I've read that the Zeiss lenses made in German tend to be better the Japanese stuff.
How can you tell where they're made? Most of the ebay stuff omits these types of details.
Dave,
The Happypage adapter sounds great, where did you get yours?
surf monkey wrote:
Where do you guys buy all your alt gear?
I've read that the Zeiss lenses made in German tend to be better the Japanese stuff.
How can you tell where they're made? Most of the ebay stuff omits these types of details.
Dave,
The Happypage adapter sounds great, where did you get yours?
The C/Y lenses will not AF, but I think you can get a focus confirmation adapter. They will not meter wide open. With the 5dII you have live view focus so focusing at working aperture is good if the light is not really dim. They are good value for the money but not the most convenient options.
Yes, the 21 to 35 gap is a big one.
I think your first instincts were right: 24 TSE, 35mm (I would substitute the ZE 35 for the 35 1.4), and the 50 1.4. This trio is really the best range for landscapes and covers most architecture.
If you really want ultra-wide for interiors, then the ZE 18mm, the TSE 17mm (but has a problem in that it won't accept filters) or the converted Contax 17-35 zoom are options to consider in addition to the 24-35-50 trio.
I think you are fine in the longer range, no changes needed there, those are all top lenses.
guyharrison wrote:
The C/Y lenses will not AF, but I think you can get a focus confirmation adapter. They will not meter wide open. With the 5dII you have live view focus so focusing at working aperture is good if the light is not really dim. They are good value for the money but not the most convenient options.
Yes, the 21 to 35 gap is a big one.
I think your first instincts were right: 24 TSE, 35mm (I would substitute the ZE 35 for the 35 1.4), and the 50 1.4. This trio is really the best range for landscapes and covers most architecture.
If you really want ultra-wide for interiors, then the ZE 18mm, the TSE 17mm (but has a problem in that it won't accept filters) or the converted Contax 17-35 zoom are options to consider in addition to the 24-35-50 trio.
I think you are fine in the longer range, no changes needed there, those are all top lenses.
Guy (you probably know what you mean but the OP might be confused)
Just to set the record straight for the OP. You can meter with a MF lens wide open on an adapter (that is if you want to shoot wide open) or you just focus wide open (live view or through the view finder) and once focussed just stop down to the desired aperture and shoot in aperture priority and the metering meters the scene at the selected f stop. There are a few times when you might have to + or - a touch just like with Canon lenses but in general I find no problems what so ever. Of course there are a few wide aperture lenses that focus shift slightly from wide open to stopped down (my C/Y 85 1.4 planar is one) but they tend to be few and far between.
To be honest, value for money doesn`t come into it for me, I use MF lenses of choice simply because they exceed the performance of many Canon lenses I have owned or used.
For wet conditions or when I know I`ll be shooting grab shots that require speed then I`ll often just take my 1dsmk3 + a couple of Canon lenses and put up with the lower IQ.
If you have never used MF lenses then it might be worth while picking up a reasonable lens (something like a C/Y 50 1.7 or 28 2.8) and give it a try before you enter into the world of something like the 21 2.8.
dave chilvers wrote:
Guy (you probably know what you mean but the OP might be confused)
Just to set the record straight for the OP. You can meter with a MF lens wide open on an adapter (that is if you want to shoot wide open) or you just focus wide open (live view or through the view finder) and once focussed just stop down to the desired aperture and shoot in aperture priority and the metering meters the scene at the selected f stop. There are a few times when you might have to + or - a touch just like with Canon lenses but in general I find no problems what so ever. Of course there are a few wide aperture lenses that focus shift slightly from wide open to stopped down (my C/Y 85 1.4 planar is one) but they tend to be few and far between.
To be honest, value for money doesn`t come into it for me, I use MF lenses of choice simply because they exceed the performance of many Canon lenses I have owned or used.
For wet conditions or when I know I`ll be shooting grab shots that require speed then I`ll often just take my 1dsmk3 + a couple of Canon lenses and put up with the lower IQ.
If you have never used MF lenses then it might be worth while picking up a reasonable lens (something like a C/Y 50 1.7 or 28 2.8) and give it a try before you enter into the world of something like the 21 2.8.
I originally started using MF primes when I was a beginner and found it a simpler, "more efficient" way of shooting. You compose, choose aperture, choose shutter speed: simple. I guess a lot of us fall in love with the technology of photography and the ability to shoot anything at anytime.
For the easy way out I'll continue to use my Canon 40D with 17-55f2.8is for a walk around setup and go to the Canon 5D and Zeiss combo when the superior IQ is important. I think I'll go with the new ZE versions for the convenience. As I get better with MF I'm sure I'll switch for most of my shooting.
