I did see your tests and they even spurred some of my thinking on this subject. I didn't comment on the thread, but even in your pictures I see some of what I don't like about the Canon, which to my eye is over brightness and relatively large brightness differences in the blurred background. Bokeh is of course a pretty subjective thing. To me I like the blur created by the Zeiss lenses (both the 1.7 and what I have seen of the 1.4) more than I like the Canon 1.4. Still I think both pale in comparison to some of Paul's shots with the 58mm Rokkor. I was hoping that someone would convince me that the bokeh from the Zeiss 1.4 could be quite nice, but it looks like it is probably only alright. I am interested in Zeiss because later this year you should be able to pick up an N-mount version and have it adapted for autofocus by conurus (at least that is what their website says), and it seems likely to me that the Zeiss would then become the best autofocus 50mm option for Canon. The question for me then will be do I want the Zeiss with autofocus or the Rokkor or both. Hard decisions.
The lenses you are discussing are not a Contax N mount (AF) lenses. Only N mount Contax lenses can be converted with full AF and aperture control on EOS.
Although, they did make a Contax N version of the 50/1.4 Planar, but it didn't even occur to me that's what you were talking about until you mentioned Conurus and AF.
I think most of us read "CZ" and automatically assume C/Y mount unless otherwise specified, and when we discuss the other mount versions, we explicitly state "N" or "ZF". I think that's why people are chiming in about the 50/1.7 (never made in N mount) and I think they are mostly talking about the C/Y 50/1.4 Planar, although I may be mistaken.
I was under the impression that optically the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4's are the same for N mount and C/Y mount, but maybe I am wrong. On the Zeiss website the MTF graphs certainly look identical. That's why I didn't make a distinction between the mounts. If anyone know of a difference between these lenses with the two-mounts I would certainly like to hear about it. I also have not ruled out a C/Y version of the 50mm f/1.4, but the f/1.7 would probably be more attractive if I went that route. Thanks for your help.
Thanks for sharing your tests. I did find them useful, but they didn't really answer the bokeh question. Still I appreciate your effort in doing them and for sharing the results.
Best wishes,
Steve
You're welcome, Steve. Actually, that would be a good test to add
to my 50compare page. I just haven't been too concerned with bokeh
on these lenses, but if I can come up with a good, repeatable scene to shoot
that reveals bokeh differences, I'll take some bokeh comparison shots.
Leon Noel wrote:
Thanks Tim, your test confirms most of the sources I've found on the net regarding the CZ 1.7 vs 1.4 (even Zeiss's own database), unless focus was missed in the 1.4's shots, the 1.7 pretty much smokes its f1.4 brother for sharpness, from wide open to f4. And it's a few times cheaper too.
Interesting, Leon. It is not obvious to me that the 1.7 is much better than the 1.4
in sharpness, but certainly a case for it could be made. I think the focus
is accurate, as I tried many, many shots and took the best of each aperture.
It could still be off, though.
The Canon 50/1.8 II is the one that troubles me. My copy is lame
wide open, or else I've misfocused. I need to reshoot those.
At landscape apertures and distances, all 4 lenses are pretty much
indistinguishable on my 1.6 crop cameras.
hubsand wrote:
I'm working on a fast 50mm group test with the 1Ds III, but the CZ50/1.4 has long been a favourite of mine. It has typical Zeiss bokeh (ie, a little busy) but at f1.4 I've not used anything sharper overall, though I'm expecting the 50/1.2 L to come close. It does have something of a weakness for close range work: here a good Takumar 50/1.4 is better, but at distance, it's superb.
None of the 50mm lenses are are sharp wide open in the f1.0-f1.4 range as the best 85mm lenses, of course.
I second this opinion about the zeiss, the 1.4/50mm is pretty hard to beat when it comes do wide open performance. The newer 1.4/50 have 8 or 9 aperture blades, which may be regareded as an upgrade. People may experience sample variation with old Contax lenses, I would be careful to buy early sample of this lens
The ZF diaphragm upgrade is welcome but most of the new Cosina/Zeiss lenses seem to suffer from worse CA (all flavours) than the old-school versions. Many of those were troublesome, too, of course . . .
