Home · Forums · My Profile · PM · Buddy list · Search · FAQ · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting · Avatar · Software

	Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell FM Forum Rules FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses Pages: [1] 2     85mm vs 85mm (archived topic)

Saad Syed Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 24, 2007 Total Posts: 806 Country: United States 85mm vs 85mm I'm looking at 85mm alternatives to the canon 85mm's (in particular, the 85L). How does the Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 (Contax mount) compare to the Canon 85/1.2L (setting AF aside)? Thanks in advance! Dec 03, 2007 at 11:09 PM

cogitech Offline Buy and Sell: On Registered: Apr 20, 2005 Total Posts: 7344 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm I think the majority would just opt for the L (or a considerably cheaper alternative, if money was an issue). The Zeiss is neither a huge bargain compared to the L, nor does it outperform the L, so the advantages are few. Sure, it is a bit cheaper, but not in a way that makes it really attractive. Unless, of course, you just have to have that Zeiss "look", which includes significantly different colour (bluey greens, but better reds, IMHO) and busier bokeh. Dec 04, 2007 at 04:02 AM

Saad Syed Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 24, 2007 Total Posts: 806 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm well, the 85L is 1500USD, while a contax mount 85mm planar is 500USD usually on ebay... that's a grand of savings. I was wondering about performance, but I guess you're right, the 85mm/1.8 might be more worth while. Dec 04, 2007 at 04:32 AM

cogitech Offline Buy and Sell: On Registered: Apr 20, 2005 Total Posts: 7344 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm Saad Syed wrote: well, the 85L is 1500USD, while a contax mount 85mm planar is 500USD usually on ebay... that's a grand of savings. I was wondering about performance, but I guess you're right, the 85mm/1.8 might be more worth while. See, I was thinking more along the lines of a used 85L for $1000 and an EX condition 85/1.4 for $750 (which is what I sold one for). Unfortunately, there aren't too many "amazing deals" on 85s out there, unless you include some of the Russian lenses, which are certainly worth a look for something very different. The Zeiss 85/2.8 is supposed to be a pretty terrific little lens for the price, but the speed isn't there. I stick with my EF 85/1.8 for now, because it never fails to get terrific shots for my wife and I, but I often think about trying one of the Russians. Oh, a lot of people seem to love the manual focus Nikkor 85/1.8, which is more affordable. But then again, not a crazy bargain, especially when compared to the EF 85/1.8 Dec 04, 2007 at 04:44 AM

phuang3 Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Feb 09, 2005 Total Posts: 410 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm The only 85mm that can compete with 85L is the Contax 85/1.2 which is expensive and lack of AF. In some test, the 85L even shows less aberrations than Contax. I'd say the 85L is a bargain in terms of performance. Dec 04, 2007 at 04:52 AM

jcolwell Online Image Upload: On Registered: Feb 10, 2005 Total Posts: 3503 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm I'm not saying that I don't want a 85L II ('cause I do), but in the meantime, the Contax Carl Zeiss 85/1.4 is a really excellent lens. Dec 04, 2007 at 05:02 AM

Mike Tuomey Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jul 23, 2005 Total Posts: 1952 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm Canon's 85/1.8 is the best deal out there. Full auto, great IQ, great price. As a *cheap Canon prime* it doesn't get any better. Dec 04, 2007 at 11:25 AM

jamesdak Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Mar 16, 2004 Total Posts: 364 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm Hmmm, if you don't need the speed the Contax Zeiss 85/2.8 is an excellent and cheap lens! Dec 04, 2007 at 01:10 PM

