I'm looking at 85mm alternatives to the canon 85mm's (in particular, the 85L). How does the Carl Zeiss Planar T* 85/1.4 (Contax mount) compare to the Canon 85/1.2L (setting AF aside)?
I think the majority would just opt for the L (or a considerably cheaper alternative, if money was an issue).
The Zeiss is neither a huge bargain compared to the L, nor does it outperform the L, so the advantages are few. Sure, it is a bit cheaper, but not in a way that makes it really attractive.
Unless, of course, you just have to have that Zeiss "look", which includes significantly different colour (bluey greens, but better reds, IMHO) and busier bokeh.
well, the 85L is 1500USD, while a contax mount 85mm planar is 500USD usually on ebay... that's a grand of savings. I was wondering about performance, but I guess you're right, the 85mm/1.8 might be more worth while.
Saad Syed wrote:
well, the 85L is 1500USD, while a contax mount 85mm planar is 500USD usually on ebay... that's a grand of savings. I was wondering about performance, but I guess you're right, the 85mm/1.8 might be more worth while.
See, I was thinking more along the lines of a used 85L for $1000 and an EX condition 85/1.4 for $750 (which is what I sold one for). Unfortunately, there aren't too many "amazing deals" on 85s out there, unless you include some of the Russian lenses, which are certainly worth a look for something very different. The Zeiss 85/2.8 is supposed to be a pretty terrific little lens for the price, but the speed isn't there. I stick with my EF 85/1.8 for now, because it never fails to get terrific shots for my wife and I, but I often think about trying one of the Russians.
Oh, a lot of people seem to love the manual focus Nikkor 85/1.8, which is more affordable. But then again, not a crazy bargain, especially when compared to the EF 85/1.8
The only 85mm that can compete with 85L is the Contax 85/1.2 which is expensive and lack of AF. In some test, the 85L even shows less aberrations than Contax. I'd say the 85L is a bargain in terms of performance.
Also www.photozone.de tests both (85/1.4 in question being the modern ZF version).
Personally, while AF on the 85L II sounds attractive, there are cheaper options out there, much cheaper that are just as sharp if not sharper with less CA, better manual focus and lacking Canon's idea of what red and green are.
If they were all close and the 85 II costs roughly the same, AF would swing it, but for the premium involved (app. $1600) ...you could get a CZ, ZF or Nikkor 85/1.4 AND a EF 85/1.8.
I have both the CZ 85/1.4 and the Canon 85/1.8. I don't think I'm really missing anything in the 85LII... I also got the Zeiss for about $500, so cost was also way lower for me.
Can anyone show me examples of how Canon lenses have bad reds or greens? I have never seen this. I have seen plenty of examples of various post-processing applications messing up colours, but I've not noticed lenses doing it. Does DPP take lens type into account when processing colour?
Can anyone show me examples of how Canon lenses have bad reds or greens? I have never seen this. I have seen plenty of examples of various post-processing applications messing up colours, but I've not noticed lenses doing it. Does DPP take lens type into account when processing colour?
I don't know why the colours can be so different (it's obviously in the glass and/or coatings) but I have seen direct evidence of it. Just like Zeiss colour can be so different from Leica or Zuiko or Pentax, for instance. Many of us mention these types of things when comparing lenses.
The most obvious display of bad Canon reds that I've seen was in a 100mm lens comparison that somebody linked too from here once. It compared the Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM to the Nikkor 105/2.5, to a couple other 100s. the Canon's reds were very obviously bad compared to all others. I'll see if I can find it.
Some may like the over-the-top reds on the Canon (including KR ) but not me. (Shite, even the black mustache looks red.) The Canon sensors have enough trouble with normal reds, so why throw that dayglow red at them? Scroll all the way down and see how crappy the greens are, too.
It is personal preference, so nobody is right or wrong here. I'd rather jack up the reds or greens after the shoot, if I want the KR look.
Shoot the Planar against the L and I think you'll find something quite similar.
People/magazine reviewers (arrgh) have remarked that Canon sensors are prone to over-the top reds and too bright greens.
However, it is not the sensor alone. It appears to be a firmware trigger, maybe to up contrast or or perceived 'brilliance' , who knows, that ONLY occurs when an EF lens is attached.
It comes across in RAW's process with CS3 and DPP and in Jpegs - so it is an in-camera 'issue'.
