Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2009 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

Planning to finally go FF.
I know there's lots of forum subjects on each of the lenses discussed but I'm looking at a "lens lineup."

Current 40D with 17-55 f2.8 efs is my walk around setup. 10-22 for uwa.

Setup options:
#1: Zeiss Distagon 21 f2.8 ZE, Distagon 35 f2 ZE, Zeiss Planar 50 f1.4 ZE
#2: Canon TSE 24mk2, Canon 35L (use current Canon 50 f1.4)
#3: Nikon 14-24 with adapter, Distagon 35 f2 ZE

Considerations:
I like the look of the Zeiss photos: bokeh, color, contrast. Also better for video with smooth focus.
I like the Canon auto focus for walk around stuff, and frankly, when I'm just too lazy.
Would love to try the tilt-shift, but the Zeiss 21 looks like a winner.
I like fast lenses, but mostly use big apertures on mid range shots, not wide angle.
I would be most critical on landscape and urban (i.e., outdoor architectural) shots, so corner to corner performance is important, but will also use the 5d alot when high ISOs are needed.

Any advise would be much appreciated.

Nov 19, 2009 at 08:42 PM

tsdevine
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

I would think the TSE 24mk2 would be the answer for both landscape and outdoor architecture.)

Nov 19, 2009 at 09:14 PM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

What about the range in between 24mm and 50mm?

The other questions are:
Can the manual focus lenses, like the Zeiss, be used effectively for candid shots?
I tend to use auto focus for subjects that move.
Does anyone out there use the Zeiss lenses on moving subjects?

Nov 19, 2009 at 09:45 PM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

I own the ZE 21 and ZE 50, have tried the ZE 28 and have the ZE 35 on order, to be delivered later this month, so maybe I can offer some opinions. If you should buy only one lens, then it is the 50. On FF it is the most useful focal length, going from portrait to cityscape and landscape. I know that some Zeiss cognoscenti prefer the 50 Makro (not yet announced in ZE mount yet), because the one weakness of the Planar is wide open at minimum focusing distance. On the other hand, it is also the least expensive, and for that price, to have shots of such awesome beauty just leaves the competition in the dust.
Then, if you want a second one, the 21 is fabulous. Devoid of CA, tremendous flare control, sharp wide open even at close range, and huge DOF, due, I am told, to how Zeiss cleverly manage field curvature. One weakness: it has slight mustache distortion, which can be cured either in photoshop or with PTLens. In my estimate, it is an even better lens than the 50, but, whereas the 50 has no real competition, it is had to argue against the Canon 17 TS-E, the 24 TS-E and an adapted Nikon 14-24. 4 different lenses, each superb in its own way. For zoom action, the Nikon rules. For architecture, tilt-shift can't be beat. For delivereing pictures which are just alive with beautiful colours, contrast, and striking 3D effect, the Zeiss is paramount.
Can't say much about the 35mm except that in C/Y and ZF versions, it is very highly regarded, so I ordered one in ZE. There is also a rumour that Zeiss will release a new 35 f:1.4, maybe as early as December, if you believe it.

Candids with ZEs: the answer depends on the shooter. Cogitech (Paul) does amazing pictures of non only candids, but moving candids with lenses trickier than any of ths, so, yes, it is doable, but it requires serious training and talent. I can do candids, but only essentially static [takes his hat off to Paul]

Regarding your other lenses: I owned 35L, and sold it because it just couldn't compare to my ZE 50 in terms of colour, contrast, etc, so, even though it was not the same focal length, I ended up using my Zeiss all the time, and 35L stayed in the bag. Both TS-Es are superb, but I stayed away because of the care you need to set up each shot. For me that fact that they require a tripod for tilting or shifting is a deal-breaker, as I like to shoot handheld. Nikon zoom: a very good lens, but heavy, and vulnerable. Also, no filters.

For a while, I owned a Canon 24-105L. It is a great one-lens-does-it-all zoom. For walkabout, it was agreat choice. My problem was that I obsessed over the quality of each shot much more than I hurt when losing shots because I didn't have the appropriate lens mounted. But that's just me... For others, this would be a good choice to complement Zeiss primes, unless you want to buy a 24-85 Zeiss used and have it converted by Conurus with full AF.

