p.2 #1 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
The drawing style of the Rokkor 58/1.2 is said to be similar in the 50/1.4(as seboh says)I'm not sure about mirror clearance though.
And I agree that f2 is not that fast for me either, it limits my DOF choices too much.
The Rokkor 28/2 is will liked and when converted does not hit the mirror.
p.2 #2 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
my sigma 50/1.4 was not very consistent with autofocus, and it's rather large. I didn't really care for the action of the focus ring. ended up selling it.
my ze2/35 has serious vignetting wide open, far more than I expected (but I like it).
the samyang/rokinon 35/1.4 is really big, doesn't have the 'built like a tank' feel to it, but it is a pleasure to use anyway.
I just started to play with my c/y 50/1.7 (on 5d with 'S' focus screen). I wish it had a shorter minimum focus, but I'm starting to like it more and more. love the colors from it, but I haven't used any of the other zeiss 50s, so I cant compare them.
Oct 29, 2012 at 04:11 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
It sounds like what you want for the ideal normal lens will be the new high level Zeiss 55 f/1.4. It will be available next year and only set you back $3,000 or so . Really there is no ultimate normal lens yet. They are many very good ones, but none that meet you ideal definition.
I can comment on the ZE 35mm f/1.4. I think my is tremendous and does meet your ideal qualities in a 35. You could be picky about the sharpness wide open (it has some spherical aberrations which soften the image a little, but I like that for portraits), and it has a bit of field curvature for stopped downed landscapes, but it is an excellent all around lens, with fantastic bokeh. I can recommend it highly.
bbvaj wrote:
Thanks a lot for the inputs guys... They have been very useful. The wide and long end seem to be fine. Normal is kind of up in the air...
An ideal 50 would be fast (1.4 or faster) for night/low light walk around. great for portraits (skin tone, rendering, bokeh) at all distances wide open. It would also be great as a landscape/general lens stopped down to f/8.
Rokkor 58/1.2 -> Not comfortable with mirror hitting the lens/altering the lens by filing
C/Y 50s 1.4, 1.7 -> more or less same as the rokkor
ZE 50P -> Not great in close range
ZE 50MP -> f/2 kind of slow
leica 50/2 -> f/2 kind of slow
That leaves me with some more remote options Voigt 58/1.4, Nikon AIS 50/1.2 in MF glass
Also whats your take on Sigma 50/1.4 or canon 50L. Can these come any close to the others? If i get these i would care about the auto focus precision because i would not want to manual focus these on 5DIII... (All AF lenses are terrible for doing MF)
Another thought was to skip 28 and 50, and go with ZE35/ZE100. What are your thoughts on ZE 35/1.4 . Is it good enough to take that role? pop/unique drawing and signature? portrait bokeh? corner to corner resolution at f/8 for landscapes ? i know its fast enough for low light walk around... Any drawbacks with this one??
If all else fails. I will go with ZE 50MP and compromise on aperture ...Show more →
p.2 #4 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
once again thanks a lot for the inputs guys... learnt a lot, reading up about 35/1.4 on the older threads today... Alt forum sure feels like one of the most friendly and helpful forum here on FM
BTW, Can anyone post a sample from 35/1.4 showing field curvature.. I understood what it is, but want to see a sample which demonstrates it well...
p.2 #6 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
LightShow wrote:
The drawing style of the Rokkor 58/1.2 is said to be similar in the 50/1.4(as seboh says)I'm not sure about mirror clearance though.
And I agree that f2 is not that fast for me either, it limits my DOF choices too much.