Conner999 Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 22, 2006 Total Posts: 2138 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm Saad, Check http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/ for a side-by-side test of the CZ 85/1.4 and 85/1.2L Also www.photozone.de tests both (85/1.4 in question being the modern ZF version). Personally, while AF on the 85L II sounds attractive, there are cheaper options out there, much cheaper that are just as sharp if not sharper with less CA, better manual focus and lacking Canon's idea of what red and green are. If they were all close and the 85 II costs roughly the same, AF would swing it, but for the premium involved (app. $1600) ...you could get a CZ, ZF or Nikkor 85/1.4 AND a EF 85/1.8. Dec 04, 2007 at 01:31 PM

jonboring Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Mar 11, 2006 Total Posts: 760 Country: N/A Re: 85mm vs 85mm The ZF 85/1.4 is $1000 at b&h. Dec 04, 2007 at 05:46 PM

Grant808 Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Sep 20, 2005 Total Posts: 2586 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm I have both the CZ 85/1.4 and the Canon 85/1.8. I don't think I'm really missing anything in the 85LII... I also got the Zeiss for about $500, so cost was also way lower for me. Dec 04, 2007 at 06:41 PM

brainiac Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Nov 22, 2005 Total Posts: 4018 Country: United Kingdom Re: 85mm vs 85mm What you're missing is f1.2! Can anyone show me examples of how Canon lenses have bad reds or greens? I have never seen this. I have seen plenty of examples of various post-processing applications messing up colours, but I've not noticed lenses doing it. Does DPP take lens type into account when processing colour? Dec 04, 2007 at 07:00 PM

cogitech Offline Buy and Sell: On Registered: Apr 20, 2005 Total Posts: 7344 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm brainiac wrote: What you're missing is f1.2! Can anyone show me examples of how Canon lenses have bad reds or greens? I have never seen this. I have seen plenty of examples of various post-processing applications messing up colours, but I've not noticed lenses doing it. Does DPP take lens type into account when processing colour? I don't know why the colours can be so different (it's obviously in the glass and/or coatings) but I have seen direct evidence of it. Just like Zeiss colour can be so different from Leica or Zuiko or Pentax, for instance. Many of us mention these types of things when comparing lenses. The most obvious display of bad Canon reds that I've seen was in a 100mm lens comparison that somebody linked too from here once. It compared the Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM to the Nikkor 105/2.5, to a couple other 100s. the Canon's reds were very obviously bad compared to all others. I'll see if I can find it. Dec 04, 2007 at 07:12 PM

cogitech Offline Buy and Sell: On Registered: Apr 20, 2005 Total Posts: 7344 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm Here it is: http://24x36.org/tests/100mm/test100mm.html Some may like the over-the-top reds on the Canon (including KR :D) but not me. (Shite, even the black mustache looks red.) The Canon sensors have enough trouble with normal reds, so why throw that dayglow red at them? Scroll all the way down and see how crappy the greens are, too. It is personal preference, so nobody is right or wrong here. I'd rather jack up the reds or greens after the shoot, if I want the KR look. Shoot the Planar against the L and I think you'll find something quite similar. Dec 04, 2007 at 07:23 PM

Conner999 Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 22, 2006 Total Posts: 2138 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm People/magazine reviewers (arrgh) have remarked that Canon sensors are prone to over-the top reds and too bright greens. However, it is not the sensor alone. It appears to be a firmware trigger, maybe to up contrast or or perceived 'brilliance' , who knows, that ONLY occurs when an EF lens is attached. It comes across in RAW's process with CS3 and DPP and in Jpegs - so it is an in-camera 'issue'. Shooting the same red and/or green-heavy scene with an EF lens and then a Zeiss or Leica (as an example) glass and the difference is startling. That being said, it would be interesting to see what a Canon lens delivers on a non-Canon body. Different strokes for different folks, but give me a capture that as best resembles the scene and let me do what I want with it. As for F1.4 vs F1.2 - it is up to you what that small difference is worth in $$$ terms. Dec 04, 2007 at 09:02 PM

