What are your predictions of the new ZE 50mm versus the 50L or any other 50mm for Canon?

I predict my 50L will autofocus with much greater speed and accuracy than I could possibly manual focus the ZE. IMO, that is by far the greatest and most significant difference between the two.

Optically I suspect they will be very close at identical f-stops.

I love my Ls, but I dare say the ZE will toast it IQ-wise. Let's hope DPR adds the ZE to their 50mm lens reviews, among others.

I predict the ZE will be sharper at 1.4. I have the ZF(for sale- wink) and had the 50L and they are both very nice lenses. If you don't mind manual focus the ZE will probably be a little bit better optically.

My understanding is that the ZE lenses were designed under the same "character" as the planars and distagons of past, where as the L's have been, since the '80's designed to be high contrast, high resolution optics, especially the version II's for the digital EOS system. This will be the biggest diference between the two.

All in all, I think the ZEISS will be at least as sharp shooting in colour, and a lot more "interesting" in B&W.

^ Zeiss lenses are typically designed for high contrast and lower resolution whereas the Leica lenses are typically designed for higher resolution, lower contrast. So they say, anyway. In my experience with several ZM lenses, the Zeiss glass is fantastic at both. Not sure what Canon's design principles are in this scheme. There are a huge number of lenses based on the "planar" design to some degree however, probably (and likely) Canon's as well.

SLR Gear has reviewed the Zeiss 50/1.4 for Nikon F-mount, which I assume will be the same lens as for the EF mount. The Zeiss fares poorly at wide apertures compared to the Canon 50/1.2. Here's the Zeiss review; you can compare the blur index of the Zeiss lens with the 50/1.2 to see what I mean.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1144/cat/98

DoubleNegative wrote:
^ Zeiss lenses are typically designed for high contrast and lower resolution whereas the Leica lenses are typically designed for higher resolution, lower contrast. So they say, anyway. In my experience with several ZM lenses, the Zeiss glass is fantastic at both. Not sure what Canon's design principles are in this scheme. There are a huge number of lenses based on the "planar" design to some degree however, probably (and likely) Canon's as well.

Lower resolution? Are you kidding? They've got a ton of resolution...it just so happens they also have a nice hefty dose of contrast too. At least, my 50 f/1.7 planar and 85 Sonnar are extremely sharp and resolve a ton of detail.

from 16-9's reviews, the Canon 85L beats the Zeiss 85/1.4 hands down.... Maybe it'll be the case for the 50 as well?

Jman13 wrote:
Lower resolution? Are you kidding? They've got a ton of resolution...it just so happens they also have a nice hefty dose of contrast too. At least, my 50 f/1.7 planar and 85 Sonnar are extremely sharp and resolve a ton of detail.

Oh, I totally agree. My experience with the ZMs proves that they have both resolution and contrast in spades. Perhaps the originator of that "quote" was talking about older lenses, or maybe as a primary design consideration or something. But like I said, in my experience, at least with the 25/35 Biogons and 50 Planar that I use - they are quite incredible.

I would totally expect the Zeiss to kill the L in IQ. However, the L will kill the Zeiss in AF

The 50L is a specialized lens for F1.2 thru 2.0 + (as is the 85L). I would expect it would excel here which is what it is designed for. If you want posed shots at F2.8 and above (or of inanimates) you would have a selection of better, sometimes cheaper, lenses to draw from.

Weiyang Liu wrote:
from 16-9's reviews, the Canon 85L beats the Zeiss 85/1.4 hands down.... Maybe it'll be the case for the 50 as well?

photodo shows the old C/Y 85 f/1.4 standing up very well to the 85L and as I've said many times mine is certainly in the same class as the 135L which is a superb lens. Resolution on the 5D is excellent and the lens is very contrasty and colours are superb. It's not sharp wide open, but has a nice dreamy look, but even at f/1.7 it's getting very good and excellent at f/2. I'd expect the ZE to be better again.

stanj wrote:
I would totally expect the Zeiss to kill the L in IQ. However, the L will kill the Zeiss in AF

And the Zeiss will kill the L in MF, which is much more important to some people.

deepbluejh wrote:


Optically I suspect they will be very close at identical f-stops.

That couldn't be further from the truth, unless you are only speaking of "sharpness".

