patotts wrote:
I've shot Zeiss glass on Leica M mount and on Sony E mount, but never tried it on R mount. Which is the best way to do it? I only have RF glass for my R5, so I'd need an adapter of some sort. Any guidance here?
The easiest route is to get the native EF mount (which Zeiss calls "ZE") and use one of Canon's EF to RF adapters. Then you get auto aperture and full EXIF. The ZE lenses came in two series: the original ones, which have cylindrical barrels and a chrome ring at the front, now sold as "Classic" although not so marked; and the current "Milvus" series with the blue gasket and trumpet shape.
Results with lenses intended for Leica M are typically poor on any digital camera other than Leica M.
patotts wrote:
I've shot Zeiss glass on Leica M mount and on Sony E mount, but never tried it on R mount. Which is the best way to do it? I only have RF glass for my R5, so I'd need an adapter of some sort. Any guidance here?
Do you currently have Zeiss lenses and in what mount? If it's M-mount then the procedure is the same as with Sony: get an M-RF adapter. But as Melcat notes below, and as you may already know, there may be image quality degradation due to the R5's sensor stack thickness relative to what would be possible on a digital Leica M camera.
Most of the Zeiss ZM lenses are now fairly old and were not designed with digital in mind. Depending on the lens, you may run into edge color shift that would require correction in post in addition to peripheral detail smearing, which is not correctable in post and generally requires stopping down to f/8-11 to minimize. It will also be very subject/scene dependent. For example, it might not even be a factor for a wide open portrait but could be for a landscape scene at infinity. Given your use of ZM on Sony, you're likely already familiar with this.
If you're starting fresh again with Zeiss on RF, then I agree with melcat. The only downside of the ZE lenses, IMO, is size and weight compared to ZM and some of the 'vintage' Contax SLR mount Zeiss lenses. But there should be no optical degradation compared to use on EF mount cameras.
I have Zeiss classic lenses in 4 focal lengths, from 21mm to 100mm. The 35mm is the f/2.8. The 50mm is the f/1.4. I have shot them on multiple Canon bodies over the years. My principal body is now the 5D SR.
For a while I used the Zeiss glass mainly for seascapes, which is my most-often subject, and was extremely happy with the results. Nothing I had from Canon would compete with the Zeiss for rendering cloud detail. Zeiss micro-contrast translated into a better subjective impression of clouds actually floating, instead of just there. Rendition of water highlights was similar. I loved using those lenses.
But when Canon upgraded its TSE line, and added the 135mm, those displaced the Zeiss. Seascapes are an ideal application for tilts and shifts. My image style has always been everything sharp, from the sand on the beach to the rigging on the sailboat on the horizon. Only TSEs can deliver that. And the TSEs are also killer sharp. If I could add Zeiss micro-contrast to the TSEs, that would be heaven.
To those who say the impression of Zeiss image quality is confirmation bias, maybe it is for them. But not for me. Sometimes I do a ramble through my image archives, not thinking at all about what lenses made which images. Time and again I pause over an image because it seems so strikingly present, and it turns out to be a Zeiss image. They remain a small minority among the images I have, and a small minority among the images I sell. But my Zeiss images remain disproportionate in their ability to focus my attention with pure technical quality. I am looking forward to renewing their use as an experiment, after I get an R5 body. I especially wonder about the ability of R5 focus assistance to facilitate indoor use of the 21mm.
My favorite ZE lenses would be the 50 and 100 Makros and I would guess the 135mm, but I am not a "believer" in Zeiss as the "B-all and end all" of optics, much of it is clever marketing and high prices which leads to buyer justification. It's not that they are not good lenses, but no more special than what the Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Sony etc etc. are producing these days and they do not have AF which is also a disadvantage for most of us. I would have bought the 18mm ZE, but as is usual for prime ultrawides, it made little economic sense as the 16-35mm Canon was cheaper and very good. The new Canon 16mm is a step in the right direction for ultrawides, being signifcantly smaller and cheaper than the zooms.
I used to use Zeiss for 50mm ... until I saw what the Canon RF 50mm 1.2 offered. It's as good, but even better since there's auto focus.
