keira007 wrote:
So basically, a combo of C/Y 28mm/2.8, C/Y 50/1.7, C/Y 135mm/2.8 Sonnar will be enough for almost all situations then?
This would make a nice 'budget friendly' tri-fecta set-up. Personally, I use my 35-70/3.4 more than I do my 50/1.7. I prefer a tripod vs. the wider aperture for most things (noted that doesn't always work), but keep the 50/1.7 for my 'emergency' low light lens.
As others have mentioned, there are other lenses that crank it up a notch even more ... but you really can't go wrong with the C/Y 28/2.8, 35-70/3.4 & 135/2.8.
However, if you're budget will allow (sounds like it will) the Planar 100/2.0 is one not to be overlooked (in lieu of, or in addition to, the Sonnar) ... then it starts to become an issue of how much glass do you want in your bag(s).
If you're looking for the macro double duty ... the Contax N 100/2.8 Makro might make sense as well. (drool)
RustyBug wrote:
If you're looking for the macro double duty ... the Contax N 100/2.8 Macro might make sense as well. (drool)
That Contax N (Makro-Sonnar) isn't cheap, especially with the added cost of conversion by Conurus. The Contax/Yashica Makro-Planar 100/2.8 would probably be a better choice if you don't need the AF.
Anden wrote:
Zeiss 35/1.4 + 35-70/3.4 and 85/1.4. Add 21/2.8 for WA and 100-300/4.5-5.6 for tele.
That is what I did and trust me, I have tried alot of lenses.
As for Canon lenses. Donīt go there for 3D. I have not tried the 200/1.8 though.
A
Please be more specific. These models are Biogon, Distagon or something else?
Thanks.
Steve Spencer wrote:
For the wide angle lens, if you are patient you should be able to find a contax/yashica or rollei mount zeiss 35 mm f/1.4 for less than a thousand dollars. I don't think you will find a better 3D lens and it seems to be excellent for portraits. In the normal range I would recommend a Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm f/1.2. It is another fabulous portrait lens and many here (including me) love the bokeh it produces (for me I find that true especially at f/2) and it can produce some pretty decent 3D, although not everyone would agree with that. In the tele range the excellent 3D lens is the contax/yashica mount zeiss 100mm f/2. This and the 35 f/1.4 compete for 3D king. It is an exceptional portrait lens. It should be available for about a thousand dollars if you are patient. I don't think you can go wrong with this three lens kit for 3D. Get some tubes for macro or an inexpensive dedicated macro lens and you should be all set. ...Show more →
I haven't found any 35mm f/1.4 that sold for under 1500$, so I turn to the more budget-friendly and highly praised 35mm f/2. Is the 35mm 1.4 much better than the 35mm f/2?
I have heard many good things about the Rokkor 1.2 but mainly for its bokeh and I used to think that it's an expensive lens. Well I guess I really overlook this gem. Thanks a lot for this.
The Zeiss C/Y 100mm f/2 is a good suggestion, too. Do you have any idea how it competes against the Zeiss MP 100mm f/2?
AhamB wrote:
That Contax N (Makro-Sonnar) isn't cheap, especially with the added cost of conversion by Conurus. The Contax/Yashica Makro-Planar 100/2.8 would probably be a better choice if you don't need the AF.
I found some adapters over 800$, ouch!
May everyone tell me the price of the adapters for each lens when suggesting? It will be included in the lens's price as well.
So the requirement will improve: ( lens + adapter ) for less than 1000$.
If the sonnar and planar design are that good then I might consider switching to Sony
RustyBug wrote:
Agreed @ the C/Y 100/2.8 vs. the Contax N being a bit more friendly on the budget ... just presenting the 'other' end of the spectrum.
I meant to say the Contax N will turn out to be more expensive once you add the cost of conversion.
keira007 wrote:
Please be more specific. These models are Biogon, Distagon or something else?
That would be the Distagon 21 and 35/1.4. For wideangle lenses the Distagons are the only ones you can use on a DSLR. The other models are for rangefinder cameras (Leica M).
By the way, $800 for an adapter is bogus. They run from roughty $20 to $200 or so and the cheap ones are usually fine. It can be nice to spend a bit more for some kinds of adapters (such as the ones for Nikon mount).
28/2.8 Distagon - Very strong
50/1.7 Planar - Very strong
35-70/3.4 Vario Sonnar - Strong
80-200/4 Vario Sonnar - Strong
Tamron SP 90/2.5 Macro - Medium
+1 @ my experience with these ... maybe bumping the 35-70/3.4 to a Strong+ and the Tamron to a Medium+ / Strong ... subject/distance dependent. Also noting on the 80-200/4 the effect is further reduced as you approach the 150-200 range, with its strongest @ 80mm and still holding well toward 135.
C/Y Distagon 28/2.8: may be replaced with C/Y 35mm f/1.4 or Zeiss 21mm/2.8 in the future. But I also found a 35mm/2.8 Rollei and Zeiss Jena Flekogon 35mm/2.4. Any idea about these?
