Upload & Sell: Off
Yes, gentlemen! I would be very interested in a test set up that is very likely to test the "plasticity", "true 3D, not to be mixed with ordinary DOF effects" of any lens. Such test would without a doubt educate many of us that struggle on our personal path towards true 3D.
OK. While we're waiting for this test for plasticity or "3-Dness", I decided to whip together a quick comparison. The ZF 50/2 Makro-Planar and the ZF 50/1.4 Planar, side-by-side, same subject, same camera, position and lighting, the same image processing. Aperture used was f5.6 so there are few DOF distractions and misinterpretations, and both lenses are in their optimal performance range. Now with all these things essentially equal, does one of these lenses appear to produce an image that is noticeably "flatter" than the other?
Sorry this is old news now, but I love my 50 MP ZE, and I'd have to say that depending on the subject and lighting and distance both lenses "could" produce different results. I recently posted some shots taken with the 50 MP ZE on the ZE thread, and I know I couldn't get images like that with a canon lens. Though, would I have gotten simular or better images with the 50 1.4 ZE, I'm not sure! But I think it would take me buying the lens and using it, to really decide. Though in the end which ever lens I decided I liked better, would totally be personal preference. Though to generalize and say one lens is better then the other I'd go with the 50 MP ZE, as the 50 1.4 ZE doesn't get sharp till way after f/2, where as the MP is sharp at f2, also the MP has closer focusing, so that would make it better in my books, AND from the limited amount of shots I've taken with the 50 1.4 (friend let me try) I really didn't like it (though, it was in bad conditions, you really can't make lemonade with no lemons right).