Jman13 wrote:
The ZE 50/1.4 that I tried was not impressive in my opinion. Bokeh was much improved over the C/Y 50s, but it bloomed massively and wasn't particularly sharp wide open.
The glassworks are the same, hence the bokeh is the same.
As to the Nikkor, it can't be better than the Planar because it's a copy.
As to the Planar, its raw optical power at mid apertures and medium to long subject distances is still overwhelming.
Toothwalker wrote:
As to the Planar, its raw optical power at mid apertures and medium to long subject distances is still overwhelming.
I agree with both positions above. The ZE 50 f:1.4 is not "impressive"; For "impressive", get the 50 MP. The f:1.4 is more "elegant", "classy", "painterly". That is probably why Zeiss feel the need to have both lenses in their lineup.
The f:1.4 is also not very sharp wide open, particuarly not at the MFD.
But, as Toothwalker says, close it down a bit, use it for shots from not close up all the way to infinity, and you have a world-beater in your hands.
Toothwalker wrote:
The glassworks are the same, hence the bokeh is the same.
As to the Nikkor, it can't be better than the Planar because it's a copy.
As to the Planar, its raw optical power at mid apertures and medium to long subject distances is still overwhelming.
The old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 is a Planar design, but the optical design predates the C/Y Planar by years so it cannot be a copy of the C/Y or ZF Planar. The new one is an evolution of the old version, so again is not a copy of the Zeiss, but a separate design with similar genes.
mawz wrote:
The old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 is a Planar design, but the optical design predates the C/Y Planar by years so it cannot be a copy of the C/Y or ZF Planar. The new one is an evolution of the old version, so again is not a copy of the Zeiss, but a separate design with similar genes.
I suppose it depends on whom you ask. Copy is too strong a word if the Nikkor was there first, but on the other hand that lens is not a marvel of innovation but a variation on a theme.
And all modern cars are copy of (insert one of the early cars) because they share the same design of body, 4 wheels and an engine. Point being, doesn't matter if Nikkor is a copy of Zeiss or other way around, designs are still not exactly identical, thus a "copy" can be an improvement.
However, I don't think I've ever seen anyone call the f1.4 Zeiss sharp, but the f1.7 and f2 are pretty much always praised.
I have a brand new AIS 50/1.2 (serial 406044) I ordered from Japan about a year ago. It's sharper than the EF 50L I had.
Toothwalker wrote:
I suppose it depends on whom you ask. Copy is too strong a word if the Nikkor was there first, but on the other hand that lens is not a marvel of innovation but a variation on a theme.
Pretty much all of the current non-exotic and non-Leica fast 50's are Planar variations.
mawz wrote:
Pretty much all of the current non-exotic and non-Leica fast 50's are Planar variations.
And still they can be very different in how they render the image. I haven't tried the Zeiss 50/1.4, but from what I've seen, it does have a different look than the Nikkor. I didn't like the AF-S. Now I have the 50/1.2 which is nice, but I plan to get the Zeiss instead.
Edit: And no, I don't give a damn about DXO:s laboratory tests. I prefer pictures for evaluating the qualities of a lens.
Makten wrote:
And still they can be very different in how they render the image. I haven't tried the Zeiss 50/1.4, but from what I've seen, it does have a different look than the Nikkor. I didn't like the AF-S. Now I have the 50/1.2 which is nice, but I plan to get the Zeiss instead.
Edit: And no, I don't give a damn about DXO:s laboratory tests. I prefer pictures for evaluating the qualities of a lens.
Agreed, I don't like any of Nikon's SLR 50/1.4's, the f1.2 is quite nice though (as is the Noct) and I'm very fond of the 50/2.
The C/Y 50/1.4 on the other hand is a personal favourite. I strongly regret selling mine.
Thanks philber for reminding me of that georgeous dream mausoleum, too bad about the 'no tripod' rule.
I much prefer scientific measurement *together with* visual inspection with respect to optical performance, because eyes are so often fooled - one reason why comparisons work so well.
Zeiss's MTF is not technobabble in my view, and I wish the other lens makers would make our world awash with actual lens performance, rather than faked up computer calculated MTF.
A good yardstick of the best lenses' performance is how much of the frame is covered by all six MTF lines at above 60% (T=0.6) at its optimal aperture....the CY Planar 50mm f1.4 manages this effortlessly out to over 17mm (right up against the wide edges) at f5.6. The ZF/E is even better.
Not sure how anyone arrives at a conclusion other than that is one amazing performing lens, and yes, better than the f1.7 also. One may not like it, but you are in the realm of opinion or personal preference in that case.