Shooting the same red and/or green-heavy scene with an EF lens and then a Zeiss or Leica (as an example) glass and the difference is startling. That being said, it would be interesting to see what a Canon lens delivers on a non-Canon body.
Different strokes for different folks, but give me a capture that as best resembles the scene and let me do what I want with it.
As for F1.4 vs F1.2 - it is up to you what that small difference is worth in $$$ terms.
Curious how the top-of-the-range Canon 85mm f1.2 always seems to get compared to the mid-range Contax 85mm f1.4, when really the Contax 85mm f1.2 should obviously be the comparison lens; ie. the best each company could produce.
The mid-range Contax f1.4 should more fairly be compared to the mid-range Canon f1.8, whence it will of course slaughter the plastic little travesty like the cheap Christmas turkey it is (cue Dr.Evil type laughter).
The new MKII Canon f1.2 does quite well against the Zeiss, but it still has that harsh Canon look, rather than the beautifully smooth feel of the Contax.
As for Canon colours, As a nature photographer I do get a bit fed up with the hideous Canon green (far to sickly and dayglow-yellow). I often have to drop the yellow channel by 15-20 points in PS.
A small example is in the background of my avatar. Look here at eow_1's shot for immediate comparison.
Did no-one here ever shoot Canon on neutral slide film, such as Provia? I just wondered if the vile green used to show up then as well, because even on zany Velvia the Zeiss lenses always looked pretty natural.
I've only used Canon digital bodies, as I still have my Contaxes so I have no comparison.
Well, another lens that is close in focal length to these is the Carl Zeiss planar 80/2.8. I don't know if it can be used on canon bodies as everywhere I look, it's attached to a Hasselblad. But the results on flickr are jaw dropping.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Canon's 85/1.8 is the best deal out there. Full auto, great IQ, great price. As a *cheap Canon prime* it doesn't get any better.
It has become among my most used and favorite lenses. In fact, I was reviewing some older images the other day from a shoot and a few clearly stood out with regard to color, sharpness, Bokeh, etc. I thought to myself, thats got to be from one of my Zeiss lenses having forgotton what I had shot with. A quick look at the Exif data showed that it was actually my Canon 85 1.8 shot at F2.5.
Now, why can't Canon make a few "bargain" wide angle lenses which perform like this 85 1.8?
deshojo wrote:
Curious how the top-of-the-range Canon 85mm f1.2 always seems to get compared to the mid-range Contax 85mm f1.4, when really the Contax 85mm f1.2 should obviously be the comparison lens; ie. the best each company could produce.
The mid-range Contax f1.4 should more fairly be compared to the mid-range Canon f1.8, whence it will of course slaughter the plastic little travesty like the cheap Christmas turkey it is (cue Dr.Evil type laughter).
The new MKII Canon f1.2 does quite well against the Zeiss, but it still has that harsh Canon look, rather than the beautifully smooth feel of the Contax.
As for Canon colours, As a nature photographer I do get a bit fed up with the hideous Canon green (far to sickly and dayglow-yellow). I often have to drop the yellow channel by 15-20 points in PS.
A small example is in the background of my avatar. Look here at eow_1's shot for immediate comparison.
Did no-one here ever shoot Canon on neutral slide film, such as Provia? I just wondered if the vile green used to show up then as well, because even on zany Velvia the Zeiss lenses always looked pretty natural.
I've only used Canon digital bodies, as I still have my Contaxes so I have no comparison....Show more →
deshojo wrote:
The mid-range Contax f1.4 should more fairly be compared to the mid-range Canon f1.8, whence it will of course slaughter the plastic little travesty like the cheap Christmas turkey
I would put my sample of the Canon 1.8 up against the Cantax 1.4 any day. I did so against a Leica 90mm Elmarit R and the Leica surprisingly was outlassed by my cheap Christmas turkey of a lens. Color rendition was the same, the Canon was sharper with better Bokeh. The two areas the Leica was obviously better was in distortion and of course build. I'm sure against the Contax, the Contax would have more contrast and punchier color but loose out in the creamy Bokeh department and actual resolution. A good sample of the Canon 85 1.8 is a very fine lens.
) but not me. (Shite, even the black mustache looks red.) The Canon sensors have enough trouble with normal reds, so why throw that dayglow red at them? Scroll all the way down and see how crappy the greens are, too.