Tri Tran wrote:
How cheap is cheap?
Some Zeiss lenses are "reasonably cheap". Zeiss 50f1.7 for around $125, Zeiss 50f1.4 for $175, and Zeiss 28f2.8 for around $250...
Not bad at all. How do the 50's compare to the Canon 50/1.4?
I assume there is no AF? Wouldn't this make nailing focus at these super wide apertures nearly impossible (ie relying on MF)?
No, there is no AF. There are basically 3 Zeiss 50mm. The 50mm macro is �bersharp, but geared more towards close-range shots than infinity. The 50 f:1.4 planar is the opposite. Very smooth and creamy, fabulous at infinity, not so comfortable wide open at minimum focusing distance. The 50 f:1.7 is also very sharp, but bokeh is a little less smooth than f:1.4.
With Canon EF 50 f:1.8 and f:1.4, there is simply quite a difference IMHO. The Canon will look "flat" and "dull" by comparison. Low constrast, washed out colours. There are many threads with such comparisons if you want. With Canon 50mm L f:1.2, if you happen to like shooting wide open and have creamy bokeh, it is possible that you could prefer the Canon.
tmr_wa wrote:
Zeiss look or not, there are a lots of great images in this thread, but I *really* like the simplicity of this one -- it takes a viewer to the water. Flawless execution. --tom
Thanks Tom - it's just one of those sights you see, point at, and shoot. Sorry about the jpeg quality - I'll see if I can dig up a better version.
philber wrote:
and Zeiss 135 f:2.8 for about 250$, and Zeiss 25 for some 185$
The Contax 35 f2.8 is cheap and good too, as are 85 f2.8, 35-70, and 200 f3.5. The 25 gets varying reports. I had a fairly unsharp one which didn't really go mental until it was really stopped down. Generally all of these lenses start to do special things at f5.6 to f8, but are dramatically improved by stopping down one stop from wide open.
brainiac wrote:
The 25 gets varying reports. I had a fairly unsharp one which didn't really go mental until it was really stopped down.
I haven't yet been able to master my 25. It is very much still a hit-or-miss affair. Every time I feel I have it down to rights, it manages to upset me, and every time I feel like giving up, it surprises me with a scrumptious pic...
But I hope that the advent of the 21 ZE makes this matter moot
philber wrote:
I haven't yet been able to master my 25. It is very much still a hit-or-miss affair. Every time I feel I have it down to rights, it manages to upset me, and every time I feel like giving up, it surprises me with a scrumptious pic...
But I hope that the advent of the 21 ZE makes this matter moot
Find a copy of the ZF (or ZE) 25mm. The more I use it the more clear it is how large of a step up over the old Contax 25mm it is (which for all it's positive attributes can been less than tack sharp).
I remember a thread trying to define the "3D effect".
I think we have a complete, unrefutable demonstration here.... Nothing to add!
Some of us that considered selling their kidney, prostituting their child or rob a bank to get a Leica M9 may finally tread back to more moral paths, and just mug a granny to get a Distagon !
belsha wrote:
Some of us that considered selling their kidney, prostituting their child or rob a bank to get a Leica M9 may finally tread back to more moral paths, and just mug a granny to get a Distagon !
belsha wrote:
I remember a thread trying to define the "3D effect".
I think we have a complete, unrefutable demonstration here.... Nothing to add!
Some of us that considered selling their kidney, prostituting their child or rob a bank to get a Leica M9 may finally tread back to more moral paths, and just mug a granny to get a Distagon !
Zeiss makes _really_ nice lenses for the M's too, don't forget. And as usual they are an order of magnitude cheaper than the Leica ones. If I could ever afford an M the first thing I would do is kit myself out with Zeiss ZM's (and Voigtlanders). You don't have to take flat-looking photos just because you use an M... ;-)
brainiac wrote:
You don't have to take flat-looking photos just because you use an M... ;-)
I thought about that too... But do the Biogon or ZM lenses have the same look as the Contax-Yashica ones? Are the Biogon and Distagon 21mm similar, for exemple?
The ZM Biogons have nothing in common with the Distagons in terms of optical designs, but they do use the same great coatings and presumably have a similar design philosophy in terms of which tradeoffs to make for the desired look / performance.
The ZM 35/2 is one of my favorite lenses. I haven't used the others, but the 25/2.8 is based on a medium format design and is reputedly extremely sharp.
One nice thing about the ZM line is that they offer multiple lenses at some focal lengths (21/2.8 and 21/4.5, 50/2 planar and 50/1.5 c-sonnar, 35/2 and smaller 35/2.8) without making one "worse" than the other. Canon could learn from this and make (for example) a smaller 35/2L to complement the 35L.
