I rarely use AF for wide open or near wide open shooting on the fast glass like the 135L say. With small DOF, it's too easy fro the camera to just miss what you wanted to focus on. Sure Af can get you close, but you have to touch it up often, so I prefer to MF anyway. Lenses like the Zeiss are fabulous to use for MF and well worth the small inconvenience at least to me.
Understandable. But on modern bodies, even ones with lovely viewfinders like the 5D2 and 1Ds3, I still find that AF will usually get more keepers than my manual focussing. Just goes to show how skilled I am at that eh? Haha, and on top of that, lots of the photojournalism and sports stuff that I do obviously lends itself a little more to autofocus. Haha.
given the viewfinders on Canon DSLRs, I don't know how anyone does critical focusing work for anything that isn't completely stationary without AF. I know some of you do it.. I just don't know how. My hat's off to you.
sskoutas wrote:
given the viewfinders on Canon DSLRs, I don't know how anyone does critical focusing work for anything that isn't completely stationary without AF. I know some of you do it.. I just don't know how. My hat's off to you.
dumb question... why CAN'T CZ make AF lenses for Canon if they are already marrying up to the electronic contacts for aperture and focus confirmation? Just too expensive??
abam wrote:
i don't personally care what a lens looks like. i do admit to playing "spaceships" with my Ls when i'm alone, but in public, it's all about IQ.
I think this may be the funniest thing I've heard in the last year.
sskoutas wrote:
dumb question... why CAN'T CZ make AF lenses for Canon if they are already marrying up to the electronic contacts for aperture and focus confirmation? Just too expensive??
Not a dumb question at all.
My guess is that Zeiss has a contract with Sony that prevents that. In exchange for giving Zeiss a large window into its premium-lens customers, as well as buying a ton of other stuff for non-DSLR equipment, Sony probably require that it have an exclusive on Zeiss AF. Just a guess, and there could be other reasons, such as the licensing deals Zeiss could have with Canon and/or Nikon on their interface, if they do, which could restrict the lenses Zeiss could introduce to "niche items rathe than "head-on" competition.
Either way, I see this as a contract-driven self-restriction rather than any technical issue. Remember, for the ZE/ZF/ZK line Zeiss only offer primes whereas in the past they did zooms too, such as 35-70, or 24-85. You ask "why no AF?" One could ask as well "why no zooms?"
sskoutas wrote:
given the viewfinders on Canon DSLRs, I don't know how anyone does critical focusing work for anything that isn't completely stationary without AF. I know some of you do it.. I just don't know how. My hat's off to you.
You pretty much need a nice big screen (5D) a matte focusing screen (Eg-S) for the fast lenses (I believe anything under f/2.8?) and practice. It seems impossible at first but you get used to anticipating movement and firing off right when focus is achieved. There's also focus bracketing and pre focusing for a subject that is moving towards the focus point.
jph1 wrote:
I would have to see a comparison between the 35L and the Zeiss.
If you don't use AF, and the lens is as good as the L, it makes sense. It is over $500 cheaper than the L. It would make a great companion to the ZE 21.
When people see a comparison beween the 35L and ZE 35, many will be shocked. There is a Zeiss look which 35L, excellent though it is, does not deliver, and this look has some photographers sold (I am one of them, and gave up on my Canon lenses, including 35L and 135L). Others, of course are going to prefer Canon, Leica, Sigma or Tamron. And some will say that this is all b......t and that all lenses are alike, particularly when stopped down. Already the Zeiss 21 is causing quite a stir among Canon users, including some who have the 24 L II or 16-35 L II. I expect this to continue with the ZE 35, if it lives up to its mooted quality. I will be getting mine out of the first shipment to reach France.
given the viewfinders on Canon DSLRs, I don't know how anyone does critical focusing work for anything that isn't completely stationary without AF. I know some of you do it.. I just don't know how. My hat's off to you.
Haha that's what I'm sayin!
dumb question... why CAN'T CZ make AF lenses for Canon if they are already marrying up to the electronic contacts for aperture and focus confirmation? Just too expensive??
I'd say it's probably their partnership with Sony. They make lenses for a number of mounts, but only the Sony's get autofocus.
If that is the case (partnership with Sony) I would have to think they are missing a huge audience and far great volume in the Canon AF camp. I don't know how much adding AF to a lens costs, but their lens prices are truly reasonable all things considered. If you compare the CZ lenses with the Canon L equivalent (or near equivalent), the CZ's match up nicely:
28mm f/2 @ $1080 vs 24mm f/1.4L @ $1689
21mm f/2.8 @ $1540 vs the same lens, I guess.
50mm f/1.4 @ $660 vs f/1.2L @ $1600
85mm f/1.4 @ $1170 vs f/1.2L @ $1,970 (wow...was $1650ish last year)
18mm f/3.5 @ $1290 has no Canon equivelent, IMHO.
So... how much does good AF cost to add into these lenses? Do you think CZ would be able to come in cheaper, about the same, or higher if they added it? I do notice that the Canon lenses are faster... and I know that costs money too.
The Sony relationship may well be the explanation, but wouldn't low volume runs of Zeiss quality lenses - with AF added (which would mean re-engineering every lens) - be much more costly per unit compared to Canon's (relatively) higher volume output (which incorporated AF from the start)? In other words, make them very expensive in comparison.
I might be one of those fools... There is just so much more joy using those
great Zeiss lenses... I don't give a damn about AF, there are great for video as well
and MF is the only way to go for video. Don't change them, please!
Alundeb, the 50 Makro has not yet been announced in ZE mount, though it should be at some point before the end of the year according to Zeiss. The picture you are showing on your link is definitely not a ZE lens as it has an aperture ring absent on ZEs (aperture is electronically controlled).