Thanks for all the input guys, I'm sure I'll enjoy my new upgrades.
I don't want to exaggerate focus shift, but it does vary from lens to lens. I also meant to say that with live view, the LCD compensates and stays bright even at small apertures (subject to available light) and so focusing is easy and precise even at the shooting aperture. Those MF Contax lenses are great and I agree with you 100%. Still, when Zeiss equivalents are available in EF mount I think that is a better way to go. I love MF lenses (have 24-45-90 TSEs and a Voigtlander 125 APO in EF mount). I am test-shooting a 500 4.5 Mirotar right now adapted to my 5D2. Also use MF even with aF lenses (Zeiss 24-85 and 85 1.4 "Ns" have wonderful MF feel).
The OP wants at least some AF capability, that is why I like his original option 2 as it gave him the Canon 50 1.4 for low light and AF (he could look for a converted Contax N 50 1.4 and have the same benefits with Zeiss quality). The 24 TS lens gives him something he just cannot get from any other manufacturer (and is a superior lens in its own right and not second fiddle to even a zeiss). For 35, either the new Zeiss EF 35 f2 or an older contax one with adapter (much less expensive)
I don't want to exaggerate focus shift, but it does vary from lens to lens. I also meant to say that with live view, the LCD compensates and stays bright even at small apertures (subject to available light) and so focusing is easy and precise even at the shooting aperture. Those MF Contax lenses are great and I agree with you 100%. Still, when Zeiss equivalents are available in EF mount I think that is a better way to go. I love MF lenses (have 24-45-90 TSEs and a Voigtlander 125 APO in EF mount). I am test-shooting a 500 4.5 Mirotar right now adapted to my 5D2. Also use MF even with aF lenses (Zeiss 24-85 and 85 1.4 "Ns" have wonderful MF feel).
The OP wants at least some AF capability, that is why I like his original option 2 as it gave him the Canon 50 1.4 for low light and AF (he could look for a converted Contax N 50 1.4 and have the same benefits with Zeiss quality). The 24 TS lens gives him something he just cannot get from any other manufacturer (and is a superior lens in its own right and not second fiddle to even a zeiss). For 35, either the new Zeiss EF 35 f2 or an older contax one with adapter (much less expensive) ...Show more →
Guy
surf monkey wrote:
What about the range in between 24mm and 50mm?
The other questions are:
Can the manual focus lenses, like the Zeiss, be used effectively for candid shots?
I tend to use auto focus for subjects that move.
Does anyone out there use the Zeiss lenses on moving subjects?
check my hd-video at vimeo-aeropanoramic.
short test of 45/2.8 on eos 500d. dslr-exchange-adapter used. i have four.
As someone earlier was commenting, whichever route you go, I'd get the kit version of the camera, as the 24-105 comes cheaply that way (can always be sold later without losing money). That lens is quite excellent for such a wide range, and if I go to a people event, where I absolutely want a good bunch of pictures, that is one of my go-to lenses. People love the shots out of that lens, and while they may not be up to Zeiss standards, they are close enough that non photographers couldn't tell the difference. So that is a high quality, easy to use, highly versatile lens, plus it has IS, which the rest will not have.
I would also add that there are a ton of exceptional lenses in the 100mm focal length. For some reason, they nailed the formula for that focal length a long while ago (Leica, and several Zeiss, even Canon), and they're not too darned expensive.
I use the following Zeiss lenses with my 5DMkII and 7D along with Camerquest adapters:
C/Y 35-70/3.4
ZF 28/2.0
ZF 100/2.0
(I also use the ZF's with my D700.)
I have found that Live View is so good that a focus confirmation adapter is not necessary. The lenses are absolutely fantastic for both stills and video (and for video you really want MF lenses). My only complaint about the 35-70 is that it is a push-pull design and it acts like a mini vacuum cleaner. It tends to suck dust into the sensor a lot quicker than I would have thought. However, cleaning the sensor is a small price to pay in order to be able to use such a versatile lens.
erichard wrote:
As someone earlier was commenting, whichever route you go, I'd get the kit version of the camera, as the 24-105 comes cheaply that way (can always be sold later without losing money). That lens is quite excellent for such a wide range, and if I go to a people event, where I absolutely want a good bunch of pictures, that is one of my go-to lenses. People love the shots out of that lens, and while they may not be up to Zeiss standards, they are close enough that non photographers couldn't tell the difference. So that is a high quality, easy to use, highly versatile lens, plus it has IS, which the rest will not have.
