p.1 #1 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
I will be using 5DIII. I will most likely be using 24-70L II as a casual walk around lens when out with friends/family. But when i am more relaxed and want to spend some quality time doing photography, I really love to use Alt glass. So for these situations i would like have one wide(20-28mm) /one normal (40-60mm)/ medium tele (85-135mm). I am really looking for suggestions on what are my best options considering the criteria in the following order of importance
(1) Should have some unique signature (i believe in magic ) to their drawing like micro contrast, 3D feel, bokeh etc.,
Wide: Corner to corner sharpness @f/8 for landscapes, also good close up performance for some dramatic shots
Normal/MedTele: Bokeh should be fabulous, f/2 or larger max aperture
(2) Preferably Lightweight
(3) Budget is kind of flexible upto say about 2000-2500 for all three. Not a hard one but...
I did a lot of research looking and reading through old threads here and else where. From my research here i found these:
Wide: C/Y Zeiss 28/2.8, Olympus OM 24/2.8 (I do know about ZE21, used it on D800, guess will stick to 24-70 or prefer a TSE17)
MedTele: Zeiss 100MP , C/Y Zeiss 100planar (More inclined towards 100MP because i do like to have fun with macros sometimes) My question is i hear that most prefer C/Y's drawing to that of MP, but is the difference worth it to get another macro lens...?? BTW, I had 100MP before and I absolutely loved it on my Nikon, but keep hearing C/Y is better and cheaper...
Please feel free to throw in more options and opinions. I am ready to get more confused. But Please let me know compatibility of these lenses on to EOS mount with adapter... I keep hearing mixed results about rokkor, other c/y's and is really confusing wether these will work or not on the 5DIII
Need some time to decide but I am also open to any FS offers, preferably ones that are already adapted to EOS without issues
p.1 #2 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Check out Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS. I got this lens and compared agianst 50L. Call me blind, but this lens come very, very close in bokeh and shapness to 50L, with bit cooler colors. Here is couple with it, mounted on 5DMKII.
Oct 27, 2012 at 06:51 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Here would be my recommendations:
Wide: ZE 25mm f/2
Normal: Rokkor 58mm f/1.2
Tele: Leica 90mm f/2 with an Elpro 3 close-up lens
On the wide end the ZE 25 f/2 isn't quite sharp into the very corners at f/8, but it is just a few pixels that need to be cropped out or so I here. I had the C/Y 28 f/2.8 and my copy was much the same and the ZE 25 should be better closeup as it has a floating element and the C/Y 28 does not. If you don't want to spring for the ZE 25, the Minolta Rokkor 28 f/2 is a very nice lens--I really liked mine--and it does well at a distance and close-up and I liked the bokeh too. I have the ZE 21 f/2.8 and this is sharp right to the corners but you don't seem to like it.
For a normal lens I am a big fan of the Minolta Rokkor 58 f/1.2. I like the bokeh if it is used right and it is plenty sharp for my needs even at f/1.2. On a Mark III it might be very difficult to focus without focus confirmation, so I would make sure it has a focus confirm chip attached.
For a short tele I would recommend the Leica R 90mm summicron (i.e., f/2) with an Elpro 3 closeup lens. With the Elpro you get 1:3 good magnification and the lens is great for portraiture. It isn't great at infinity or at least mine wasn't, but otherwise it was fantastic.
I will attach a couple shots with my Rokkor 58 and with the Leica R 90 f/2 I used to have. Good luck there are lots of great choices.
p.1 #4 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
I have had the OM 24 2,8 as well as the 24mm 2,0. When I picked up the Tokina 17mm 3.5 RMC, I sold the Zuiko. Why? Well for one, it is 7mm wider, and two, it is quite a bit sharper than the Zuiko.
Here are three shots taken with the Tokina. First one is with my Nikon F5 (film) + Reala film, second one was taken with my 1Ds + Tokina and third one is taken with my new D700 + Tokina. I am not a huge fan of the last photo, but I only have 20 photos taken with the D700.
p.1 #5 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
I'd go with...
ZF 28/2- probably one of the most distinctive and challenging lenses I've ever owned. Loves dramatic lighting and retains a unique draw regardless of focus distance.
Summicron-R 50/2 (e55)- high resolution, medium contrast, beautiful colors, very gentle focus transitions, gorgeous bokeh. The draw's fairly delicate and reserved, so you won't see the apparent depth you'd get with a Zeiss lens, but that's what the 28's for.
