Lotusm50 Offline Dedicated FM Upload & Sell: Off
|
Cableaddict wrote:
JimBuchanan wrote:
Cableaddict wrote:
I recently obtained a ZF 50 makro, and it eats the CZ for lunch, in every way. (although one could almost complain that it's TOO sharp for some subjects) So, I think Zeiss technology has been improving quite a bit lately. (as you would expect.) I am quite excited to check out the ZE 50.
Yes, I too am waiting on the ZE50Makro. I hope it doen't grow too much in weight as the ZE85/1.4 did.
How heavy could it get? The bloody thing doesn't even have a front element! 
I have the ZF 50/2.0 Makro and it is a bit wider and longer than the 50/1.4, but significantly heavier by 200 grams. The lens is great at all focus distances and has a lovely bokeh. Of course it costs twice as much 50/1.4.
Does it "eat the CZ for lunch"? Hmmm. Not sure what that means In contrast to what such hyperbolic statements might suggest, the differences between this ZF/ZE 50 Makro and the CZ c/y 50/1.4 or ZF/ZE 50/12.5 for that matter, are not particularly large. It's better as close focus distances, and the subjective consensus seems to be that it has a nicer, smoother bokeh. I think you would be hard pressed to significant differences focused at infinity, especially when stopped down. It's probably sharper at f2.0 than the 50/1.4 lenses.
So there are trade-offs. Cost, size, weight and maximum aperture for makro-focusing, nicer bokeh, and somewhat improved performance in certain areas. I like it (and I have all 3 of these 50's), but others may, after assessing the trade-offs and running the numbers, could conceivably and rationally choose the 50/1.4.
|