Does anyone know of a good comparsion or set of ratings that I can use to measure the Zeiss Ikon 1.4 50mm for Canon vs. the Canon 1.4 50mm (that seems to be about half the price)?
I have a Canon 50mm 1.4 and didn't really appreciate it much, until I got a FF camera (5D). On my 40D the focal length was too long and it just never seemed to create a stunning image -> that definitely changed with the 5D.
The pictures are outstanding and the bokeh is fantastic, especially for a lens of this price range.
On a side note, I often find it is too slow to focus on fast moving subjects - namely, my kids. Even on the 40D, which has a pretty fast focus speed, lots of mis-focused shots.
I've used both. I ended up trading my Zeiss for the Canon on the forums here. I figured I needed the autofocus. I think that was a mistake. I recently got another Zeiss, and I no longer have the Canon. There's just something I love about the Zeiss.
With that said, I realize now that your post is about the ZE mount Zeiss 50 1.4. I have no experience with that - just the C/Y mount, adapted.
pertristis wrote:
I've used both. I ended up trading my Zeiss for the Canon on the forums here. I figured I needed the autofocus. I think that was a mistake. I recently got another Zeiss, and I no longer have the Canon. There's just something I love about the Zeiss.
With that said, I realize now that your post is about the ZE mount Zeiss 50 1.4. I have no experience with that - just the C/Y mount, adapted.
The nomenclature is admittedly confusing due to the long, twisted history of Carl Zeiss. With your interest in a CZ SLR lens of some kind, the name Zeiss Ikon does not apply. ZI either refers to an independent camera company in West Germany that went Tango Uniform in the early 1970s, or it refers to a recent rangefinder camera line that is being manufactured in Japan by Cosina. In any case, the lens itself - even when manufactered by a third party like Cosina - is considered a Carl Zeiss product, and is labelled as such. With the sudden proliferation of supported mounts, mentioning the mount in conversation has become necessary, otherwise we don't know the lens under discussion, or even the century of production! Your lens of interest can be casually and unambiguously hailed as CZ P50 ZE - at least until next year.
I own the Canon EF 50/1.4, CZ P50/1.4 C/Y and, based on posted images from the P50 ZF, find them almost identical: sharp, LCA wide open, barrel distortion, nasty bokeh. The new MP50 seems like a better idea all around.
I've owned the Canon 50 f/1.4. Twice. I was never that happy with it. I've owned the 50L as well and while I really. REALLY liked the quality it produced, it had inherent focusing issues and wasn't as sharp as I would like.
That being said, I now have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It couldn't focus worth beans when I got it so I sent it in. Got it back recently and it's better but still not perfect so it's going back a second time. If it doesn't come back perfect then my only other choice is to get the ZE 50mm f/1.4
I've seen a lot of great things come from that lens, it's wickedly sharp! I know the sigma has potential, but lord do they need to sort out their AF issues!
philber wrote:
I owned a Canon 50 mm f:1.4 until I tried a Zeiss ZE 50mm, which is today my favorite lens on FF. I use it mostly for landscape/cityscape where its rendition is nothing short of superb. Colour, detail, 3D effect, it has it all. The Canon is a good lens, but can't compare. It looks and feels "flat" by comparison.
"flat by comparison" is a good description. the Zeiss is more 3D. That's true even of the old CZ Zeiss planar, and the ZE is reportedly an improvement over that model, all-around.
The Canon 50/1.4 consistently gets ho-hum comments from users. Nothing WRONG with it, exactly, but it's just not inspiring.
Still, I won't sell mine. Whenever I need to give my 5D to someone else to take some pics (of me, or whatever) you just HAVE to have AF & AE.
CA, damned with faint praise indeed, when the usage of note for a lens is for it to be handed to another person - kind of reminds me of how people share their P&S cameras!
Would you not prefer photos of yourself with the CZ look ;-) I set up first then swap places and show the stand-in shooter where the shutter button is.
What we are seeing here (opinion only, obviously) is the search by enthusiasts for that special look, which necessarily involves comparison to the maker's lenses. I always felt my Nikkors, with rare exception, were competent rather than giving that little rush when you open the file shot by a special alt lens. Congrats on the portrait, Philber, very nice.
trumpet_guy wrote:
I don't think the Zeiss Ikon line is adaptable to Canon EOS mount..
That sounds like a rangefinder lens.
rico wrote:
Kirk,
The nomenclature is admittedly confusing due to the long, twisted history of Carl Zeiss. With your interest in a CZ SLR lens of some kind, the name Zeiss Ikon does not apply. ZI either refers to an independent camera company in West Germany that went Tango Uniform in the early 1970s, or it refers to a recent rangefinder camera line that is being manufactured in Japan by Cosina. In any case, the lens itself - even when manufactered by a third party like Cosina - is considered a Carl Zeiss product, and is labelled as such. With the sudden proliferation of supported mounts, mentioning the mount in conversation has become necessary, otherwise we don't know the lens under discussion, or even the century of production! Your lens of interest can be casually and unambiguously hailed as CZ P50 ZE - at least until next year. ...Show more →
Did you notice that the amazon link is for an adorama listing at $659, but when you go to the adorama page it's $549.
Why is it almost $100 cheaper?
edit: It's too early for me to be on the internet. I can't read apparently. The first link for amazon was a ZE mount, the adorama link was a ZF mount. But that still leaves the question. Why is the ZE more expensive?
jjlphoto wrote:
Retailers like Amazon and Adorama have been using the 'Zeiss Ikon' name for the Zeiss Z series lenses ...
I guess that explains OP's terminology. Conversely, B&H correctly describes the "Z" lenses in accordance with CZ. With the exception of Hasselblad and (recently) Sony, neither the camera brand nor the mount is imprinted on a CZ photo lens: even lenses for the new rangefinder line have no mention of Zeiss Ikon (the camera) or ZM (the mount). In the case of Hasselblad and Sony, their names appear on the barrel, but never on the bezel. As a company, I think CZ is unique in blocking any mention of the camera/mount from their bezels.