In all this, I gave you my point of view. I don't hold this to be the truth. Others probably have other priorities/sensitivities.

As a reward for reading this long rambling, a couple of shots from today. One with each Zeiss. If you need more samples, I have posted quite a few on the various relevant threads, but will gladly post more if that can help inform.

2012 © philber

Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21 mm f/4.0 1/60 sec 100 ISO -1.0 EV

2012 © philber

Canon EOS 5D Mark II 50 mm f/4.0 1/80 sec 100 ISO -1.0 EV

Nov 19, 2009 at 10:25 PM

guyharrison
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

For your needs, go with option 2. It gives you wide angle tilt/shift, 35mm fast lens with AF, and a normal fast lens with AF. If you want to give up AF for a sharper lens, substitute the Zeiss 35mm f2 ZE. I have heard that you can also use the canon 24TSE with a 1.4 extender with the 24 giving you about a 33mm TS lens as well--a great benefit. You could then keep the 35 1.4 if you really need the speed. The original 24 was an excellent lens when centered and good when shifted, and the new lens kicks these up to superior and excellent respectively. I do plan to upgrade my 24.

The Zeiss 21 is a great lens, but, for landscape and cityscapes, 21mm is getting a little to the wide side for many shots. I would say that most landscapes (maybe 70%) are shot between 24 and 100mm. Ultra-wide and tele landscapes can be very impressive, but they are specialized views. Some photographers specialize in these techniques and shoot much more % of their work at ultrawide, but I think the slightly more conservative focal lengths might serve you better and you seem inclined that way as well. In addition, the TS lens allows rapid panoramas just by shifting and so can equal the wide perspective of the 21, but the 21 cannot shift or tilt, two traits of extreme value to landscapers (and shifting is essential for architecture).

I would not recommend the Nikon. I shot one that someone lent me. No autoexposure, no exif, manual focus, very difficult to focus at stopped down shooting aperture. Even worse, for a landscape or outdoor cityscape/architecture, no filters. No polarizers for water, color saturation, skies. No ND grads to balance exposures--requiring long times at the computer for what you can do in five seconds in the field. No regular NDs to get long exposures. You also shoot video and NDs are essential for manual video exposure control. You cannot mount a protective filter for harsh conditions (rain, snow, spray, sand/dust). The front element is always exposed and subject to damage. Finally, the Nikon is a niche lens on full frame. 14mm is fun but rarely useful and even the 'long" end at 24mm is still pretty wide. I'm not knocking the quality of the images, superb, but it is very impractical and actually a hindrance for the type of images you shoot.

If you want a wide zoom, find a converted Contax/Zeiss 17-35 2.8. Full autofocus and autoexposure and exif. Works just like a Canon AF lens but much better than the Canon 16-35. It is a close second to the Nikon in sharpness at f5.6-f11 and a more useful FF focal range. Even better flare control and distortion control. Fully filter compatible. Hard to find but I did, and do not regret it at all. Much more satisfactory over the Nikon.

So, in sum, use your option #2 but substitute the Zeiss 35mm f2 unless you really need two fast lenses. It would be a very light package of superb quality.

As an alternate, Zeiss 17-35 2.8 (has AF/AE), Canon 45 2.8 TSE (a very, very excellent MF lens which with a converter gives you around a 60mm as well), and a Canon or Zeiss 85 1.4 (if you find a Contax N 85 you can convert that to EOS as well with full AF/AE) for speed/portraits, shallow DOF and tele perspective (you have overlooked the tele range in your options). This would be a much more versatile, but lots heavier (the inevitable trade-off) package.

You will get lots of good advice here, I have! Others will undoubtedly have other options.

