Tom_W wrote:
My 24/1.4 is quite nice.

Glad you still see it that way, Tommy.
So is mine.

I did a little bit search on Contax planar T* 85 f/1.4 from Ebay, and, with adapter, the price will almost the same as ZE 85mm , around $1100?


Pixel Perfect wrote:
cogitech wrote:
Jun Zhou wrote:
I was thinking about buying Nikon 85mm 1.4 and a EF adaptor for 5D, does this setup work?

Yes (with manual focus and stop-down metering, of course)

There are many other workable, fast, affordable options at 85-90mm. The Contax (Zeiss) Planar 85/1.4 is one of them. Visit the Alternative Gear forum for details.

Contax planar T* 85 f/1.4 on 5D is superb combo, and stop down metering is a doddle. This and the 135L are my favourite 5D lenses. I've heard great things about the Nikon too. If the ZE 85 is demonstrably better than my planar T*, I'll be getting one for sure.

Cheers.

But, you really are doing yourself a disservice by having not yet used your Contax stuff on your Canon

RGS65 wrote:
That is exactly the way I see it. Thanks.

cogitech wrote:
RGS65 wrote:
Ok, help me out. What does stop down metering have to do with live view? I don't use live view. I'm not going to be using live view for the shooting I do - I need to look through the viewfinder. I'm not concerned about depth of field preview.

I'm talking about using AV and TV mode, for example. Won't the electronics in these ZEs aid that? Or do the adapters already do that by transferring shutter speed/aperture information back to the body?




You are correct. This is an advancement over using the older lenses with an adapter.

The new lenses will work identically to your EF lenses when you shut the AF switch to the off position.

This is much different than the experience of shooting the old lenses mounted with an adapter, using Av mode plus stop-down metering. AF-confirm chips sort of help here, but they do not allow the camera to record the shooting aperture or enable accurate E-TTL metering, or auto-aperture, of course.

Is this enough for people like ChrisDM to switch? Maybe not, because stop-down metering suits his type of photography with those particular lenses.

I too use tons of lenses with adapters (or converted mounts) in full-manual-everything mode. I don't even bother with the AF confirm chips. I get great results, but I certainly would choose to have auto-aperture (and all the corresponding exposure modes) full EXIF, and E-TTL on all those lenses if I had the choice. I have one such lens; the Voigtlander 125/2.5 Macro APO-Lanthar in native EOS mount. It is a joy to use, incredible really, and I fully expect that Cosina will be making the ZEs at least as good as this.

Nah.. that's way too high.

You can get a 85 Planar for $500 and an adapter for $20.

But don't.

Get a Minolta MC Rokkor 85/1.7 for $300 and convert it to EOS. A much nicer lens, IMO. Sharp wide open (unlike the Planar) and much, much nicer bokeh.

Jun Zhou wrote:
I did a little bit search on Contax planar T* 85 f/1.4 from Ebay, and, with adapter, the price will almost the same as ZE 85mm , around $1100?


Pixel Perfect wrote:
cogitech wrote:
Jun Zhou wrote:
I was thinking about buying Nikon 85mm 1.4 and a EF adaptor for 5D, does this setup work?

Yes (with manual focus and stop-down metering, of course)

There are many other workable, fast, affordable options at 85-90mm. The Contax (Zeiss) Planar 85/1.4 is one of them. Visit the Alternative Gear forum for details.

Contax planar T* 85 f/1.4 on 5D is superb combo, and stop down metering is a doddle. This and the 135L are my favourite 5D lenses. I've heard great things about the Nikon too. If the ZE 85 is demonstrably better than my planar T*, I'll be getting one for sure.

Jun Zhou wrote:
I did a little bit search on Contax planar T* 85 f/1.4 from Ebay, and, with adapter, the price will almost the same as ZE 85mm , around $1100?



What a ripoff - I paid $540 with adapter.