The Zeiss will have a different cast, different overall drawing style, different bokeh, different flare resistance, different macro-contrast and micro-contrast, different distortion, different CA, different ...

The only thing similar will be the FOV.

And I am pretty sure the Zeiss has no focus shift issue as the L does (which is not an AF issue, for those who think it is).

My 50L has the best focusing ring ive felt of any L lens ive played with (better than the super loose 85L too imo). Absolutely NO micro wobble at all (back n forth or while spinning). I notice many other L lenses have a tiny bit of wobble (very micro/miniscule, but can be felt; not the 50L)

Edgar Maguyon wrote:
My 50L has the best focusing ring ive felt of any L lens ive played with (better than the super loose 85L too imo). Absolutely NO micro wobble at all (back n forth or while spinning). I notice many other L lenses have a tiny bit of wobble (very micro/miniscule, but can be felt; not the 50L)

Edgar,

I believe you, but have you ever used a proper focusing ring? If so, how does the 50L compare?

I'll be interested to see if the ZE is sharper than MY 50/1.2 at f/1.4. Beyond that, I couldn't care less as manual focus is damn near worthless to me, so the HIGHLY subjective qualities like drawing style, bokeh, color rendition, etc, are pretty much moot.

I shoot my 50L @1.4 nearly 100% of the time and love the results. The lens has a really nice draw with a look of a vintage lens. Having said that I'm still interested in the Zeiss 50mm for it's manual focus abilities.
Can't have enough 50's.

I’m not too impressed with the L’s focus rings. The rings of my 24L and 50L have play that even gives them a rattling feeling. Edgar seems to have had better luck. The 200L2.8 ring is quite good however, but the two old Zuiko’s I have tells me that the L rings are not the metallic precision instruments that were common in the past.
So I predict that the ZE focus ring will be better.

But are we talking about a 600$ Zeiss? Is it really certain that a 600$ lens will trash the 50L IQ-wise? I’m thinking that nowadays Zeiss also makes lenses for cell-phones and that a Leica Summilux 1.4 is about 3500$.?

Weiyang Liu wrote:
from 16-9's reviews, the Canon 85L beats the Zeiss 85/1.4 hands down.... Maybe it'll be the case for the 50 as well?

Hands down? There are marginal differences at medium distance, and the bad results close up are most probably adapter-issues.

People has to stop reading tests with "i love canon" googles on.

Edgar Maguyon wrote:
What are your predictions of the new ZE 50mm versus the 50L or any other 50mm for Canon?

i predict that over a year ago i bought a used zeiss T* planar 50 1.4 for $285 and compared it to my Canon 50mm 1.4.

I predict that I found the performance to be almost identical at all apertures.

I predict that I sold the zeiss for the same price I bought it for because I figured I might as well keep the one with AF and automatic ap.

I predict that for most people the Zeiss would be a waste of $300 although the name will convince some otherwise (and there a few who would like the nicer MF ring feel).

I predict that the distagon 21mm will blow away your canon 20mm prime, however.

I predict my EF 50 will AF much faster than the ZE 50. I predict the ZE 50 will be sharper for critical work than the EF 50. I predict the differences in sharpness will only be noticeable to pixel peepers and gallery printers, but that won't matter to the gearheads. I predict each will have its particularly suited purpose and one or the other will be chosen based on their unique features and how those features are suited to the task at hand, but that won't matter to the gearheads.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

ChrisDM wrote:
I predict my EF 50 will AF much faster than the ZE 50. I predict the ZE 50 will be sharper for critical work than the EF 50. I predict the differences in sharpness will only be noticeable to pixel peepers and gallery printers, but that won't matter to the gearheads. I predict each will have its particularly suited purpose and one or the other will be chosen based on their unique features and how those features are suited to the task at hand, but that won't matter to the gearheads.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

What about us "gearheads" that like how zeiss lenses draw? The color rendering, the micro contrast.. I have to admit that I thought "pfft, it is a piece of glass, how much difference can they make" before I started to have fun with alternative glass, and the difference in color between different lenses are just.. interesting

Not sure how valuable the delicate differences of a Zeiss are since I do a lot of work in PS and so have control of color, contrast and sharpness, etc.