Nov 19, 2009 at 10:29 PM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

philber wrote:
I own the ZE 21 and ZE 50, have tried the ZE 28 and have the ZE 35 on order, to be delivered later this month, so maybe I can offer some opinions. If you should buy only one lens, then it is the 50. On FF it is the most useful focal length, going from portrait to cityscape and landscape. I know that some Zeiss cognoscenti prefer the 50 Makro (not yet announced in ZE mount yet), because the one weakness of the Planar is wide open at minimum focusing distance. On the other hand, it is also the least expensive, and for that price, to have shots of such awesome beauty just leaves the competition in the dust.

Candids with ZEs: the answer depends on the shooter. Cogitech (Paul) does amazing pictures of non only candids, but moving candids with lenses trickier than any of ths, so, yes, it is doable, but it requires serious training and talent.

For a while, I owned a Canon 24-105L. It is a great one-lens-does-it-all zoom. For walkabout, it was agreat choice. My problem was that I obsessed over the quality of each shot much more than I hurt when losing shots because I didn't have the appropriate lens mounted. But that's just me... For others, this would be a good choice to complement Zeiss primes, unless you want to buy a 24-85 Zeiss used and have it converted by Conurus with full AF.

I would agree that a zoom would be useful for walkabout, but wanted to move to full frame for the higher IQ, so I'll stick to the 40D/17-55 combo for convenience and go with the 5D/primes when the situation is right. Maybe someday I can shoot the MF primes like Paul.

The main reason for the 21,35,50 setup is to cover wider range of shots, when moving to a better position is not possible. I use my current lenses for the longer stuff (At least until I can afford a Canon 85L & 135L).

I've seen some great examples from the Nikon 14-24 at 14mm ,but I agree with Guy, that the wide end of this lens is not the most useful range.

Thanks for all the input.

Nov 19, 2009 at 11:08 PM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

guyharrison wrote:
The Zeiss 21 is a great lens, but, for landscape and cityscapes, 21mm is getting a little to the wide side for many shots. I would say that most landscapes (maybe 70%) are shot between 24 and 100mm.

I would not recommend the Nikon. I shot one that someone lent me. No autoexposure, no exif, manual focus, very difficult to focus at stopped down shooting aperture. Even worse, for a landscape or outdoor cityscape/architecture, no filters. No polarizers for water, color saturation, skies. No ND grads to balance exposures--requiring long times at the computer for what you can do in five seconds in the field. No regular NDs to get long exposures.

14mm is fun but rarely useful and even the 'long" end at 24mm is still pretty wide. I'm not knocking the quality of the images, superb, but it is very impractical and actually a hindrance for the type of images you shoot.

I agree with the "wide end, limited usage" aspect of the Zeiss 21, but thought the the 21,35,50 combo would cover all my potential needs. The Nikons 14-18mm range would be of little use for my shooting style and with all the limitations you pointed out, I'll probably put that last on my list. The Canon TSE 24 might be wide enough for most shots, and I can always revert back to my 40D/10-22 if necessary.

Thanks for all the help. (I may actually be more confused now than before, but at least I eliminated one option).

Nov 19, 2009 at 11:19 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

My recommendation would be the Canon 24 f/3.5L TSE MKII, ZE 35 f/2 and a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. This combo will give you a bit of everything. I think because architecture matters to you that getting the TSE makes sense as beautiful and the ZE 21 is the TSE will be much better for architecture and with shift will even go wider for landscapes. The ZE 35 f/2 will let you get that Zeiss look for both portraits and not so wide landscapes and the Sigma will let you use fast aperture with autofocus and it is a very nice portrait type lens. I hope this helps.

Nov 20, 2009 at 12:29 AM

jamach
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

surf monkey wrote:
What about the range in between 24mm and 50mm?

The other questions are:
Can the manual focus lenses, like the Zeiss, be used effectively for candid shots?
I tend to use auto focus for subjects that move.
Does anyone out there use the Zeiss lenses on moving subjects?

The greatest photographers in the history of photography used manual lenses such as Zeiss, Leica, and others to make the images that have lasted through the decades. This includes pictures with subject movement. Additionally, many photographers used manual gear such as Nikon and Canon to make breathtaking pictures with moving subjects such as cars, birds, etc.