I would also add that there are a ton of exceptional lenses in the 100mm focal length. For some reason, they nailed the formula for that focal length a long while ago (Leica, and several Zeiss, even Canon), and they're not too darned expensive....Show more →
I was wondering if I should take that route when I first thought about the move up to the 5dmk2 from my current 40D. But for convenience the Canon 40D with the 17-55f2.8is works great for that purpose and I'll probably only use the 5D with MF lenses when IQ is the most important. I'd rather save the $800 and get some good primes. I'll probably buy the 24-105 down the road, or if Canon upgrades the 24-70.
Thanks, I'll keep your suggestion in mind for the near future.
fit ti be tied wrote:
I use the following Zeiss lenses with my 5DMkII and 7D along with Camerquest adapters:
C/Y 35-70/3.4
ZF 28/2.0
ZF 100/2.0
(I also use the ZF's with my D700.)
I have found that Live View is so good that a focus confirmation adapter is not necessary. The lenses are absolutely fantastic for both stills and video (and for video you really want MF lenses). My only complaint about the 35-70 is that it is a push-pull design and it acts like a mini vacuum cleaner. It tends to suck dust into the sensor a lot quicker than I would have thought. However, cleaning the sensor is a small price to pay in order to be able to use such a versatile lens....Show more →
It's interesting that you bring up the 35-70. I've been eyeing that one for an inexpensive alternative for the mid range. The push-pull design may keep it out of the running. The Makro-Planar 100f2 is on my wish list for the future (hopefully in ZE form for Canon). For now I'll stick with my Canon 100 macro, a great lenses in it's own right.
I've read mixed reviews on the Zeiss 28f2. What do you think are it's strengths and weaknesses? I'm especially interested in how it preforms: 1) wide open, close focus and 2) stopped down, corner-to-corner sharpness for landscape.
First off, don't let the push-pull design keep you from getting the 35-70. If you can find one at a decent price (I think I paid around $250.00 for mine) it is an excellent lens for very little money. On a recent trip to Northern Italy (the Italian Lakes) I used it and the 28/2.0 exclusively. You can see some pictures here:
For stills work, the 28/2.0 does show an ever so slight amount of CA and very minor field curvature (but you really have to look). The CA is easily fixable in Lightroom and you probably wouldn't notice the curvature unless I pointed it out to you. Certainly not as extreme as the 21. I believe the lens uses a floating element design and is based somewhat on the famous 28/2.0 Contax Zeiss "Hollywood" lens. I have used it with success for landscapes, (including 8 to 10 exposure panos), and as a street lens ... stopped down and with focus set to infinity, it is almost like a point-n-shoot. My copy exhibits very good edge-to-edge sharpness and that Zeiss 3D sort of look. I haven't used it much for close focus work since the 35-70 and 100 both have macro functionality. (The 100 is a stellar macro lens and the 35-70 is no slouch either in that area.)
The 28 really shines as a video lens, especially in low light. On the full frame 5DMkII it obviously functions as a 28mm wide angle prime and on my 7D it functions as a 45. That Zeiss "look" transfers over to video quite nicely. I have heard that quite a few people who shoot with the Red One use ZF primes, including the 28/2.0, with much success. As a matter of fact there are several companies that do "cine conversions" ... de-clicking the aperture and adding follow-focus gears. No CA or field curvature is visible in video applications.
zf 28 is a nice piece of lens, the wide open CA is a minor issue for me, stopping down to F2.8 relieve the problem. I can say that the CA is better than zf100. The bokeh is quite smooth for close object at large aperture. For landscape, the sharpness starting to be uniform stopping down to F4.
surf monkey wrote:
The one thing I "re-learn" every time I do it is: by restricting myself to more manual controls and fixed lenses I become a better photographer. Technology is great because it gets a lot of shots for you that you can't otherwise get, but simpler, more difficult photography seems more rewarding.
.
surf monkey wrote:
I've read mixed reviews on the Zeiss 28f2. What do you think are it's strengths and weaknesses? I'm especially interested in how it preforms: 1) wide open, close focus and 2) stopped down, corner-to-corner sharpness for landscape.
I took delivery of a 21mm Distagon and 28 mm Distagon, both ZE mounts, on the same day. Promptly fell in love with the 21, but sent the 28 back. It suffered from visible CA. By visible, I mean that I could see the CA on the cam LCD even without magnifying it. And not that tricky or extreme a shot either, which I confirmed with shooting the same location with my ZE 21 and my ZE 50. That was too much for me, so much so that I thought that the lens was defective, and asked to try out another one. The French Zeiss distributor said that "the lens was perfect, like everything Zeiss make, just perfect". So I didn't buy it. Right now I am waiting for a 35mm ZE.