deshojo Online Image Upload: On Registered: Dec 02, 2005 Total Posts: 259 Country: United Kingdom Re: 85mm vs 85mm Curious how the top-of-the-range Canon 85mm f1.2 always seems to get compared to the mid-range Contax 85mm f1.4, when really the Contax 85mm f1.2 should obviously be the comparison lens; ie. the best each company could produce. The mid-range Contax f1.4 should more fairly be compared to the mid-range Canon f1.8, whence it will of course slaughter the plastic little travesty like the cheap Christmas turkey it is (cue Dr.Evil type laughter). The new MKII Canon f1.2 does quite well against the Zeiss, but it still has that harsh Canon look, rather than the beautifully smooth feel of the Contax. As for Canon colours, As a nature photographer I do get a bit fed up with the hideous Canon green (far to sickly and dayglow-yellow). I often have to drop the yellow channel by 15-20 points in PS. A small example is in the background of my avatar. Look here at eow_1's shot for immediate comparison. Did no-one here ever shoot Canon on neutral slide film, such as Provia? I just wondered if the vile green used to show up then as well, because even on zany Velvia the Zeiss lenses always looked pretty natural. I've only used Canon digital bodies, as I still have my Contaxes so I have no comparison. Dec 05, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Saad Syed Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jan 24, 2007 Total Posts: 806 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm Well, another lens that is close in focal length to these is the Carl Zeiss planar 80/2.8. I don't know if it can be used on canon bodies as everywhere I look, it's attached to a Hasselblad. But the results on flickr are jaw dropping. Dec 05, 2007 at 01:13 AM

Tariq Gibran Online Image Upload: Off Registered: Oct 01, 2006 Total Posts: 1776 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm Mike Tuomey wrote: Canon's 85/1.8 is the best deal out there. Full auto, great IQ, great price. As a *cheap Canon prime* it doesn't get any better. It has become among my most used and favorite lenses. In fact, I was reviewing some older images the other day from a shoot and a few clearly stood out with regard to color, sharpness, Bokeh, etc. I thought to myself, thats got to be from one of my Zeiss lenses having forgotton what I had shot with. A quick look at the Exif data showed that it was actually my Canon 85 1.8 shot at F2.5. Now, why can't Canon make a few "bargain" wide angle lenses which perform like this 85 1.8? Dec 05, 2007 at 02:08 AM

woodyspedden Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Nov 24, 2005 Total Posts: 895 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm Yes, you got it all correct Thanks so much for pointing out the obvious Woody deshojo wrote: Curious how the top-of-the-range Canon 85mm f1.2 always seems to get compared to the mid-range Contax 85mm f1.4, when really the Contax 85mm f1.2 should obviously be the comparison lens; ie. the best each company could produce. The mid-range Contax f1.4 should more fairly be compared to the mid-range Canon f1.8, whence it will of course slaughter the plastic little travesty like the cheap Christmas turkey it is (cue Dr.Evil type laughter). The new MKII Canon f1.2 does quite well against the Zeiss, but it still has that harsh Canon look, rather than the beautifully smooth feel of the Contax. As for Canon colours, As a nature photographer I do get a bit fed up with the hideous Canon green (far to sickly and dayglow-yellow). I often have to drop the yellow channel by 15-20 points in PS. A small example is in the background of my avatar. Look here at eow_1's shot for immediate comparison. Did no-one here ever shoot Canon on neutral slide film, such as Provia? I just wondered if the vile green used to show up then as well, because even on zany Velvia the Zeiss lenses always looked pretty natural. I've only used Canon digital bodies, as I still have my Contaxes so I have no comparison. Dec 05, 2007 at 02:18 AM