Just don't expect to nail every shot of a race car coming at you at 200 mph with manual focus

Nov 20, 2009 at 04:44 AM

kosmoskatten
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

I have often used manual focus lenses on moving subjects, it has not posed a major problem for me. But if I would use longer lenses and shoot soccer or any other sport where people move seemingly erratic and unforeseeable I would probably up my keeper rate with AF.

For most other sports or events where I can sort of predict a line I can follow I prefer manual lenses, i.e. action shots like biking and snowboarding shots.

I would actually say the opposite: on moving subjects AF have more often given me trouble than MF lenses have. For some people it is the opposite way around.

Nov 20, 2009 at 05:43 AM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

jamach wrote:

The greatest photographers in the history of photography used manual lenses such as Zeiss, Leica, and others to make the images that have lasted through the decades. This includes pictures with subject movement. Additionally, many photographers used manual gear such as Nikon and Canon to make breathtaking pictures with moving subjects such as cars, birds, etc.

I'm certainly not one of "The greatest photographers in the history of photography," so I won't try to characterize my shooting style as similar to any of theirs.

I also typically don't find it too difficult to manual focus on objects moving along a predictable line. My question in regards to "candids" has to do with people shots using shallow DOF in difficult lighting situations and the like. The one thing I "re-learn" every time I do it is: by restricting myself to more manual controls and fixed lenses I become a better photographer. Technology is great because it gets a lot of shots for you that you can't otherwise get, but simpler, more difficult photography seems more rewarding.

Thanks for all the input, I guess I'll have to hone my skills a little more to take advantage of the best MF gear. I think the results will be worth it.

Nov 20, 2009 at 07:34 AM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

kosmoskatten wrote:
I have often used manual focus lenses on moving subjects, it has not posed a major problem for me. But if I would use longer lenses and shoot soccer or any other sport where people move seemingly erratic and unforeseeable I would probably up my keeper rate with AF.

For most other sports or events where I can sort of predict a line I can follow I prefer manual lenses, i.e. action shots like biking and snowboarding shots.

I understand what you're saying, thanks for the input.
I personally prefer AF with long lenses for most photography, esp. sports. But I also wouldn't want to use a 5D for that stuff anyway. Maybe a 7D and 300 f2.8 in the future.

For now the new setup for me will be for closer work, typically with shallow DOF and more difficult lighting situations, as well as landscape & architectural. That's why I'm starting with all wide angle lenses.

All this input is great food for thought.

Any input on IQ between the Zeiss Distagon 21/2 and Canon 24L and Canon TSE 24?

Nov 20, 2009 at 07:42 AM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

This thread should interest you, where Snowboarder bought at the same time a Zeiss 21 and Canon 24L II f:1.4Zeiss 21 and Canon 24 f:1.4
And this one could interest you as well:4 great WA lenses

Nov 20, 2009 at 08:06 AM

anotherview
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

surf monkey: I must agree: "by restricting myself to more manual controls and fixed lenses I become a better photographer."

Went to Tijuana earlier this year to do street scenes with my G9. Decided to try manual exposure there. I achieved my first manually exposed image, to my delight, showing a typical street with the sky in the background, all exposed with no too-dark shadows or blown highlights. Of course, the use of the histogram proved invaluable. When I opened this image in ACR, it looked close to what the eye would see.

I urge all photographers who want better images to try manual exposure.

If you shoot RAW, then exposing to the right with the tone levels just short of the right-most vertical edge of the histogram will produce an image that looks overexposed, yet it has no blown highlights. In reading one book on this subject, I learned that some half of the image information lies in the right-most area of the histogram. Generally, only forcing the camera to expose to the right will capture this information -- another reason to use manual exposure, with the help of the histogram.

And yes, I agree that using fixed focal-length lenses improves one skills. The photographer has to make physical adjustments and pick subjects that suit the lens. I just came back from a short road trip in Utah, and brought along my 35mm f/1.4L lens. More than I expected I found myself seeing beautiful landscape scenes that the the 35L could capture with its great optics.

