bobbytan wrote:
I am now left with my Planar 85mm/1.4 MM/German version ... which I will probably take with me to my grave! I have not seen a more beautiful lens than this. Having said that, I have not seen the 85mm/1.2 version ... that may well be a Bo Derek. The 85mm/1.4 is not the sharpest lens in the Zeiss stable, but I love the creamy-smooth color.
Yep, the Zeiss 85mm Planar is a jewel. I suspect redesigning the lens for sharper wide-open performance (not that it's exactly soft wide open) would also spoil its smooth character. I should use mine more often. I've hardly touched my film SLRs since getting the 10D (my rangefinder cameras are a different story) so I guess it's time to put a Contax-to-EOS adapter on the 85 and have at it!
daverk wrote:
Yep, the Zeiss 85mm Planar is a jewel. I suspect redesigning the lens for sharper wide-open performance (not that it's exactly soft wide open) would also spoil its smooth character.
-Dave-
You are not saying that they have actually redesigned it, are you ?
Darrell - I would suggest that you contact Zoerk to see if they have a mount for your Jena lenses. If it works, I think you will get pretty good images, as you are using only the center part of your lenses. Having said that, older lenses are not as good as the computer-designed modern lenses, and that is why the Distagon 21mm/2.8 is so good compared to the likes of the Distagon 28mm/2.0 and other older 35mm lenses.
Thanks, I have an adapter already and ran a few informal tests on my 1.3x crop camera. With the 80mm f2.8 CZJ lens, I shot a few portrait shots. I made the same shots with the Canon 100mm Macro f2.8 lens, a Canon 50mm f1.4, a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, and an Arsat 80mm (6x6 Pentacon-6 Russian lens). These are the lenses that I have that fall into the standard portrait focal length, and I shot them all at the same focal length (f4 I believe).
The Canon lenses were sharper and had better bokeh. While the CZJ lens had different color rendition than the Canon's it was similar in quality in my opinion. Suprisingly, the Arsat seemed to have the best color rendition. The Arsat are known to be a bit warm and I like a slightly warm portrait, so this is my opinion. I doubt the Arsat is the most accurate color-wise.
I didn't know if anyone else had done more detailed/controlled tests. In short, I didn't see enough difference to carry around and deal with manual focus lenses on a regular basis. On the other hand, if I knew I was shooting portraits, I would be willing to grab 1 of the CZJ or Arsat lenses and bring it along.
I also have a 45mm Tilt/Shift lens in this same mount. I would bring it along if I wanted to shoot Architechure digitally. The Canon equivelent is too pricey for the amount I need this lens.
dmccombs wrote:
I didn't know if anyone else had done more detailed/controlled tests. In short, I didn't see enough difference to carry around and deal with manual focus lenses on a regular basis.
Darrell
Individual cases would vary, and so would different lenses. The Distagon 25mm/2.8 could never hope to compete with say a Canon 24mm/2.8 but the Distagon 28mm/2.8 would blow the Canon 28mm/2.8 out of the water. The Zeiss 21mm/2.8, 28mm/2.8, 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.4 are all great lenses and better than the Canon equivalent IMO.
BTW, all the Canon macro lenses are superb. I have the Canon 50mm/2.5 which IMO is sharper than the Canon 50mm/1.4. The 180mm/3.5 macro is even better, and I am hoping I would own one some day. When it comes to long prime lenses i.e. 300mm and up, Canon is a class act.
The Contax Carl Zeiss lens have been known to be great lenses particularly from the wide angle to their 300mm f/2.8; this is where Contax Carl Zeiss lens stop with their long telephoto lenses. They do make longer lenses such as the 500mm but it is a mirror lens. However, as BobbyTan mentioned anything longer than 300mm Canon L telephoto lens is as good as it gets. Interestingly though the price for the Contax Carl Zeiss 300mm f/2.8 Manual focus lens is $13,000 USD plus while the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L lens with IS is ONLY $3,899.95 USD. All the prices came from B&H store. I guess we will never going to see a test comparison between the Contax Carl Zeiss 300mm f/2.8 versus the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS. For those that own the Contax Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 lens, how impressive is this lens and have any one tested this lens on a 1Ds and compare it with other brands? I thought about buying this lens but I wonder if it is worth it. As you know, all the things that we could read about the lens but we will never know if we will personally like the lens until we have it in our hand. This is rather an expensive experience. Does anyone know a place that you could rent the Contax Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8? I just got into Canon Digital SLR and I am excited to test some of my Zeiss lenses.
PhotoCinematic wrote:
anything longer than 300mm Canon L telephoto lens is as good as it gets.
Who are making the long guns ( > 300 ) other than Canon ? Lack of competition shouldn't be confused with superiority.