For 135mm, I still think the Zeiss is the best optically, but think Canon's 135mm is near equal for how portraits look.
But the Zeiss lenses are really enjoyable. There's the older Zeiss Flektogon 50mm I wouldn't mind owning again just for nostalgia, or even the 35mm Flektogon which I haven't actually used yet.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
Which Zeiss 50? They offered a couple of them.
For years I had the Zeiss ZE 50 f/2 Makro Planar stuck on one of my bodies. Seriously versatile lens.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
Which Zeiss 50? They offered a couple of them.
For years I had the Zeiss ZE 50 f/2 Makro Planar stuck on one of my bodies. Seriously versatile lens
The Zeiss 50mm Flektogon. It was an amazing lens. The images were life-like, as close to as sharp as anything I've seen other photographers post for redwood photos. Out of camera the photos were slightly cool but easy to tweak to preference.
I think that lens was a little darker than some I've used for the same f-stop.
Apparently some folks mount tilt or shift adapters to that particular Flektogon, and I thought about trying that combo.Above the sharpness, the lens gave a very lovely color and feel to the photos
rscheffler wrote:
Do you currently have Zeiss lenses and in what mount? If it's M-mount then the procedure is the same as with Sony: get an M-RF adapter. But as Melcat notes below, and as you may already know, there may be image quality degradation due to the R5's sensor stack thickness relative to what would be possible on a digital Leica M camera.
Most of the Zeiss ZM lenses are now fairly old and were not designed with digital in mind. Depending on the lens, you may run into edge color shift that would require correction in post in addition to peripheral detail smearing, which is not correctable in post and generally requires stopping down to f/8-11 to minimize. It will also be very subject/scene dependent. For example, it might not even be a factor for a wide open portrait but could be for a landscape scene at infinity. Given your use of ZM on Sony, you're likely already familiar with this.
If you're starting fresh again with Zeiss on RF, then I agree with melcat. The only downside of the ZE lenses, IMO, is size and weight compared to ZM and some of the 'vintage' Contax SLR mount Zeiss lenses. But there should be no optical degradation compared to use on EF mount cameras.
I had very poor results with M lenses adapted to RF – until it was pointed out to me the problem was the typical adapter is not usually designed to hit infinity hard stop – most are all too short by varying degrees. This causes huge problems with edge and corner performance, especially for lenses with floating elements like the 35/50 Lux and 35/50 APOs from both Leica and Voigtlander.
Once the issue was pointed out to me, I used my Kipon M to RF macro adapter as a makeshift shim – that is, when I mount a lens, I put it to the infinity hard stop, then I use the helicoid/macro ring on the adapter to achieve infinity focus wide open. That essentially gives me a perfect-length adapter with which to shoot anything with SL2-like performance. The IQ is so much better this way, I would go so far as to put it equal to the SL2. Basically, the thicker sensor stack is almost a non-issue. The biggest thing that gives M cameras the advantage: their sensor microlenses are designed to handle the steep ray angles from M normal to wide-angle lenses.
The three ways to get SL2-level performance with M lenses on other platforms:
1. Find an adapter that gives you true infinity at the hard stop
2. Shim your adapter to get infinity at the hard stop
3. Use a macro/helicoid adapter to get infinity at the hard stop
4. Additional IQ boost: Use a Sony A7-variant and get a thin-sensor modification performed – or use another platform with a thin sensor stack like the Z7.
Once you've done one of the three things above, you can use a resource like Leica Forum to find which M lenses work best on the SL/SL2/SL2-S and use that as your guide for M lenses. If they don't work great on the SL2, then don't expect great results on another platform.
I found that the TTArtisans M to RF adapter gives perfect infinity at the hard stop. However the same brand for M to GFX is too short, as is the Novoflex. So it's a bit of trial and error if you're looking to find something with zero work involved and don't want to pay more for the macro adapters.
I snagged a Zeiss ZE 85mm 1.4 Planar at a bargain price locally and agree, it has that nice '3d' pop that Zeiss is known about. Wished I grabbed the ZE 21mm from the seller but I was too late
Not often said is the ease of post processing with the CZ optics. They give you such a solid foundation out of camera that the lens leads you along to the final form you want. They simply respond better to inputs.