Nov 20, 2009 at 08:30 AM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

philber wrote:
This thread should interest you, where Snowboarder bought at the same time a Zeiss 21 and Canon 24L II f:1.4Zeiss 21 and Canon 24 f:1.4
And this one could interest you as well:4 great WA lenses

Thanks, those links were great. Snowboarder's posts are what really got me interested in the Zeiss 21 to begin with, although so far I've done most of my landscape work at narrower focal widths.

My dilemma is to find the best optics for the new 5D I plan to purchase, because it seems that the zoom lenses currently available fall short of the new sensor's high resolution, esp. in the corners.

At this moment, I'm leaning toward a Canon TSE 24 & a Zeiss Distagon 35 ZE for the wide angle stuff. Later I'll replace my current Canon 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100 macro.

Nov 20, 2009 at 04:32 PM

martines34
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

phillber:

Those are killer images!!

Thanks for sharing.

Nov 20, 2009 at 04:36 PM

dave chilvers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

surf monkey wrote:
philber wrote:
This thread should interest you, where Snowboarder bought at the same time a Zeiss 21 and Canon 24L II f:1.4Zeiss 21 and Canon 24 f:1.4
And this one could interest you as well:4 great WA lenses

Thanks, those links were great. Snowboarder's posts are what really got me interested in the Zeiss 21 to begin with, although so far I've done most of my landscape work at narrower focal widths.

My dilemma is to find the best optics for the new 5D I plan to purchase, because it seems that the zoom lenses currently available fall short of the new sensor's high resolution, esp. in the corners.

At this moment, I'm leaning toward a Canon TSE 24 & a Zeiss Distagon 35 ZE for the wide angle stuff. Later I'll replace my current Canon 50 f1.4, 85 f1.8, 100 macro.
I just couldn`t live without my 21

Nov 20, 2009 at 05:34 PM

teh_rebel
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

you could also pick up some cheap C/Y versions with adapters as well. like the contax zeiss 28/2.8 and 135/2.8 .. excellent lens that can be had for less than 300. thats what i did to go with the ze21 and ze50

Nov 20, 2009 at 05:44 PM

philber
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

Hey Teh_rebel, I also "made do" with C/Y 25, 135 and 180 so that I could get Ze 21, 50 and 85. And soon, I hope, 35. The 25 can be fine but not below f:8, the 180 needs great care, and I lové the 135.

Nov 20, 2009 at 06:08 PM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

teh_rebel wrote:
you could also pick up some cheap C/Y versions with adapters as well. like the contax zeiss 28/2.8 and 135/2.8 .. excellent lens that can be had for less than 300. thats what i did to go with the ze21 and ze50

Thanks for the alt suggestions. Those prices seem to make them a great value.

How well do the C/Y versions work with the 5Dmk2? Does it have focus confirmation? How do these stack up against the Zeiss 35/2 (assuming that the new Canon version is similar to the Nikon) and the Canon 135/2 (which I will eventually want to buy along with a 85L, when funds permit). For now I could probably get by with my 85/1.8, 100 macro and 70-200/4is in the longer range.

Does anyone think that the gap between a 21mm and 35mm is too long? That's one of the reasons the Canon 24TSE makes more sense to me. The Zeiss 21 is a little wider than I tend to go for landscapes and for interior architecture, you can never go too wide, so 21mm seems not wide enough for that application.

I thought that I could start narrowing my options, but it just looks like they're getting bigger.
So many options, so little money.

Nov 20, 2009 at 06:38 PM

dave chilvers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #21 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

surf monkey wrote:
teh_rebel wrote:
you could also pick up some cheap C/Y versions with adapters as well. like the contax zeiss 28/2.8 and 135/2.8 .. excellent lens that can be had for less than 300. thats what i did to go with the ze21 and ze50

The gap between 21 -35 is a bit wide although the 21 images can be cropped a fair bit and still hold up well.

My walkabout kit is

5d2, C/Y 21 2.8, C/Y 28.2.8, voigtlander 40 f2 ultron, C/Y 100 3.5 and my Canon 70-200F4IS + 1.4.