The Rokkor 28/2 is will liked and when converted does not hit the mirror.
the rokkor MC PG 50/1.4 (later rokkor 50/1.4 lenses have a different design and draw) has a very similar drawing style to the rokkor 58/1.2 and, according to the 3 people i've heard from, does not have any mirror clearance issues on canon FF cameras (i don't shoot canon myself). the main differences between the two lenses in drawing are that the 50 is sharper with better contrast at wide apertures, has slighty harsher (but similar looking) bokeh wide open, and has hexagonal bokeh instead of octagonal stopped down. the 50/1.4 is also a much more difficult conversion due to the design of the mount internals. expect a conversion to canon to run you at least 3x the cost of the lens (it's a much cheaper lens than the 58/1.2 though). i would strongly advise against any attempts to convert it yourself if you don't at least have a metal lathe.
i also quite like the rokkor 28/2, but would definitely choose the zeiss 35/1.4 over it. i would have no trouble living with just the c/y 35/1.4 and rokkor 58/1.2 on FF and no other lenses.
you might look at whether you like the c/y or ZE 35/1.4 better. the older zeiss is much smaller and actually seems to have more pop wide open (at least that seems to be the forums consensus). the newer zeiss has smoother bokeh in the corners and seems to perform better in the corners stopped down, though neither is really a slouch.
p.2 #7 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Ahh, just the MC PG, got it, Good to know before I buy one next year.
I've been using my OM 21/3.5 & 50/1.4(both Multi-Coated) for low light shots lately, they seem to be able to handle the streetlights within the frame better than most of my other lenses(not counting my EF L's).
p.2 #8 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Steve Spencer wrote:
It sounds like what you want for the ideal normal lens will be the new high level Zeiss 55 f/1.4. It will be available next year and only set you back $3,000 or so . Really there is no ultimate normal lens yet. They are many very good ones, but none that meet you ideal definition.
I can comment on the ZE 35mm f/1.4. I think my is tremendous and does meet your ideal qualities in a 35. You could be picky about the sharpness wide open (it has some spherical aberrations which soften the image a little, but I like that for portraits), and it has a bit of field curvature for stopped downed landscapes, but it is an excellent all around lens, with fantastic bokeh. I can recommend it highly.
My thoughts mirror Steve's exactly on ZE 35 f:1.4. As to going with a 35 and a 100, I used to go out with 35 and 85. ZE 85P has weaknesses the 100MP doesn't have, but it also has tons of character, like 50P. I was really happy with 35/85 as a small kit.
p.2 #9 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
Once again, Thanks a lot for the help guys... I know these kind of questions get very repetitive...
C/Y 28/2.8, both 35/1.4s, both 100/2s, ZE 50MP and also 50P all look kind of very interesting for me... Trying to think what might be a better fit for me... Do not think I can go wrong with any of the combination as long as i learn their strengths and weaknesses...
One combo is 28/2.8, 50P and 100MP. In this one 50P will be for mid to full portraits and some distant landscapes. 100MP for close up use and for portraits/landscapes where i desire more seperation. And 28/2.8 for some dramatic compositions both close up and distant.
Another one is 28/2.8, 50MP and 100P
Yet another combo is one of the 35/1.4 and 100MP
Just like a separate Reviews section on FM, if we can create another section with some great comparison threads here like 50MP vs 50P, 35/2 vs 35/1.4s, 100MP vs 100P vs 135L vs 85 1.2L kind of stuff all into one place, then i think that will be very useful. Rather than creating new threads there we should just nominate some/part of some very nice threads to be placed there with appropriately modified title and content so that they are easily searchable and readable. Sometimes the problem here is some of these great and useful discussions are lost and burried deep down in some 700-800+ page threads which makes it almost impossible for someone to dig through. For an average person to dig through 700+ page thread reading most of the posts can take a few months.
I believe doing this will be more helpful to the knowledge seekers as well as the people who are helping, reducing the need for repetition... I really did a lot of searching and reading before i posted this one... but still there is a lot more i found and learnt after posting this... some of the information is just difficult to dig out here...
p.2 #10 · Alt glass wide/normal/medTele for Canon EOS
bbvaj, if you do go with, say, 50MP, then you could consider the newly announced 135mm tele over the 100MP. It would give you a better focal length spread with your 50mm, and you don't need 2 MP lenses for close-up work. As it has not yet been released, I cannot comment on quality, but the last 3 releases (35 f:1.4, 25 f:2.0, 15mm f:2.8), as well as the existence of significant Canon competition lead me to believe that this new lens will very probably not disappoint.
. Really there is no ultimate normal lens yet. They are many very good ones, but none that meet you ideal definition.