I agree with mawz and would add that if I really chose to use Zeiss over Canon, it's because I want peace of mind. I've had many bad experiences with Canon lenses, Ls and non Ls. Maybe I'm unlucky but it isn't nice to pay substantial money for a "professional" lens assuming it must be outstanding, and having to immediately test it to see if it performs as claimed. If you do not test and suppose it must be good, you might have a big surprise at the end. I've had a holiday ruined by a just purchased faulty 24-105L. I'm sure many L lenses outperform Zeiss on paper, but what are the chances you would get a sub-standard copy? In my experience 2 out of 3. Of the 13 Contax lenses I own, all purchased 2nd hand, I've had only 1 bad copy, and it was bad because it was dropped by the previous owner, something I didn't know prior to the purchase.
I still think that Sigma could easily create an Apo-Asph 85mm 1.4 that would blow the doors off the Zeiss for less the price. Sigma has produced an aspheric 50mm 1.4 that is arguably the best 50mm out there for the price. The only other aspheric 50mm's I know of are Canon's 50mm 1.2 L and Leica's 50mm 1.4 Summilux M aspheric and Noctilux M 0.95 at considerably higher prices, the 0.95 Noctilux considerably is an understatement! There is a large enough market for such an 85mm lens, look how many lust after the 85mm 1.2 L, myself included. Come on Sigma I know you can market such a lens for under $1000 what are you waiting for?
knodl wrote:
I still think that Sigma could easily create an Apo-Asph 85mm 1.4 that would blow the doors off the Zeiss for less the price. Sigma has produced an aspheric 50mm 1.4 that is arguably the best 50mm out there for the price. The only other aspheric 50mm's I know of are Canon's 50mm 1.2 L and Leica's 50mm 1.4 Summilux M aspheric and Noctilux M 0.95 at considerably higher prices, the 0.95 Noctilux considerably is an understatement! There is a large enough market for such an 85mm lens, look how many lust after the 85mm 1.2 L, myself included. Come on Sigma I know you can market such a lens for under $1000 what are you waiting for? ...Show more →
I seriously doubt Sigma could make such a lens for under the price of the Zeiss. Under the price of the L on the other hand...
Remember, the Sigma 50 is significantly more expensive than any other 50/1.4 available in a common SLR mount, only the Zeiss 50/1.4 is even in shouting distance and it's over $100 cheaper. Fast 50's are far less complex designs than fast 85's, even if only because of the far smaller mass of the glass.
There is no lens which can "blow the doors off" the Zeiss, stopped down it is still sharper than the EF 85s.
What I say is that Zeiss has a niche market. Canon and Nikon have to implement AF in their lenses. A lens designer has to make a compromise when designing an AF lens, and AF by itself has a price.
Zeiss has lost some of their reputation because the lenses are made by Cosina and it was rumored that they had difficulty to meet the standard which was set by Yashica. Some people complain about the build quality, CA, and whatever. This can not be ignored.
I would not say that the ZF lenses significantly outperform Canon and Nikon lenses. These concentrated on new zoom lens designs, Zeiss concentrated on giving their old designs a new live. We are fanatics here, most people dont care about a couple of unsharp corner pixels and if, they still want to have a lens with AF and IS/VR.
You know, my ZF 18mm is sharper at 18mm than the 16-35ii I have, though the Canon offers AF, range, its faster and cheaper
mawz wrote:
Fast 50's are far less complex designs than fast 85's, even if only because of the far smaller mass of the glass.
And yet no one really has a 'perfect 50.' The Canon 50 f/1.4 is very nice, but it's a smidge soft at the larger apertures. The Sigma 50 looks fantastic, but it's pricey and has autofocus inconsistencies. The Zeiss 50s are great, but the bokeh usually suffers, and they don't have AF (not that it stops anyone on this board....or me). The Canon 50 f/1.2 is a very nice lens, but still isn't all that sharp at large apertures, and it costs a fortune. The Rokkor 58 f/1.2 is sharp, and has good bokeh in many situations, but it has coma wide open at close focusing distances and the bokeh gets ring highlights in many cases...plus the lack of AF.
85s on the other hand...it just seems there are an awful lot of really, really good 85mm lenses.
Zeiss 50mm 1.4 $100 cheaper than Sigma 50mm 1.4? I don't think so. I just checked B&H Photo for the Nikon mount version of these respected lenses and they had the Zeiss at $517, and the Sigma at $499, plus with the Sigma you get an aspherical element and autofocus. As far as Zeiss being sharper than the EF's stopped down which is speculative at best, the primary purpose of the EF 85mm 1.2 L is sharpness at it's incredibly fast aperture. This is an area where the Zeiss 85mm 1.4 is not competitive because it is an outdated conservative design which is perhaps adequate but not stunning like the 85mm 1.2 L. I really think Sigma could pull it off and offer a great 85mm 1.4 at a price less than the Zeiss. Once a time ago Sigma was derided as a brand but now they are perhaps the most innovative lens manufacturers and I daresay their EX line of lenses are every bit as professional grade as Canon L's.
