But these are not a good test for bokeh: you have a bokeh friendly background. This is like flowers: pretty much the worst of bokeh lenses will look good when pointed at flowers.
The way I understand it, the Contax N version is the same as the C/Y version, with autofocus added, and probably internal reflection and/or coating improvements. But I have no solid proof for this, we need a side-by-side between the N and the C/Y to confirm.
The most impressive thing about this lens is I simply can't get it to color-fringe at all under virtually any circumstances. No CA at f/1.4, not even in out of focus areas (no lateral CA).
At f/1.4 it seems slightly soft, but the resolution is still right up there, and it still outresolved my 1Ds mkI's sensor.
It still does not dethrone the Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8 as the sharpest optic in the N line-up. It is a solid second place. (I am referring to absolute sharpness here. If you account for the difficulty of making the lens the 17-35 is the best in the N line-up in many people's minds.)
As always, AF is very accurate. We are the leader in focus accuracy, and we know what we are doing.
The bokeh is "bad" in the technical sense (overcorrected spherical abberation), but I think this flaw is exaggerated. The out of focus areas have a very crisp rendition which is very appealing.
If one of you comes to Vancouver, and could bring along a C/Y 50/1.4, my wish is to side-by-side the two to confirm if they have identical optical designs. Also, I would like to do an AF/focus confirmation chips/split focusing screen comparison and hopefully be able to prove once and for all that our AF gives you the most accurate result of them all.
Well, as soon as I can get my N 50mm converted, I can do a comparison between the N 50, the c/y 50/1.4, the ZF 50/1.4 and the ZF 50/2.0 MP.
conurus is correct in his description of the differences between the Zeiss N and c/y 50's -- essentially the same optical design with improvements in barrel design to reduce internal reflections and coating improvements. You'll see reduced flare, veiling flare, ghosting and other effects or contrast losses due to light bouncing around in places you don't need it.
The only thing that I wonder about is why Zeiss didn't use the 9-bladed aperture that it used in the N 85/1.4 in the N 50/1.4 instead of the 5 bladed one.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The only thing that I wonder about is why Zeiss didn't use the 9-bladed aperture that it used in the N 85/1.4 in the N 50/1.4 instead of the 5 bladed one.
This is a totally wild guess, but maybe Zeiss designed this lens specifically for landscapes, not portraits?
The new Sigma 50/1.4 shows that creamy bokeh is not always the holy grail. With non-portrait shots, it can be nice to have some exra definition in the bokeh, especially when going for just a LITTLE bokeh, say at f/4 or so.