Nikon AI-S 85/1.4- it has a well deserved reputation as a cream machine, but it's surprisingly center-sharp for a fast lens. With the right subject and framing, it can make your 5DIII do a fairly good impression of a medium-format camera.
p.1 #6 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
I suggest you look into the Leica R 60 Makro Elmarit. Not overly heavy, and quite compact, it goes to 2:1 for close-ups and has bellows for 1:1. Drawing style is very elegant and classy. Huge amount of detail, including minute. Sharpness is not "in your face" a la Zeiss 100MP, because of the not-so-extreme micro-contrast. Colours are very painterly, as is bokeh. As good at infinity or for portraits as it si close up.
Another suggestion, as you say you like lenses with unique signature, is the Zeiss ZE 50 P f:1.4 Sure, close-up performance wide open is weak, and it has some focus shift. But rendering stopped down to f:2.8 and beyond, it draws and colours amazingly. As a landsacpe lens, it is mind-blowing. It is also compact, relatively light, and not overly expensive.
Another lens what is ot flawless, but has character is a Zeiss ZF 25 f:2.8 (no ZE version). Again not over large, heavy, or expensive, it is shockingly good at infinity, with great colours.
So my trio looks unbalanced from a focal length point of view, but, for rendering, those are 3 great imagemakers that won't break your back or your wallet.
Two examples with ZE 50P on 5D II.
p.1 #7 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
I am a biased CY junkie but I'll play anyway.
Wide CY 28/2.8
Normal CY 50/1.4
Tele CY 85/1.4
First two are small and in particular the 28/2.8 is a very nice walkaround in my book. The 85 is smaller than the 100P or 100MP but not like the other two. I prefer the 100mm but it's not a lightweight lens. But the CY's are a bit leaner than the ZE equivalents.
All are unique and very Zeissy. The 28 is not particularly fast but for shallow DOF purposes you have the other two which are top-of-the-pops in that game. The rendering is particularly unique ("dreamy") with the 50/1.4. To me a bit like the legendary CY35/1.4. For the 85, I've seen it being called the "cream-machine" which tells a bit about the OOF character. All have that fast out-of-focus-transition and will produce 3D, well yes, if such thing exists in 2D imagery.
The 28 and 50 are cheapish (the 28 sometimes even a steal), whereas the 85 (or 100) cost more. Regardless all three should fit into your budget getting excellent new-looking copies. I have plenty of images from each in Sets on Flickr, but here I'll stick with a fav image with the CY100/2 Planar as I dont recommend it based on your preferences. IMG_0383 1280 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
p.1 #8 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Thanks a lot for a lot of inputs... Exactly what i was looking...
On wide side I am more inclined towards the 28s ... Can anyone throw some light on ZE 28/2 vs C/Y 28/2.8 ... (Do not want to spend the kind of money on ZE21 or ZE25, will prefer adding a tilt shift. Also 17 is too wide and will be specialized.. Want something wide to moderately wide fo general walk around)
On the tele end... i still inclined towards the ZE 100MP and C/Y 100/2... looks like all the 85/1.4's are cream machines... May give them a try but not right now...
The most interesting is the normal range. We have
ZE 50/1.4 planar (Little dissapointing because, Would ideally want to use this focal length both for close up portraits and some landsacpes, nevertheless philiber, i see the magic in the landscape shot you posted)
C/Y 50/1.4 and C/Y 50/1.7 (Most people say the 1.7 is better, can anyone comment more specifically on the differences?) (I have heard mixed results on adaptability to 5D, any comments?)
Leica 50/2 very interesting indeed... Since, most likely i will add zeiss at 100mm, does it add a different dimension to my experience?
Rokkor 58/1.2 is absolutely insane with the bokeh/dof, but i guess for general purpose use will not be as special as the zeiss/leica (I have heard mixed results on adaptability to 5D, any comments?)
ZE 50MP too seems to be a great option
Comments on ZE 28/2 vs C/Y 28/2.8 ... Comments on the normal range choice...
Once again the pictures are absolutely great. Thanks a lot for the help.
@ Frank: That shot with 100Planar is amazing. Went through your flick page and the images are fabulous.
p.1 #9 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
bbvaj wrote:
Thanks a lot for a lot of inputs... Exactly what i was looking...
On wide side I am more inclined towards the 28s ... Can anyone throw some light on ZE 28/2 vs C/Y 28/2.8 ... (Do not want to spend the kind of money on ZE21 or ZE25, will prefer adding a tilt shift. Also 17 is too wide and will be specialized.. Want something wide to moderately wide fo general walk around)
The newer lens has an FLE, which I don't believe is true of the C/Y, so close-up performance is improved. That and the extra stop are pretty significant overall advantages for a walk-around lens. I think the C/Y has a flatter overall rendering.