Interestingly though the price for the Contax Carl Zeiss 300mm f/2.8 Manual focus lens is $13,000 USD plus while the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L lens with IS is ONLY $3,899.95 USD.
What is interesting about it ?
Because of the prohibitive price, we are not going to see the real comparison around here on the web ( please, if someone can ).
The design for the long lens is actually relatively simple comparing to the wide angle's because the beam path are nicely more parallel to the axis. I do not think Canon has magic recipe in their long lens design. The Zeiss 300 is NOT being manufactured. It is a Custom-order item. The Canon 300 is an off-the-shelf item. The money goes to the labor-intensive alignments.
Canon, bless them, shows how to achieve critical mass in manufacturing for top-quality super-teles. Bet they make good money, too.
The CZ 300/2.8 for RTS is made-to-order in Germany. It has all the signs of a prestige product, to say "Of course we can build that". Sure as hell isn't priced to sell, or to significantly affect the company's bottom line. I would never buy one, even if they threw in a free lunch. Besides the spine-stiffening price, I don't like the MTF. Note that CZ has a longer tele, namely the 400/4. This is a new design, looks like killer performance, and is priced to move. Unfortunately, it's built on the N mount, Kyocera's monumental failure.
For me, the jaw-dropping (in every way) optic from Zeiss is the Tele-Superachromat 300/2.8. As a Hassy shooter, you're all set to add this baby to your kit... for only $25000! Color aberration is so well controlled that there is no focus correction for infrared. The MTF curves are even more amazing given the 6x6 image circle.
Back to Earth, there are several Canon users of the CZ Distagon 21mm in this forum. It is worth every penny, if you can accept the manual diaphragm, and the weight. Pardon the nasty color balance, but here is the performance on film, scanned at 4000 dpi: http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/wide1.jpg http://patternassociates.com/rico/d30/misc/wide7.jpg
The crops are 1x, unsharpened, with dust retained to compare against image detail. With D21 mounted on Canon D30:
Pondria wrote:
Thanks ! I may need the meter anyway. So, I should consider it.
I have been looking around for a new one myself; my L-508 is just too big for some uses. I like incident measuring, though can live with reflected..
Anyway, great candidate is the Gossen Digisix; might actually be *too* small
Down to 0 EV, incident/reflected, ordinary batteries and so so tiny. And has a analog scale of sorts. And not too expensive; only $129 at B&H. I may have found my baby...
Man, that Pocket Spot Meter is really cool. Anyone knows what it sells for? Not that I need it, even though my 10D does not have spot metering, but it would be so cool just to have one to play with! I had the Sekonic L-308-IIB or whatever and I thought that was pretty nice. I sold that to a guy in The Netherlands.
BTW, the 20D is supposed to have a viewfinder that is more manual-focus-friendly, and that could mean easier focussing with our Zeiss lenses - yay!
bobbytan wrote:
BTW, the 20D is supposed to have a viewfinder that is more manual-focus-friendly, and that could mean easier focussing with our Zeiss lenses - yay!
I'm interested. Great NEws. However, I have my reservation until I see the real experiences.
daverk wrote:
Actually Zeiss did tweak it a little for the Contax N series autofocus cameras. But they didn't change its basic character.
-Dave-
OK, Good. I got an manual focus version. Posted the report in another thread. The manual focus wide open is very challenging even with the home-made Split screen.
Even with the big and bright full frame film camera viewfinder, critical focus with a wide angle lens like a 24mm is a big challenge. With a 1.6 X crop factor, it is always impossible .
I have tried MF with my D60 and 20f2.8, and other fast prime lenses like 50f1.4 or f1.8, 85f1.2 or f1.8. My score is no better than 50% to get very good focus. 1 out of 5 may be tack sharp, 1 may be good, 1 useable, the other 2 are useless. I think I do a bit better with my new 1D Mk2 on MF success but it is still too early to tell.
I love Zeiss lenses, even more than Leica lenses. I am surprised that the test results of yours. My speculation is that the results may be more affected by focusing accuracy than actual sharpness. But, I have been having the same problem and that is why I always do 5 tests when focusing accuracy may be a problem. whether AF or MF, I think we may have to pick the 'best' of the 5 shots as representative what the lens is capable of.
Anyway, Pondria, thank you for spending the time to do the test and post the results. Appreciated that.
Stephen,
For 28/2.8, due to the deep DOF, relying the distance and DOF scale on the barrele worked great for me. For the 85/1.4, the focus is so critical that I'm struggling. It was more than 20 years ago that I used the split screen Anyway, as you mentioned, I took multiple shots ( kind of focus bracketing ) for the 85/1.4 test. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/122857
Who are making the long guns ( > 300 ) other than Canon ? Lack of competition shouldn't be confused with superiority.
.
Anyway, as you mentioned, I took multiple shots ( kind of focus bracketing ) for the 85/1.4 test.