I agree with most posts here: I love Zeiss lenses!
I have used both ZF/ZF.2 and ZE models of the Classic line-up, but have gotten rid of all the Nikon mount, and now only have the ZE to use on Canon and Sony (adapters, such as MC-11, are much better with ZE mount).
My current ZE line-up: 25/2, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4
I also have the full Loxia line-up for Sony: 21/2.8, 25/2.4, 35/2, 50/2, 85/2.4
Currently, I estimate 60-70% of my shooting is with MF lenses, and the majority of those are Zeiss branded.
***************************
In addition, I have the Batis 18/2.8 for Sony, and have hopes to add the Batis 40, and maybe the Batis 25
I also agree there is more than a passing resemblance between the Zeiss lenses produced by Cosina and the CV lenses produced by the same. I currently enjoy the CV 15/4.5 III E and 40/1.2E.
I love many Canon EF lenses, as well as the few RF I've been able to try. I currently own the RF 24-105L (best of Canon's iterations of these focal lengths), but was amazed by the new RF 50/1.2L (best current 50, IMO). I hope to get more RF, but currently frequently use EF 24-70/2.8L II, EF 16-35/4L IS, 100/2.8L IS macro, and even the EF 50/1.2L. Although seldom used lately, my TS-E 17L and 24LII are prizes of my collection. Most are used on Sony platform via MC-11, but occasionally EF and RF.
95% of the time I'm using either my 24-70, or 100-400. They're damn good lenses, and aside from occasionally flipping on or off stabilization on the 100-400, I generally have a forgettable haptic experience using them.
I'll contrast that with the very tactile experience using my ZE prime. They feel good, from the metal housing to the super dampened and very precise focus movement. I think I have more fun when I'm actually taking the photo with the Zeiss lenses... and as a hobbyist who does this for love, this is a pretty powerful thing.
The colors are probably a little bit better right out of the gate with the ZEs, though that is as others have stated upthread something which can be tweaked. Sharpness is really not something I am too worried about as any of my lenses are so capable that most any error is operator induced. Flexibility... well, the Canon zooms are in another league. But when it comes to just making it fun, I do like those classic ZEs.
philip_pj wrote:
Not often said is the ease of post processing with the CZ optics. They give you such a solid foundation out of camera that the lens leads you along to the final form you want. They simply respond better to inputs.
So, which alternative L Canon lenses have you used as your point of comparison for this "ease of processing" lens-to-lens comparison?
Can you quantify and contrast the specific manner in which their ability to "lead you along to the final form you want" is manifested?
In what specific ways do they "respond better to inputs," and to what "inputs" do you refer here?
G Dan Einstein wrote: So, which alternative L Canon lenses have you used as your point of comparison for this "ease of processing" lens-to-lens comparison?
Can you quantify and contrast the specific manner in which their ability to "lead you along to the final form you want" is manifested?
In what specific ways do they "respond better to inputs," and to what "inputs" do you refer here?
Someone who has never used a single Zeiss lens and has no clue about any Zeiss lens has questions for Zeiss lens users.
Robin Smith wrote:
My Sigma 85 mm f1.4 EX looked like that too. Also a nice lens. It's what a good 85mm portrait lens should look like. Nothing unique to Zeiss.
You are right. No difference at all between lenses across brands. Likewise no difference in cars, or hotels, or detergents. They are all the same. Nothing unique about Four Seasons, it is just like Motel 6. Nothing unique about traveling First Class on a long-haul flight. You will be hard pressed to see what is unique about it compared to cattle class. Everything in the world is same-same. "Unique" is a figment of some people's overactive imagination.
I've been following this thread, hoping to see an example of the Unique look myself. I am planning to buy a 35mm f/1.4 lens soon, as I think it just comes down to bright lenses that are 40mm or wider, and sharp wide open, to get that 3D pop. And maybe its easier with a Zeiss or Leica, I don't really know.
Here is an example of 3D pop someone posted on the Nikon forum recently. It was with a Nikon 28mm f/1.4. I love that look .. the dog in front seems to pop out of the screen .. to my eyes. On page 8, the photo of 2 dogs playing in a river, posted by user anitrone