If I were looking for either the 28/2 or 100/2MP, I'd go for a used ZF (first version) and adapt to Canon. Even if you end up purchasing expensive Leitax adapters for them, you'll save hundreds over the comparable ZEs. You lose auto-aperture, but you'll get the best focus and exposure results stopped down close to or at your shooting aperture anyway.
bbvaj wrote:
Leica 50/2 very interesting indeed... Since, most likely i will add zeiss at 100mm, does it add a different dimension to my experience?
Very much so. Check out the Leica R image thread. Lots of samples there. But it is a finer, more painterly rendering than anything you'll get from a Zeiss lens. The best thing about the Summicron 50 is that's plentiful and fairly inexpensive (some might compare it to a gateway drug) so if you don't like it, it won't be tough to resell for much if any loss. And when people talk about the classic "Leica look," the output from this lens could be used as textbook illustrations.
bbvaj wrote:
Rokkor 58/1.2 is absolutely insane with the bokeh/dof, but i guess for general purpose use will not be as special as the zeiss/leica (I have heard mixed results on adaptability to 5D, any comments?)
I haven't shot it on a full-frame yet (mine is out being converted to Alpha), but I would say it falls in line for "specialness" with the best from either manufacturer. From everything I've heard, it won't clear the mirror at infinity on a 5D. That's not important to some people, particularly those who only use it for it's thin DoF when close focusing, but I think those people are missing out on a very capable landscape lens with a gorgeous color pallet.
p.1 #10 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
bbvaj wrote:
On wide side I am more inclined towards the 28s ... Can anyone throw some light on ZE 28/2 vs C/Y 28/2.8 ...
I owned ZE 28, and it was somewhat of a strange lens. The good: very sharp, from close-up to infinity, so you could do some really nice foreground/background stuff. The not-so-good: field curvature. The ugly: quite a bit of CA, which was curable in post, but still.... The unexpected: the least saturated colours and least contrast in any Zeiss lens I owned, and I owned 15. Useful when you have to shoot in harsh mid-day glare, otherwise...
Overall, while it had its uses, too much of a specialised lens to earn it a place in my bag, so I let it go. As it is IMHO the weakest in the ZE lineup today, and the 25 f:2.0 is the strongest or close, it is a no-brainer...
p.1 #11 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
philber wrote:
I owned ZE 28, and it was somewhat of a strange lens. The good: very sharp, from close-up to infinity, so you could do some really nice foreground/background stuff. The not-so-good: field curvature. The ugly: quite a bit of CA, which was curable in post, but still.... The unexpected: the least saturated colours and least contrast in any Zeiss lens I owned, and I owned 15. Useful when you have to shoot in harsh mid-day glare, otherwise...
Overall, while it had its uses, too much of a specialised lens to earn it a place in my bag, so I let it go. As it is IMHO the weakest in the ZE lineup today, and the 25 f:2.0 is the strongest or close, it is a no-brainer......Show more →
p.1 #12 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Thanks for kind words.
About the Rokkor, it can cause problems on the 5D2, so I assume the same goes for the 5D3. The mirror can hit the upper part of the retainer ring, and also it prevents the lens from focus to infinity as it touches the mirror box. Here's a remedy that can give that extra precious mm needed, Ive had the lens for a year but just got me a Dremel to test.
Regarding CY adaptability I read about various problems but I've had none. I have a few that are listed as "iffy" on pebbleplace.com but none have caused me any problem. Well, I actually did snip off a very tiny part of the aperture lever on the 50/1.4 as it sometimes prevented the lens from being stopped down. It has to do with what adapter you use too. It still works fine on a Contax (film) body so it's a mild operation (2 secs with pliers). I only have MM-versions, not the slightly older AE's, it seem to matter too.
I've seen general comments about the 5D3 should be "better in adaptability" but I guess sources are few and scarce so it cannot be confirmed. And while on the subject of confirmation there has been quite a few positive reports about the AF confirm system in the 5D3 vs 5D2. I use OVF and a fast matte normally, but if that is really the case that's a big plus for the 5D3 as well.
