Steve Spencer wrote:
We'll see in time, but I suspect that what has happened with this test is that the digital picture tests the lens from a fairly close distance and the lens just performs poorly in this range. If you look at the review of the the ZF version of this lens at 16-9.net, you will see that the ZF version tested did quite poorly between 1 and 2 meters, but was an excellent performer at greater than 2 meters. I would expect the ZE version to show this same characteristic. As more people get this lens I expect this sort of picture to emerge. Many will love the lens if they shoot from farther away, but others will really dislike it if they shoot from close range. This weakness in close range shooting is also to be more or less expected in a lens without a floating element design and perhaps not coincidentally it is in such close range shooting that focus shift problems will be their worst....Show more →
cogitech replied:
All quite possibly true, but wouldn't you agree that Zeiss ought to have done better? For the price, and to maintain their reputation, Zeiss should have made this lens perform like a Zeiss.
I think it will perform much like a Zeiss--the C/Y 85mm f/1.4 planar. I'm not sure if that lens performed more poorly at close distances or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did as it too did not contain a floating element. Didn't you have this lens? I think I remember reading that you once had this lens and were pretty disappointed with it. For me, however, I think I could live with its poor close range performance and get another lens to cover that type of shooting. I also expect this lens to be an excellent landscape lens, which for me will offset to some extent its weak close range ability. The 85L is almost certainly a better close range lens, but it is not the strongest for landscapes from what I have seen. Every lens has its tradeoffs. For me I think I could live with the tradeoffs with this lens from what I have seen so far, but I may change my mind as reports come in.
Saying all that, would I have preferred that Zeiss would have included a floating element design, perhaps based on their CY 85mm f/1.2 anniversary lens? Sure, but this lens is already quite expensive and I would bet that the more complicated design would have put this lens outside of my price range. Now CY 85mm f/1.2 performance with autoaperture and the price of this lens, now that would definitely be a hit, but perhaps not much of a profit for Zeiss.
I had the lens for a short time and I disliked the bokeh, the colour, and the uber-contrast. The LNIB MM copy I had was more impressive wide open than what I have seen from the new one.
Here is an example of what I didn't like about the lens:
ShutterLover wrote:
Seeing what they did with their 50mm 1.4 I'd be more interested to see what a Siggy 85mm 1.4 could be like as an L-alternative.
I agree. Do something needed or don't bother.
As Canon shooters we need better wide lenses, and Zeiss makes a typical 85. Sigma seems to be thinking. Zeiss seems to be throwing a lens out there to capitalize on their name.
No one seems to mention here the high micro-contrast (that cogitech dislikes ) and the typical 3D effect and color reproduction of Zeiss. This lens or at least the older Contax version has the typical Zeiss look. Zeiss doesn't always produce the sharpest lenses, but 3 elements are always constant: high micro-contrast, 3D, color.
For me these are enough reasons to buy a Zeiss.
dcmiller wrote:
I agree. Do something needed or don't bother.
As Canon shooters we need better wide lenses, and Zeiss makes a typical 85. Sigma seems to be thinking. Zeiss seems to be throwing a lens out there to capitalize on their name.
cogitech wrote:
No. It's the over-the-top macro-contrast that I don't like.
I know this has been discussed before, but the high macro-contrast is a function of the high quality lens coatings, while the high micro-contrast is a product of the lens optical formula. Even though it is a matter of personal taste, but I myself find it not the fault of the lens if it has top notch coatings that reduce the internal reflections to an almost incredibly low level. One of the things I like about Zeiss is that they somehow compensate for the inherently low contrast level of today's digital sensors and even though I still boost the contrast in DPP by 1 or 2 steps for most photos, it's still better than with Canon lenses that I needed to give a contrast boost of at least +3. but of course, YMMV.
jvarszegi wrote:
Still can't detect the "3D advantage" of Zeiss lenses either. I've looked at zillions of images trying to detect it, and failed.
Nonetheless, the 3D effect is real and can be detected by most people, even non photographers. I was recently at a party, and took along my camera with just one lens, the Zeiss 35mm 1.4, which is known for its pronounced 3D effect. I did only snapshots at ISO3200, 1/30s and f/1.4, light levels were really low. I was amazed at the 3D images it produced, it is almost unreal.
I must say that it is the microcontrast and the "pop" that it creates that makes me love the czj 135 3.5 so much. I can use it wide open and it kind of jumps out of the frame. I guess you can PP yourself into the same with other lenses too, but still.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Nonetheless, the 3D effect is real and can be detected by most people, even non photographers.
Doubt it. Non-photographers who may something about a picture looking "3-D" or "like real life" etc. are simply referring to narrow DOF and/or sharpness, and other aspects of composition or qualities due mostly to processing. I get it all the time, not having a single lens renowned for its "3-D effect" (note that these tend to be third-party lenses, because the claims of 3-D-ness are almost exclusively raised by those lenses' owners).
I was recently at a party, and took along my camera with just one lens, the Zeiss 35mm 1.4, which is known for its pronounced 3D effect.
Not to me. And I wager that if you stacked well-processed pictures of the same scenes taken with both it and, say, the 35L, not a single non-photographer would rave about the supposed 3D quality of the Zeiss by comparison.
I did only snapshots at ISO3200, 1/30s and f/1.4, light levels were really low. I was amazed at the 3D images it produced, it is almost unreal.
The problem is that you are predisposed to think that your lens has this supposed quality. I am sure you "see" it often; I'm not calling you a liar.
) and the typical 3D effect and color reproduction of Zeiss. This lens or at least the older Contax version has the typical Zeiss look. Zeiss doesn't always produce the sharpest lenses, but 3 elements are always constant: high micro-contrast, 3D, color.