Cableaddict wrote:
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.
Lotusm50 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Either you have a bad makro, or I have a bad CZ. Mine are significantly different. The makro is sharper, better at infinity, has better bokeh, and just plain makes better looking photos.
The only thing I prefer the CZ for is wide portraits, as it is a little smoother, or richer maybe. The makro is perhaps a bit too sharp or analytical, or something.
Lotusm50 wrote:
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.
It was my impression the ZF 50/1.4 has moderate barrel distortion and some chromatic aberrations. The ZF Makro 50/2.0 has apparently none of these and continues that high performance into the close range distances. Is that a fair assessment?
JimBuchanan wrote:
It was my impression the ZF 50/1.4 has moderate barrel distortion and some chromatic aberrations. The ZF Makro 50/2.0 has apparently none of these and continues that high performance into the close range distances. Is that a fair assessment?
"moderate" is a subjective term. One could call it "minor". In most cases, I would not think it is noticeable. The 50 MP also exhibits minor barrel distortion, but only about half as much as the 50/1.4 P.
Further in my own informal tests, the 50 MP also shows minor CA wide open in high contrast situations (strong back-lighting, highly reflective surfaces like metal, etc.), it might be touch less than with the 50/1.4. Stopped down, both lenses are very, very good.. Let's be clear. The ZF/ZE 50/2.0 MP is not an apochromatic lens. You will see some CA in severe conditions.
So, "none of these" is a bit strong. Perhaps "a bit less of these" might be more accurate.
I'm surprised to see how large a price premium Zeiss is charging for the ZE mount. I didn't know electronic aperture would add that much to the lens, especially given how cheaply it can be done...but it's a $140 premium for the ZE over the ZF. B&H has them in stock now for $660.
Nov 30, 2008 at 02:18 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
It seems to be the same price premium for 50mm and the 85mm. So especially for the cheaper lens it adds a big percentage to the price. For the 21mm $1,750 for the ZF vs. $1,890 (if they add the same amount) doesn't seem like nearly as much of a premium as $517 vs. $660.
BigBlueDodge wrote:
Yes, I'm very interested in seeing results from this lens, especially compared to the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4.
I picked up a Sigi and still own the ZF 50. What I can say is that the Sigma really is a pleasure to use, the bokeh is very smooth, a bit like the 85L. The Zeiss is as sharp as the Sigi wide open in the center, though towards the border the Sigi seems to be sharper under f2, also the Sigi has less CA. Stopped down the Zeiss is still sharper. I suspect the Sigma is not perfectly centred.
I wonder how long it takes until the AF/M knob of the Sigi falls off...
