today I'm using the 50/1,4 at least as much as the other lens
I have the 50MP (it was my first zeiss) and love it. Very versatile. One of my favorite landscape lenses. The softer extreme corners at f2 is a non-issue for me. Stopped down it gives me amazing fine detail across the frame. I have landscape prints of 1.5meter wide made with the MP and the sharpness and detail is just amazing. So I really can't imagine the planar is "a lot better" at large distances, it sounds exaggerated.
I could also easily live with the 50P as I really like the gentler rendering style and size. You give up close-up performance though which makes it less versatile.
In the end I would just look at many photos made with both lenses and see which rendering you prefer.
carstenw wrote:
The 50P is also a lot better at medium to large distances. Close up it isn't so strong.
Oops, I just realized how misleading this sounds (and I caught Jochen with my inaccuracy)! I meant that the 50P is a lot better at medium to large distances than it is at short distances, not compared to the 50MP. The 50MP is pretty much sharp everywhere, and if you stop it down, right into the corners. Some say that the 50P is sharper than the 50MP at distance, stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8, but this would be real hair splitting, they are both damn sharp under those conditions.
Note that the 50P is not only softish close up and near wide open, it also has a lot more CA. For stopped down use at medium distances or more, I don't see a reason to pay double for the 50MP.
snowboarder wrote:
I might be in the minority here, but I don't like neither.
i've never tried the 50P, but I bought the 50MP. The 50MP is a fine lens, nice & contrasty, but its not a lens I like using because of its warm colour.
So people will miss shots easily with this P50. However, resolution seems better than it looks suggested so wide open is usable with slightly PP to increase sharpness/contrast/clarity. 