I remember that compared to the C/Y 35-70/3.4 the 50MP was definitely a lot warmer. I'd think that the Z* 50/1.4 has a similar warm color balance though.
Mar 01, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
I had a 50MP for a while and liked it quite a lot. It was probably my favorite lens at that focal length that I've used, but I just didn't use 50mm enough to warrant keeping a lens that expensive or heavy. I sold it and upgraded my 35 to a 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2 instead, but if I wanted a real high end 50mm again it would be at the top of my list. Regarding color cast: aren't all Zeiss lenses somewhat warm? That's one of the reasons I enjoy them. I didn't think the 50MP was particularly warm compared to any of the others I've used...
I've never been particularly impressed with the 50P, its rendering doesn't suit my taste.
Makten wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't. But let's see some bokeh at say 3-5 meters distance and f/2. From what I recall, it's a lot harsher than the Planar there.
I would then call that medium distance rather than far distance.
I think when people talk landscape they need to differentiate between landscape shots where there is a subject in the foreground that the lens is focused on and you have bokeh rendering on the far background vs. the scenic vista type shots where you are stopped down and going for maximum sharpness front to back and bokeh is not playing a huge part.
For the first type of landscape I would use the 50P for its more 3-d rendering and its type of bokeh and for the 2nd type either is fine but I prefer the 50MP usually for that type.
At large apertures - Performance: 50 MP, Character: 50P
I think Zeiss should have switch the prices of the two lenses. If you are new to Zeiss and alt lenses, the 50 MP is the way to go. If you are an experienced lens connoisseur then the 50P is more interesting. The MP is a high performance lens at all apertures and distances while the Planar provides a more sophisticated and subtle rendering but at the price of raw optical performance at large apertures as well as focus shift.
Would the 50MP and 50P comparison be analogous to the ZM 50P and ZM 50 Sonnar comparison? I haven't used any of these lenses before, but would love to throw these into the mix for anyone shooting with one of the cropped mirrorless cameras. As far as wide-open performance, the Z* 50P and ZM 50 Sonnar have unique and similar qualities, though I suspect the Z* 50P behaves better when stopped down.
uscmatt99 wrote:
Would the 50MP and 50P comparison be analogous to the ZM 50P and ZM 50 Sonnar comparison? I haven't used any of these lenses before, but would love to throw these into the mix for anyone shooting with one of the cropped mirrorless cameras. As far as wide-open performance, the Z* 50P and ZM 50 Sonnar have unique and similar qualities, though I suspect the Z* 50P behaves better when stopped down.
I think that's a pretty apt comparison actually. The Sonnar is also known for its focus shift and Zeiss are more open about its spherical aberrations wide open as a character of the lens instead of an optical defect. As far as stopped down performance, I think the Z* 50P has even better performance when you look into the corners.
carstenw wrote:
But the Sonnar ZM and Planar ZF lenses have very different boke characteristics. I am not sure how far I would push that comparison.
I agree with this. The comparison is more in regards to the rendering of the two sets of 50's in each mount and the similarities in their differences. I would also classify the Sonnar as even more specialized than the ZE/F Planar from what I've seen. I love its rendering though.
Otherwise I like 50mm f2 much more (I guess Im sucker for micro-contrast).