My adapters are Happypage latest v5 which have AF confirm, correct exif data (focal length and max aperture) and built in AF micro adjust (similar to the in camera Canon micro adjust but in the adapter chip which means that you can have micro adjust on non micro adjust cameras)

Nov 20, 2009 at 07:15 PM

surf monkey
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

Where do you guys buy all your alt gear?

I've read that the Zeiss lenses made in German tend to be better the Japanese stuff.
How can you tell where they're made? Most of the ebay stuff omits these types of details.

Dave,
The Happypage adapter sounds great, where did you get yours?

Once again, thanks for all this input.

Nov 20, 2009 at 07:29 PM

dave chilvers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

surf monkey wrote:
Where do you guys buy all your alt gear?

I've read that the Zeiss lenses made in German tend to be better the Japanese stuff.
How can you tell where they're made? Most of the ebay stuff omits these types of details.

Dave,
The Happypage adapter sounds great, where did you get yours?

Once again, thanks for all this input.

This is his web site http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AF-Confirm-Contax-EOS-PRO-Adapter-Hi-Precision-OPTIX-V5_W0QQitemZ280420289157QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item414a5a0a85

Nov 20, 2009 at 07:41 PM

guyharrison
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

The C/Y lenses will not AF, but I think you can get a focus confirmation adapter. They will not meter wide open. With the 5dII you have live view focus so focusing at working aperture is good if the light is not really dim. They are good value for the money but not the most convenient options.

Yes, the 21 to 35 gap is a big one.

I think your first instincts were right: 24 TSE, 35mm (I would substitute the ZE 35 for the 35 1.4), and the 50 1.4. This trio is really the best range for landscapes and covers most architecture.

If you really want ultra-wide for interiors, then the ZE 18mm, the TSE 17mm (but has a problem in that it won't accept filters) or the converted Contax 17-35 zoom are options to consider in addition to the 24-35-50 trio.

I think you are fine in the longer range, no changes needed there, those are all top lenses.

Nov 20, 2009 at 07:56 PM

dave chilvers
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #25 · Zeiss advice for 5dmk2

guyharrison wrote:
The C/Y lenses will not AF, but I think you can get a focus confirmation adapter. They will not meter wide open. With the 5dII you have live view focus so focusing at working aperture is good if the light is not really dim. They are good value for the money but not the most convenient options.

Yes, the 21 to 35 gap is a big one.

I think your first instincts were right: 24 TSE, 35mm (I would substitute the ZE 35 for the 35 1.4), and the 50 1.4. This trio is really the best range for landscapes and covers most architecture.

If you really want ultra-wide for interiors, then the ZE 18mm, the TSE 17mm (but has a problem in that it won't accept filters) or the converted Contax 17-35 zoom are options to consider in addition to the 24-35-50 trio.

I think you are fine in the longer range, no changes needed there, those are all top lenses.

Guy (you probably know what you mean but the OP might be confused)

Just to set the record straight for the OP. You can meter with a MF lens wide open on an adapter (that is if you want to shoot wide open) or you just focus wide open (live view or through the view finder) and once focussed just stop down to the desired aperture and shoot in aperture priority and the metering meters the scene at the selected f stop. There are a few times when you might have to + or - a touch just like with Canon lenses but in general I find no problems what so ever. Of course there are a few wide aperture lenses that focus shift slightly from wide open to stopped down (my C/Y 85 1.4 planar is one) but they tend to be few and far between.
To be honest, value for money doesn`t come into it for me, I use MF lenses of choice simply because they exceed the performance of many Canon lenses I have owned or used.
For wet conditions or when I know I`ll be shooting grab shots that require speed then I`ll often just take my 1dsmk3 + a couple of Canon lenses and put up with the lower IQ.

If you have never used MF lenses then it might be worth while picking up a reasonable lens (something like a C/Y 50 1.7 or 28 2.8) and give it a try before you enter into the world of something like the 21 2.8.

what ever you do! ENJOY

Nov 21, 2009 at 10:11 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end