I should find a wrong lens. lol.my bad.
yea, contax one is around $540.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Jun Zhou wrote:
I did a little bit search on Contax planar T* 85 f/1.4 from Ebay, and, with adapter, the price will almost the same as ZE 85mm , around $1100?



What a ripoff - I paid $540 with adapter.

So did anyone subscribe to the Zeiss newsletter and received the announcement already? Is ZE really a Canon mount?

The email/announcement that I received from Zeiss last night is below. The link to the newsletter is http://www.zeiss.com/cln

Carl Zeiss * Camera Lens News * Issue 29 * September 2008

Dear Mr. rohanew,

It is a pleasure to inform you about a new issue of the Camera Lens News. We have saved a very special announcement for this issue; an announcement that will answer the call of many SLR photographers around the world:

Carl Zeiss is introducing the new ZE lens line: powerful, high-quality SLR lenses for the EF bayonet.

Camera Lens News No. 29:
http://www.zeiss.com/cln

Headlines Index:
[1] Field Report - New Carl Zeiss ZE Lenses Put to the Test
[2] More optics for everyone - Carl Zeiss SLR lenses for EF bayonet
[3] Inspired by life - Working as a photojournalist
[4] Carl Zeiss ZF Lenses - Print time for Panoramas
[5] The Effects of Time - Traveling with the Makro Planar T* 2/100 ZF

EOS20 wrote:
Geofn wrote:
ChrisDM wrote:
So I can't really understand anybody getting excited about these new lenses...


Hmmmm... a re-introduction of the 21mm distagon at a reasonable price I'd buy one (assuming performance is the same as the original).


If you think the 21mm Distagon Is overpriced, Have you seen the new Leica Noctilux M 50 mm f/0.95 ASPH That was announced today? It's a bargain at £6290!!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091505leica_50mm_f0_95.asp

And 3 more Primes which aren't as expensive (But still make what Zeiss has to offer look like a bargain) have also been announced, These are:

SUMMILUX-M 21 mm f / 1.4 ASPH
SUMMILUX-M 24 mm f / 1.4 ASPH
Elmar-M 24 MM F / 3.8 ASPH

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091504leica_21mm_24mm_24mm.asp


I am don't like MF and to me, the Zeiss are way too expensive but if there are MF lenses that makes me water these are the 21/1.4 and 50/0.95, on M8.2.

I also wonder if the 85/1.4 can really beat the 85/1.2 II which is faster, have AF and costs the same.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Zeiss lenses are not that much more expensive than Canon, and waaaay cheaper than Leica. They are extremely well built and looks really good. Still, the only Zeiss ZE lens I would buy would be the 21/2.8 Distagon .... which they have yet to announce - but we shouldn't have to wait too long for this. MF with focus confirmation should work really well, especially with live view. And it helps to have auto-exposure. It would be like using a Zeiss lens on a Contax body .... real sweet!

Yakim Peled wrote:

I am don't like MF and to me, the Zeiss are way too expensive but if there are MF lenses that makes me water these are the 21/1.4 and 50/0.95, on M8.2.

I also wonder if the 85/1.4 can really beat the 85/1.2 II which is faster, have AF and costs the same.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I think a 135mm f/1.8 would be killer.

For 50mm, the new Sigma 50/1.4 looks sharp enough at f/1.4. For 85mm, the 85/1.2 II looks sharp enough at f/1.2. Both have AF. And I will be happy to see how the 21/2.8 fairs against the 16-35/2.8 II in a real world test. So, for the EF mount I see no reason to get excited.

What I like about the Leica lenses is that they are mounted on a M8 body…..

IMHO of course.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Both have AF. And I will be happy to see how the 21/2.8 fairs against the 16-35/2.8 II in a real world test. So, for the EF mount I see no reason to get excited.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


The old 21 f/2.8 trashes the 16-35 II, so I'd expect to see the same or better from the new 21. Very exciting to me all of the announcements. The build quality of these lenses alone is wonderful and worth the price of admission.

