Those pictures taken at f/1.4 they all look good at these sampled sizes, but how about if I print them say at 12 x 18 or larger, will they render the same subject sharpness and subject pop?
I suspect that they only look good on small resolution pics but not on large prints. I could be wrong.
I just got a copy of this lens (zf version) recently and I really like it. I think this lens has focus shift inherited in the design. It is not very suitable for used with high resolution DSLRs, such as D810/D850. This is much less of a problem when used with lower resolution DSLRs. But this problem goes away when used with mirrorless cameras. The lens is fully usable wide open and has a very unique rendering quality as long as you can achieve precise focus. The lens has a beautiful Zeiss 3D rendering quality from f4 to f8 in mid distances.
Meh, I've only tested in out a little, but I think it's pretty good. Focus shift frustration is situational. It's not sharp on the level of the new 50/1.4 or the Otus 55, but I don't think the new 50/1.4 improves CA or vignetting nearly enough to justify its size.
No Regrets wrote:
I've been really enjoying my Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 ZF.2 mounted on my Nikon Df.
Big fan of these, especially the first and last. Where's that last one, I need to move there
WhyFi wrote:
Any thoughts on the 50/1.4 Planar in the ZE/ZF.2 vs C/Y flavors?
C/Y is slightly better (maybe lead glass was still in use when it was produced?) optically, e.g. less spherical aberration wide open. But as this lens magic happens f/2.2-2.5 range the 6 bladed non rounded aperture totally ruins C/Y for me.
Err ... what are you talking about ? Zeiss is still using flint glas (with lead oxide) ? As well as Voigtländer and Leica. Thats the reason why these lenses are so heavy.
C/Y is slightly better (maybe lead glass was still in use when it was produced?) optically, e.g. less spherical aberration wide open. But as this lens magic happens f/2.2-2.5 range the 6 bladed non rounded aperture totally ruins C/Y for me.
Samuli
It is likely that the planar 50 had lead glass, they do mention that they use special glasses. Zeiss had to recompute several lenses when lead glass was 'prohibited' in Europe (notably the biogon 38 for hasselblad). The Contax N Planar 50 should have come to the market after that happened, and their MTFs are identical....
However, the planar 50 classic has a different MTF than the C/Y...
amade1974 wrote:
It is likely that the planar 50 had lead glass, they do mention that they use special glasses. Zeiss had to recompute several lenses when lead glass was 'prohibited' in Europe (notably the biogon 38 for hasselblad). The Contax N Planar 50 should have come to the market after that happened, and their MTFs are identical....
However, the planar 50 classic has a different MTF than the C/Y...
Thank you for the write-up, learned a lot
I, like you, have learned a lot (from Samuli).
Unlike some members who merely offer (snarky and negative) comments from the sideline but never post any pictures to back up their assertions, Samuli is exceptionally knowledgeable about lens rendering in general and Zeiss lenses in particular, providing either images with his posts or links to images on his website to illustrate his comprehensive and insightful observations. He was truly generous and helpful to me when I was thinking about getting seriously into the Classic Zeiss lenses and for that reason I’ll always be grateful and will continue to pay close attention to both his photographs and his opinions.
genji wrote:
I, like you, have learned a lot (from Samuli).
Unlike some members who merely offer (snarky and negative) comments from the sideline but never post any pictures to back up their assertions, Samuli is exceptionally knowledgeable about lens rendering in general and Zeiss lenses in particular, providing either images with his posts or links to images on his website to illustrate his comprehensive and insightful observations. He was truly generous and helpful to me when I was thinking about getting seriously into the Classic Zeiss lenses and for that reason I’ll always be grateful and will continue to pay close attention to both his photographs and his opinions....Show more →
Samuli (and Makten, jcolwell, SA250) and Peire and @sharpencolour are a some of the jewels in these fora
Lee Saxon wrote:
Meh, I've only tested in out a little, but I think it's pretty good. Focus shift frustration is situational. It's not sharp on the level of the new 50/1.4 or the Otus 55, but I don't think the new 50/1.4 improves CA or vignetting nearly enough to justify its size.
Big fan of these, especially the first and last. Where's that last one, I need to move there
Hi Lee,
Thank you so much for the kind words! The last image was taken earlier this month at the end of our "fall season" in Menasha, Wisconsin. Fall is often one of my favorite seasons with the changing colors of the leaves. We are now entering our winter season when everything is pretty much dead, lifeless, and freezing cold. Needless to say, winter is my least favorite season of the four. However, a nice fresh snow sure can be beautiful as well.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
C/Y is slightly better (maybe lead glass was still in use when it was produced?) optically, e.g. less spherical aberration wide open. But as this lens magic happens f/2.2-2.5 range the 6 bladed non rounded aperture totally ruins C/Y for me.
Samuli
You refer to the hexagon:ish shape? Some older (AE..) version may have had the ninja type but the MMs got the hex.
Curious about what effect the hex would carry compared to the ZE/ZFs (I guess) rounded blades.
Not sure about newer..
