p.4 #4 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Not at all in love with the lenses bokeh since there is nothing smooth about it. Sharpness wide open doesn't look impressive at all either, at least judging from the samples posted. Ever since viewing Yakim's test's I have been thinking about swapping my EF50/1.4 for a siggy-fifty--now that lens does sharpness and bokeh well, at least IMO.
p.4 #6 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
M Vers wrote:
Not at all in love with the lenses bokeh since there is nothing smooth about it. Sharpness wide open doesn't look impressive at all either, at least judging from the samples posted. Ever since viewing Yakim's test's I have been thinking about swapping my EF50/1.4 for a siggy-fifty--now that lens does sharpness and bokeh well, at least IMO.
Before you get the Siggy, you might do well to check the many reports of it misfocusing. Because then, you get wonderful bokeh in the area which should be in focus
p.4 #7 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
philber wrote:
Before you get the Siggy, you might do well to check the many reports of it misfocusing. Because then, you get wonderful bokeh in the area which should be in focus
That's why I'm waiting a bit..focusing issues. If it happens to be a mfging issue and clears up, I will most definitely trade my 50/1.4 in. Regardless of the focusing issues, I can use the Sigma as a MF lens like the CZ and still get more favorable results, not that I will...but could.
p.4 #8 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
The CZ (ZE Mount) sharpness is about the same as the CY Mount of old. At least from the test I did with my ZE and CY lenses. The corners seem a bit sharper on the ZE but the center they seem absolutely the same.
The thing about BOKEH is that there isn't really a "good" or "bad" one. It's just a matter of preference (for the most part--there are some oddities like the NINJA STAR bokeh of Contax CZ of old.) Some people like one for one reason, another people dislike it for the same reason. Sharpness can be quantifiable, but BOKEH can't really be measured.
I love my CZ ZE mount (although I am selling it after 3 weeks use to finance a Cintiq 21ux). I just used it for a wedding yesterday on some more "casual" shots. They came out great. I'll post some after I PP them.
For manual focus, you just have to be used to it. If you've always been AF'ing it'll get your mind a couple of hands on constant use weeks to automatically manual focus. I usually take 2-3 shots while moving around the ring 1-2mm "just in case".
p.4 #10 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
mh2000 wrote:
all lenses are *capable* of producing good bokeh *sometimes*, it comes down to whether or not they do so consistently...
>>The lens is capable of good bokeh
None of the examples posted qualify as good bokeh, IMO therefor the lens is not capable of good bokeh--not even sometimes. I think its safe to say that everyone realizes that the definition of bokeh is very subjective, that's why when someone comments on it they do so as voicing an opinion.
p.4 #11 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
sorry but with my own eyes the bokeh sucks with this lens no matter what an opinion IS,its what is seen and like another has written they can get better with an EF 50mm 1.8 and save 500 bucks....IQ over SF snob factor (not saying the OP is a snob) but some are over-the-top with praise for anything ZEISS they wont critique without bias...not to say ZEISS sucks but if you care about IQ sharpness,bokeh,DOF
go as a complete package this is missing the bokeh that a 65.00 ef 50mm has
p.4 #12 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
I think it is safe to say that this lens will not be useful for those unused to the mechanics of manual focusing. If you want quick results do yourself a favor and look elsewhere like a 50L.
But if you want to step back in time when AF was just an idea... this is a goo lens to have.
Dec 22, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Andi Dietrich Offline [X]
p.4 #13 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
digitalbug30d wrote:
sorry but with my own eyes the bokeh sucks with this lens no matter what an opinion IS,its what is seen and like another has written they can get better with an EF 50mm 1.8 and save 500 bucks....IQ over SF snob factor (not saying the OP is a snob) but some are over-the-top with praise for anything ZEISS they wont critique without bias...not to say ZEISS sucks but if you care about IQ sharpness,bokeh,DOF
go as a complete package this is missing the bokeh that a 65.00 ef 50mm has
just an Opinion
the 1.8/50mm has a 6 blade aperture while the ZE 50 has a 9 blade aperture, the difference is obvious, most people dont like the form of the OOF light blobs given by a 6 blade aperture. All Zeiss Contax 50mm had 6 blades and there is a reason that Zeiss changed to the now 9 blade aperture for the new Z lenses.
I think the Sigma 50mm has the most pleasing bokeh in any 50mm I have seen so far, the Zeiss is maybe average but still better than the 1.8 and the 1.4 EF's IMO.
The Z is also one of the sharpest 50mm you can buy, stopped down that is. There is no need to bash it either!
The Sigi is different and I would wish that this design would be copied and improved by Zeiss. To me they are both very fine lenses with different strenghts
p.4 #16 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Based on the ZE 50 f/1.4 images I have seen, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon EF 50 f/1.4 would be my preferred alternatives even if the Zeiss lens was fully AF.
Now, I just wanna see how much better that ZE 21mm "Distant n' gone" is compared to my 16-35L MkII at f/2.8.
p.4 #17 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
PetKal wrote:
Based on the ZE 50 f/1.4 images I have seen, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon EF 50 f/1.4 would be my preferred alternatives even if the Zeiss lens was fully AF.
Now, I just wanna see how much better that ZE 21mm "Distant n' gone" is compared to my 16-35L MkII at f/2.8.
if its like the ZE 50mm here I would keep the ef 16-35
p.4 #20 · Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II
since I've been accused of being too opiniated at times I thought I would leave that conclusion to the viewer...
M Vers wrote:
None of the examples posted qualify as good bokeh, IMO therefor the lens is not capable of good bokeh--not even sometimes. I think its safe to say that everyone realizes that the definition of bokeh is very subjective, that's why when someone comments on it they do so as voicing an opinion.
I am not....
However, the 21mm is supposed to be "special". We shall see.