ulrikft wrote:
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



I'm a gearhead too, and in fact I own a few Zeiss pieces. And I also get a kick out of viewing them at 100% on occasion. But I also realize that after a file has been processed, I can't really tell the difference what lens was used when viewing at "normal" output sizes. And depending on what I shoot, AF is often more important than me entertaining myself by pixel peeping after a shoot. It is fun though, and I also really appreciate the quality and feel of the actual materials of the Zeiss products. Turning a real metal manual focusing ring does enhance the shooting experience, no doubt about it.

Chris M

I think the notion of bolting a Zeiss lens natively to a Canon digital body is apparently lost on a lot of people. Sharpness is not everything. And if you don't care about the image qualities beyond that, what the Zeiss offers - then they're clearly not the lens for you. People used to these types of lenses are often very interested in the drawing of the lens, the bokeh characteristics, the tonality and transitions of OOF areas, micro-contrast, etc.

Comparing ANY L lens MF action to a Zeiss (or other MF lens for that matter) is just silly as there is no comparison. I have plenty of L lenses and they all exhibit some form of play in the ring (mostly seen when changing direction) and I got most of them new (so they're not "worn" or anything like that). Canon EF lenses are simply not designed for real MF use - it feels more like an afterthought to be totally honest. And I love my EF lenses, don't get me wrong. The 85L is an entirely different beast as well.

I'd also wager to say that the people complaining about these lenses being MF just aren't the demographic that Zeiss is pursuing in releasing these lenses. Landscape, portrait and studio shooters often prefer MF, for example. Surprise - these same people rarely use any automated modes; M is typically the rule, not the exception.

I'd also point out that Canon has three (current) 50mm lenses... And none of them are truly "excellent." The Nifty, let's face it - is a POS (but it takes halfway decent pictures). The 1.4 is a better lens build-wise and somewhat better IQ wise (except wide open). The 1.2L is IMO the best of the three on all counts, but the lack of a floating element gives rise to various "issues" (e.g. the much-maligned "focus shift") and still doesn't get MF right (slop in the ring).

A 50mm lens for the 35mm format is about as standard and vanilla as you can get, yet Canon fails to get it right across three different versions. Meh.

DoubleNegative wrote:
I think the notion of bolting a Zeiss lens natively to a Canon digital body is apparently lost on a lot of people. Sharpness is not everything. And if you don't care about the image qualities beyond that, what the Zeiss offers - then they're clearly not the lens for you. People used to these types of lenses are often very interested in the drawing of the lens, the bokeh characteristics, the tonality and transitions of OOF areas, micro-contrast, etc.

Comparing ANY L lens MF action to a Zeiss (or other MF lens for that matter) is just silly as there is no comparison. I have plenty of L lenses and they all exhibit some form of play in the ring (mostly seen when changing direction) and I got most of them new (so they're not "worn" or anything like that). Canon EF lenses are simply not designed for real MF use - it feels more like an afterthought to be totally honest. And I love my EF lenses, don't get me wrong. The 85L is an entirely different beast as well.

I'd also wager to say that the people complaining about these lenses being MF just aren't the demographic that Zeiss is pursuing in releasing these lenses. Landscape, portrait and studio shooters often prefer MF, for example. Surprise - these same people rarely use any automated modes; M is typically the rule, not the exception.

All true, but with one exception; Av mode is very, very popular with MFers (stop-down metering).

cogitech wrote:
All true, but with one exception; Av mode is very, very popular with MFers (stop-down metering).

Okay, I'll give you that - I'm guilty of that myself. Witness all the RF cameras that now have Av mode (Bessa, Ikon, etc.). I suspect it's more important in some situations to some people (e.g. street shooting) than others, but a valid point.

Honestly, it's the mode I use most on both digital and film bodies. Unless I'm either trying to prevent camera shake or freeze motion - I typically don't care what the shutter speed is. I do however care what the aperture is in almost every image.