Another good news I've heard is that Magic Lantern is on its way to the 5D3. My 5D2 de-aged a couple of years when installed adding some versatile feaures for MF:ers.
p.1 #15 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
i would vote for the c/y 28/2.8, rokkor 58/1.2, and ZE (or ZF adapted) 100/2.
bbvaj wrote:
C/Y 50/1.4 and C/Y 50/1.7 (Most people say the 1.7 is better, can anyone comment more specifically on the differences?) (I have heard mixed results on adaptability to 5D, any comments?)
the f/1.7 has poorer build and can't focus very close. it's just a very sharp, high contrast, reasonably priced lens with the zeiss look. i honestly have never cared much for the pictures i've seen with it compared to the f/1.4 (disclaimer: i've only played with other peoples copies, i wasn't excited enough about the results to buy either so my experience is limited). my experience and zeiss's mtfs indicate that the f/1.4 is sharper than the f/1.7 stopped down, but that the f/1.7 is sharper wide open (duh, it's slower), which is where the comments about it being better usually seem to come from.
bbvaj wrote:
Rokkor 58/1.2 is absolutely insane with the bokeh/dof, but i guess for general purpose use will not be as special as the zeiss/leica (I have heard mixed results on adaptability to 5D, any comments?)
the rokkor is one of my favorite lenses to use stopped down (but yeah it's pretty sweet wide open too). the big problem with it is most of the people shooting it on FF can't reach infinity (also, when you have an f/1.2 the temptation to shoot at f/1.2 is often difficult to overcome). it won't reach infinity on a canon FF without a mirror shave or trimming the retaining ring on the rear element as wfrank showed above (and some people still can't get infinity due to camera variance). the color and contrast palette of the lens are amazing and it is extremely even and sharp across the frame when stopped down on aps-c. on FF can't really tell because i've only shot it on film, which isn't as demanding. the only weakness it really has optically is being susceptible to hotspot flare when shot without a hood.
Oct 28, 2012 at 09:49 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
One comment about the 58mm f/1.2, is that you can shoot it with infinity focus if you lock up the mirror with live view, then mount the lens, then focus, then shoot. On a tripod for landscape this procedure isn't too bad at all. You might also consider a ZF 25mm f/2.8 as a compromise between the ZE 25 f/2 and the C/Y 28 f/2.8. The ZF 25 f/2.8 was always to me the heir of the C/Y 28 f/2.8 and it has a nice close focussing distance even if it doesn't have a floating element. I have seen lots of nice shots with it around here.
p.1 #18 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
bbvaj wrote:
...
(1) Should have some unique signature (i believe in magic ) to their drawing like micro contrast, 3D feel, bokeh etc.,..
My magic lens is my Meyer Goerlitz Trioplan 100mm f/2.8. This is one of the few lenses that could add something special to the images.
With my modified Sigma YS 135/2.8 I could do nearly the same, and a Nikon DC Nikkor 105 or 135 would be probably even better. But the Trioplan is lightweight, relative cheap, and a real classic lens as well.
But: At least wide open it is not very sharp.
bbvaj wrote:
...
Rokkor 58/1.2 is absolutely insane with the bokeh/dof, but i guess for general purpose use will not be as special as the zeiss/leica (I have heard mixed results on adaptability to 5D, any comments?)
....
I love my Rokkor 58mm:1.2!
For me it was nearly crucial to get infinity to use this lens as my normal ~50mm lens on the 5D classic.
For this I filed down the back retaining ring, and get infinity:
p.1 #19 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Thanks a lot for the inputs guys... They have been very useful. The wide and long end seem to be fine. Normal is kind of up in the air...
An ideal 50 would be fast (1.4 or faster) for night/low light walk around. great for portraits (skin tone, rendering, bokeh) at all distances wide open. It would also be great as a landscape/general lens stopped down to f/8.
Rokkor 58/1.2 -> Not comfortable with mirror hitting the lens/altering the lens by filing
C/Y 50s 1.4, 1.7 -> more or less same as the rokkor
ZE 50P -> Not great in close range
ZE 50MP -> f/2 kind of slow
leica 50/2 -> f/2 kind of slow
That leaves me with some more remote options Voigt 58/1.4, Nikon AIS 50/1.2 in MF glass
Also whats your take on Sigma 50/1.4 or canon 50L. Can these come any close to the others? If i get these i would care about the auto focus precision because i would not want to manual focus these on 5DIII... (All AF lenses are terrible for doing MF)
Another thought was to skip 28 and 50, and go with ZE35/ZE100. What are your thoughts on ZE 35/1.4 . Is it good enough to take that role? pop/unique drawing and signature? portrait bokeh? corner to corner resolution at f/8 for landscapes ? i know its fast enough for low light walk around... Any drawbacks with this one??
If all else fails. I will go with ZE 50MP and compromise on aperture
) to their drawing like micro contrast, 3D feel, bokeh etc.,