Trashes? Did 16-9 published such a comparison? Did others?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Trashes? Did 16-9 published such a comparison? Did others?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Slaughters? Obliterates? Embarrasses? Which adjective would you like to use?

In real world photography, there is no better 21mm lens. Period. The 16-35 II may have improved corners, but they still can't touch the Zeiss.

I don't feel happy with my Canon 85 f1.8, so I will be trying out a Zeiss 85 f1.4. It will be available in a month, more or less, for some 1350€. I will then report back to this board.

StevenPA wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
Trashes? Did 16-9 published such a comparison? Did others?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Slaughters? Obliterates? Embarrasses? Which adjective would you like to use?

In real world photography, there is no better 21mm lens. Period.

...for SLRs. The rangefinder Biogon designs match the 21mm Distagon and are perhaps even better. Unfortunately there are no full-frame rangefinder sensors, so you can only see that in a film comparison with all the attendant problems.

StevenPA wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
Trashes? Did 16-9 published such a comparison? Did others?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Slaughters? Obliterates? Embarrasses? Which adjective would you like to use?

In real world photography, there is no better 21mm lens. Period. The 16-35 II may have improved corners, but they still can't touch the Zeiss.

+1

Anyone who doubts this has never used the lens. Anyone who has used the lens will tell you the same thing. The CZ21 is the most remarkable lens I have ever owned. By a long, long shot.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Trashes? Did 16-9 published such a comparison? Did others?

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


16-9 did a comparison in a roundabout way. They did a Nikon 14-24 review, comparing it to (among others) the Zeiss 21 and the Canon 16-35II. The rankings were like this, and in no uncertain terms:

Zeiss 21 > Nikon 14-24 > Canon 16-35II.

So yeah, the Zeiss trashes the Canon. Wide angle just doesn't seem to be Canon's forte.

It's not that I don't believe you but as these lenses are extremely rare in Israel I have to rely on internet tests. Thus, comparative pictures would be nice. If you don't have them, it's O.K. but I just wondered if anybody has ever tested both side by side.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

fourfa wrote:
...for SLRs. The rangefinder Biogon designs match the 21mm Distagon and are perhaps even better. Unfortunately there are no full-frame rangefinder sensors, so you can only see that in a film comparison with all the attendant problems.

You mean the 2,8/21mm ZM Biogon? Definitely a sweet lens.

As for film, I don't know, I don't see any problems with it... I recently went back to shooting film.

just that comparisons via film usually end up being comparisons of $600 consumer scanners, not $2000 lenses. it's certainly easier to test gear in the digital age.

Yakim Peled wrote:
It's not that I don't believe you but as these lenses are extremely rare in Israel I have to rely on internet tests. Thus, comparative pictures would be nice. If you don't have them, it's O.K. but I just wondered if anybody has ever tested both side by side.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.


I can post some FF crops (including edge/corners) from the CZ21 later which will not need any 16-35 II crops to compare to. It'll be all too obvious.

fourfa wrote:
...for SLRs.

Naturally. But look at the MTFs for both lenses. The Biogon is better, no question, but it's _very_ close, and the Biogon isn't limited to a retrofocus design, which makes the Distagon even more impressive.

[edit] I have no interest in M lenses, but I just had a look at the MTFs for their Elmarit 21/2.8. Speechless...

fourfa wrote:
just that comparisons via film usually end up being comparisons of $600 consumer scanners, not $2000 lenses. it's certainly easier to test gear in the digital age.

Ahh, I see what you mean. True. As long as you compare apples to apples, at least. It's when you start comparing apples to oranges that things take a serious turn south fast.

DoubleNegative wrote:
You mean the 2,8/21mm ZM Biogon? Definitely a sweet lens.


That, the Contax G-series 21mm, the Leica and C/V 21mms, and heck the 43mm for the Mamiya 7. all from the same biogon design family as I understand it.