kidtexas
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #18 · Dispelling the Zeiss superiority myth? | |
Andrew Gough wrote:
I'd be surprised if a modern manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, Pentax etc...) had a bad 50 at all. It is probably the easiest lens to make, and cheaply too - look at the Canon 50mm F/1.8.
IMHO, the biggest difference is how they 'paint' the image, or what the designers goal was. They are all sharp in the center, but it is the bokeh, colour, edge transition, contrast etc... that make up the differences. And, in this regard, the Zeiss look is definitely different from the Canon's.
I'd argue with you on the second point. The qualities that seem to make or break a lens in a lot of cases are contrast, sharpness, distortion, and variation of these qualities across the frame. Not bokeh, edge transition, etc. And sharpness is directly related to contrast.
Neither of the lenses in this test are modern designs. Of all the 50's floating around, a lot are *not* modern designs. The 50/1.2 is, the Zeiss ZM 50's are, the Zeiss Z* 50s are, the Leica M 50/1.4 ASPH and 50/2.5 are, the Sigma 50/1.4 is, etc. As far as I know, the Canon 50/1.4, 50/1.8, and numerous other 50's are pretty old designs. Even the ones I listed as 'modern' might just be recycled and touched up older designs, say the Zeiss Z* lenses. To my knowledge, only Leica M 50/1.4 ASPH and the Sigma 50/1.4 are cutting edge designs that aren't based on classic 50 mm designs. The Canon 50/1.2 L might be too - I don't know enough about that lens to say, though it does seem to be under corrected for spherical aberration, hence the noticeable focus shift. I of course could be wrong about other lenses; its not like I've researched them exhaustively.
|
Here is the one for the CY Zeiss 50 1.7. The various Zeiss 50 1.4's are similar as well.