Tariq Gibran Online Image Upload: Off Registered: Oct 01, 2006 Total Posts: 1776 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm deshojo wrote: The mid-range Contax f1.4 should more fairly be compared to the mid-range Canon f1.8, whence it will of course slaughter the plastic little travesty like the cheap Christmas turkey I would put my sample of the Canon 1.8 up against the Cantax 1.4 any day. I did so against a Leica 90mm Elmarit R and the Leica surprisingly was outlassed by my cheap Christmas turkey of a lens. Color rendition was the same, the Canon was sharper with better Bokeh. The two areas the Leica was obviously better was in distortion and of course build. I'm sure against the Contax, the Contax would have more contrast and punchier color but loose out in the creamy Bokeh department and actual resolution. A good sample of the Canon 85 1.8 is a very fine lens. Dec 05, 2007 at 02:24 AM

rico Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Jul 13, 2003 Total Posts: 2225 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm I have the CZ 85/2.8 C/Y and its Sonnar sibling, the 100/3.5. These slower lenses have awesome bokeh (not a given with CZ). They also offer a compact size, smooth focus action, and exemplary DOF scales. The S100 is probably my favorite lens - hard to find, thought. The S85 is quite common, and used prices are much lower recently (nearing $200). Don't get hypnotized by the big aperture! Dec 05, 2007 at 07:01 AM

JohnJ Offline Image Upload: Off Registered: Jul 09, 2005 Total Posts: 566 Country: Australia Re: 85mm vs 85mm I had the 85/1.2 L (FD and EF) and the zeiss 85/1.4. The Canon is basically a better lens and I don't yearn to have the zeiss back at all however I would like to pick up a copy of the 85/1.2 L some day. The Canon is really very sharp even wide open where as the zeiss was so 'creamy' that nothing was really very sharp at all, untill you stopped it down. The zeiss was definitely quite good stopped down but then why bother with a fast lens if you have to stop it down to get a decent image. I sold them all and got a nice Leica R 80/1.4. Very happy with it but the EF 85/1.2 L is still sharper wide open. JJ Dec 05, 2007 at 11:51 AM

cogitech Offline Buy and Sell: On Registered: Apr 20, 2005 Total Posts: 7344 Country: Canada Re: 85mm vs 85mm The (nearly) NIB Planar 85/1.4 that I had briefly was not as "dreamy" wide open as others have experienced/described, but I found it to be cool (bluey greens) and the bokeh was only neutral and even "busy" sometimes. I agree with Tariq on the EF 85/1.8. I, too, ended up getting a terrific sample of this lens. The L certainly does have better bokeh from all the shots I've seen, but if any thought at all is given to the background distance in relation to the subject, it is quite simple to produce superb results with the Christmas turkey. If anything, I am getting bored with it, as it is so easy to get consistently great results. I'll likely pick up a Jupiter 9 to make things interesting at this focal length for me again. I really aught to pull out the Tamron 90/2.5 more often as well... Rico, I had a chance to get the 100/3.5 for a great price about 18 months ago, but my wife said "enough." Maybe I aught to look for another. This really never ends, does it :D Here I am considering selling lenses because I have a new camera system on the way, but getting caught up in the idea of buying 2 or 3 more in the "portrait" range. Nuts! Dec 05, 2007 at 02:28 PM

Tariq Gibran Online Image Upload: Off Registered: Oct 01, 2006 Total Posts: 1776 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm cogitech wrote: I'll likely pick up a Jupiter 9 to make things interesting at this focal length for me again. I love that statement! I think I need to invest in the Hasselblad-Canon adapter myself to see just what my 80mm 2.8 CF planar looks like on my 5D per your earlier remark. Dec 05, 2007 at 04:17 PM

Mike Tuomey Offline Image Upload: On Registered: Jul 23, 2005 Total Posts: 1952 Country: United States Re: 85mm vs 85mm It must be my considerable lack of discernment, but I shoot my *cheap Christmas turkey* of an EF 85/1.8 far more than the 85L II that sits at home ... I'm biased, of course, but my Canon 85/1.8 does so many things so well, that it's a mainstay: snapshooting, portraits in any light, sports, macro (tubes), etc etc. All with quick, accurate AF and auto-elsewhere for USD 300. Whattadeal. Dec 05, 2007 at 05:42 PM

	FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses Pages: [1] 2