C/Y 35-70/3.4: I'm not sure getting this lens since Zeiss ZE 50mm/1.4 is not far from it. Maybe just buy a C/Y 50/1.7 and upgrade to a Zeiss 50mm Makro later.
Here's a shot I consider very "looking through window"'ish from my Zeiss 50/1.7 taken with my Rebel XT. The lens was stopped down to f/5.6 I believe at Infinity...
I personally believe the effect is more pronounced when you use said lens(es) on higher resolution sensors. Browsing Flickr and seeing some photos with this same lens on a 5DMKII really have a nice sense of clarity.
If the focal length diff between the Sonnar 135/2.8 and the Planar 100/2 isn't an issue ... and your budget is fine with the diff ... NO BRAINER ... 100/2.
Then that makes the 35-70/3.4 a stronger choice over the 50/1.7 since the 100/2 can handle some lower light situations than the 35-70 and the 1/3 stop diff between the 1.7 & 2.0 is rather neglible ... I use the EF 100/2 (my only Canon lens, moderate 3D) as my low light lens (with AF) more than I do the 50/1.7 (obvious FL diff) since the AF helps for focusing in low light more than my eyes do.
Distagon 28/2.8
Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4
Planar 100/2
Easily under $2K ... maybe closer to $1700 if you're diligent.
Starter base 3D kit, add macro as needed
There are certainly other ways to go ... but this one makes a pretty good bang for your buck setup with good versatility as well as good IQ for the desired effect.
Note: 35-70 has macro @ 35mm only @ appx 4 inch mwd. Tamron 90/2.5 (inexpensive) provides occassional macro duty. Dedicated macro shooters may want something else.
Of course, there is the 135/2 and the 35/2, the 100 APO ...
keira007 wrote:
Thanks Peire. That list helps a lot.
Now my kit is closer to complete:
C/Y Distagon 28/2.8: may be replaced with C/Y 35mm f/1.4 or Zeiss 21mm/2.8 in the future. But I also found a 35mm/2.8 Rollei and Zeiss Jena Flekogon 35mm/2.4. Any idea about these?
C/Y 35-70/3.4: I'm not sure getting this lens since Zeiss ZE 50mm/1.4 is not far from it. Maybe just buy a C/Y 50/1.7 and upgrade to a Zeiss 50mm Makro later.
C/Y 135mm/2.8: this or a C/Y 100mm/2.
What do you guys think?
My "minimum" Zeiss kit when I go out for walking is 28Dist,50/1.7Plan and 85/2.8 Son.They are small and lightweight.I use them on both smal EOS DSLRs like 550D and NEX.
With a little bit more "mobility" you may well be off without 35-70VS,although it is superb for a zoom.
135/2.8's weakest point is it's min focus distance of 1,6m but not that obtrusive in the field.100/2 is really great but roughly 3x more expensive.For the price of it you can get 28/50/85 combo.You may also consider 100/3.5 Sonnar as an alternative.IQ between 85/2.8 and 135/2.8 Sonnars.
Out of my four Zeiss lenses; ZM 35/2.8, ZF 35/2, ZF 50/1.4 and ZF 100/2, the ZF 35/2 gives the most "3D" to my eyes. Especially when stopped down for infinite DOF.
keira007 wrote:
I haven't found any 35mm f/1.4 that sold for under 1500$, so I turn to the more budget-friendly and highly praised 35mm f/2. Is the 35mm 1.4 much better than the 35mm f/2?
I have heard many good things about the Rokkor 1.2 but mainly for its bokeh and I used to think that it's an expensive lens. Well I guess I really overlook this gem. Thanks a lot for this.
The Zeiss C/Y 100mm f/2 is a good suggestion, too. Do you have any idea how it competes against the Zeiss MP 100mm f/2?
There was a C/Y Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 that sold on the buy and sell board here in February for $900, see this link:
It may even still be available as it isn't marked as sold. I would say that is a typical price. The new ZE/ZF 35mm f/1.4 will go for close to $1,500 or more, but it should be possible to find the older C/Y or Rollei mount for less than $1,000. There is actually not much difference in price between the C/Y 35mm f/1.4 and the ZE/ZF 35mm f/2. They are very different designs, however. The f/1.4 in my view is better for 3D from what I have seen and is more suited for portraits with the wider aperture. The f/2 is probably a better landscape lens if you shoot stopped down. It seems to have much better corners.
The C/Y Zeiss 100mm f/2 is an excellent lens and in the forums here many people think it has a better 3D effect than the MP 100 f/2. See this review at pebble place:
I must be lucky because my Canon 35L 1.4 is one of the sharpest lens I own. It seems like a lot of people here like the Zeiss lens. I am sure they are excellent lens, but for my shooting I need very fast AF and if I am not mistaken the Zeiss lens are all Manual focus. I gave up on second party lens last year when I was talked into a Tamron. I have tried many Sigma and Tamron lens and none of them stack up to Canon's lens.