The c/y 50 1.4 I own was better than a 1.7 I owned and is on par with a latest version German Summicron everywhere but at f2. The 1.4 suffers from CA or sensor blooming wide open and a little at f2. But it's sharper stopped down than any other 50 I've tried (the summicron and the 1.4 are pretty similar, but one is a stop faster than the other and half the price).
Justin D wrote:
The c/y 50 1.4 I own was better than a 1.7 I owned and is on par with a latest version German Summicron everywhere but at f2. The 1.4 suffers from CA or sensor blooming wide open and a little at f2. But it's sharper stopped down than any other 50 I've tried (the summicron and the 1.4 are pretty similar, but one is a stop faster than the other and half the price).
Well, this is it. Many people dont think about the difference between sensor blooming and CA. I can not understand how a lens can suffer from sensor blooming.
hubsand wrote:
The ZF diaphragm upgrade is welcome but most of the new Cosina/Zeiss lenses seem to suffer from worse CA (all flavours) than the old-school versions. Many of those were troublesome, too, of course . . .
what means worse? any evidence for this. If you are bothered about CA you just could stick to the Canon EF and use DPPs correction tool to remove it.
Your shots with the Rokkor are certainly fantastic as well and have peaked my interest for this lens.
Best wishes,
Steve
Many thanks for your kind word Steve, yes it is certainly a very special lens with many virtues (I personally thank Cogitech for such a great discovery and his demonstration of the lens capabilities for all of us to be inspired).
But this thread is about CZ 1.4 and 1.7 so I guess I'll stick to that topic.
Tim, what I did was open shots of both lenses at same apetures from your tests, and toggle back and forth quickly between them, as far as my naked eyes can see, the 1.7 version is better in terms of sharpness, for all apertures tested.
Justin D wrote:
The c/y 50 1.4 I own was better than a 1.7 I owned
That was my experience as well. I had both lenses at the same time, compared them, and sold the 1.7 The 50/1.4 superiority is also supported by Zeiss' MTF charts.
The bokeh of the c/y 50/1.4, in my experience, isn't bad at all. The newer Zeiss ZF 50/1.4 is a touch better. Here is a sample image from the c/y 50/1.4 used wide open: http://boncratious.com/images/Zeiss-50-14-wideopen1.jpg
That bokeh looks simply awful - if thats what you get from the CZ1.4 I'll stick with my EF 1.4. What camera did you compare the 1.7 and 1.4 on - I can't imagine any more resolution is possible than that which I get with my 1.7 so I'm curious if the 1.4 can do better.
shirozina wrote:
What camera did you compare the 1.7 and 1.4 on - I can't imagine any more resolution is possible than that which I get with my 1.7 so I'm curious if the 1.4 can do better.
On a Canon 5D. It's easy to imagine more resolution than the c/y 50/1.7. Just look at the MTF's. They make it easy to imagine. The 1.7 is a fine lens and a great value. But the 1.4 is better in many ways and it accordingly costs more than the 1.7.
Lotusm50 wrote:
On a Canon 5D. It's easy to imagine more resolution than the c/y 50/1.7. Just look at the MTF's. They make it easy to imagine. The 1.7 is a fine lens and a great value. But the 1.4 is better in many ways and it accordingly costs more than the 1.7.
Lotusm50 wrote:
On a Canon 5D. It's easy to imagine more resolution than the c/y 50/1.7. Just look at the MTF's. They make it easy to imagine. The 1.7 is a fine lens and a great value. But the 1.4 is better in many ways and it accordingly costs more than the 1.7.
Hi Lotusm50,
When I look at the MTF charts from the Zeiss site I don't see much difference. They are very similar at f/5.6 and the 1.7 is a little better at 1.7 than the 1.4 is at 1.4, but that isn't too surprising. I don't see any clear evidence that the 1.4 has better MTFs, but maybe I am missing something.
Had a look at the MTF's (thanks Steve) - can't see any major resolution gains between them at 5.6. I'm even less convinced of the clear superiority of the 1.4 now - given that I've seen many other tests in the past which say the 1.7 is better. All academic to me - the 1.7 I have is superb on the 5D. Maybe when I upgrade to the 1Ds3 the extra resolution above 40lppmm of the 1.4 will matter but on the 5D's sensor - I don't think so.
