Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 5 6 end

Archive 2010 · Canon or Zeiss

Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon or Zeiss

I have a 5DII and 1D3 and I'm looking for a walk around, landscape, and portrait lens. I already have 16-35L II, 24-105L, 50 f/1.4, 85L, 135L, etc. Mostly I will use the lens for composed shots and some candid people and animal shots. I want to start using shorter focal lengths and get more creative.

I'm leaning toward the Zeiss because of it's legendary 3D look, sharpness and overall IQ. But it's not AF.

The 35L has good reviews, has AF, but costs about $300 more than the Zeiss.

I already have the 16-35L, but at 35mm it doesn't have that magical look I'm looking for in a great lens.

What do fellow FMers recommend?

Jul 23, 2010 at 10:24 AM

rhorta
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon or Zeiss

After having messed around with a number of MF lenses last year I've learned my lessons.

Compared to AF lenses I find MF lenses of limited usefulness.

Sure it can be fun, sometimes, but if the MF lens doesn't bring something very unique to the table I find that the "novelty" to MF quickly wears off (especially in a more dynamic situation).

The 35L is a very nice lens to use, but "magical" I dont know.
It is on par with the 85L and 135L, that's enough for me.

Be sure to buy either L or Zeiss for the right reasons.

Ruy

Jul 23, 2010 at 10:38 AM

sandmarc
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon or Zeiss

If it is the look you are after, don´t think twice, buy the Zeiss.
It will make you slower, but in the conditions you list there should be no big problems.

Jul 23, 2010 at 11:31 AM

AGeoJO
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon or Zeiss

The Canon 35mm f/1.4 is really a great lens and I have never tried ZE 35mm. I am not sure how they compare to each other and didn't want to venture to speculate. I am sure the ZE is a fine performer as well. Strictly from the extra 1-stop aperture and the presence of AF however, I would choose the Canon but that's more a personal decision. Used at wide open, the center portion of the image already performs; one stop down at f/2.0 and that lens starts singing.

Jul 23, 2010 at 11:32 AM

ViscaB
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon or Zeiss

I just got the Zeiss two days ago with the purpose of doing pano's with it. Amazing lens really.

I don't shoot handheld (I use the lens mostly for nighttime cityscape pano's) so autofocus is not a big issue. But I played around with focus confirmation when doing some street photography and got a lot of hits doing that. The old school feel of this is an extra factor.

In terms of sharpness all the reviews I have read online were clearly in favor of the Zeiss. For 2 of your requirements landscape and portrait the Zeiss might be the best choice. For walk around the Canon with its autofocus seems the better option...

Jul 23, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon or Zeiss

The reason I'm leaning towards the Zeiss is solely due to the IQ factor. I really appreciate a lens that can make a photo POP. I've got the 16-35 and 24-105 which will still be connected to my camera most of the time.

But the extra stop of the 35L would be nice too!

Jul 23, 2010 at 12:02 PM

M Vers
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon or Zeiss

Richard Nye wrote:
But the extra stop of the 35L would be nice too!

And AF...assuming, of course, you use such a thing

Jul 23, 2010 at 12:04 PM

pkupcik
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon or Zeiss

I own various Zeiss and Canon L lenses and in general prefer Canon rendering for people shots and Zeiss rendering for non-people shots (landscape, architecture, etc). The Zeiss can be too contrasty for rendering skin textures, especially at smaller apertures. For everything else the Zeiss contrast and clarity is a beauty. You already have a nice selection of lenses so maybe the Zeiss could give you something very different, besides just a different focal length.

Jul 23, 2010 at 01:06 PM

mfoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon or Zeiss

Richard I am pretty much in the very same boat as you..... same cameras and similar setup with lenses. If you have followed the official ZE images post on the alternative gear and lens forum it is very easy to be drawn to the ZE line up. I used to have Zeiss lenses back in the film days on Contax cameras. Nice stuff indeed. Just last weekend I tried the ZE21 and ZE35 at a Vancouver store and did a few quick shots outside the store with the 35/2 and I almost walked away with the 35/2 but decided to sleep on it as it was five minutes to closing time. Looking at the few files I got, the results are impressive.

About a month ago I tried the 24L and 35L for a wedding and both were really good and did things in the f/stop range from 1.4 to 2.5 that obviously the 16-35 cannot match. This goes for sharpness, contrast and the look of the bokeh. This should be no surprise. Choosing between the 24L and 35L I would probably go for the 24L first. I seemed to grab this one more often than the 35L at the wedding. It is also quite good on the 1D3 and files from the 5D II can easily be cropped a bit. I have rented the 24L for another event at end of the month along with a 50L as I wanted to try this as well. For the event work AF is crucial so if I had to put money down right now it would probably for the 24L. It is just not that straight forward however. I also do a bunch of real estate, tourism and travel stuff and this is where I believe either the ZE21 or ZE35 would shine. Gosh... the many choices.

Jul 23, 2010 at 02:35 PM

Richard Nye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon or Zeiss

pkupcik wrote:
I own various Zeiss and Canon L lenses and in general prefer Canon rendering for people shots and Zeiss rendering for non-people shots (landscape, architecture, etc). The Zeiss can be too contrasty for rendering skin textures, especially at smaller apertures. For everything else the Zeiss contrast and clarity is a beauty. You already have a nice selection of lenses so maybe the Zeiss could give you something very different, besides just a different focal length.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I've got the Canon 16-35L II which can give me the "Canon" look, and the Zeiss 35 can give me the "Zeiss" look. The lens I buy will be more for landscape and cityscape than for portraits.

Jul 23, 2010 at 06:48 PM

jojomon11
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon or Zeiss

sandmarc wrote:
If it is the look you are after, don´t think twice, buy the Zeiss.
It will make you slower, but in the conditions you list there should be no big problems.

+1 zeiss all the way, use you live view and x5 and x10 focus, can't go wrong

Jul 23, 2010 at 07:09 PM

kodakeos
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon or Zeiss

my puppy is named zeiss

Jul 23, 2010 at 11:04 PM

lamontsanders
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon or Zeiss

The Canon is winning this? One time with the Zeiss will show you how incredible it is.

Ridiculous.

Actually, in all seriousness, they are both awesome lenses. I liked the 35L I tried, I love my 35/2 ZE. I'm not too worried about AF but I do love the rendering. You can't go wrong here, but I would encourage the Zeiss.

Jul 23, 2010 at 11:39 PM

wlachan
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon or Zeiss

A new lens will make you imagining being more creative, but you will be just as dull in reality. I am speaking from experience.

Jul 23, 2010 at 11:41 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon or Zeiss

pkupcik wrote:
I own various Zeiss and Canon L lenses and in general prefer Canon rendering for people shots and Zeiss rendering for non-people shots (landscape, architecture, etc). The Zeiss can be too contrasty for rendering skin textures, especially at smaller apertures. For everything else the Zeiss contrast and clarity is a beauty. You already have a nice selection of lenses so maybe the Zeiss could give you something very different, besides just a different focal length.

Yes the Zeiss lenses are very contrasty, but you can negate this in PP if it's too much. They do have a wonderful IQ though and I'm glad I own one at least.

Jul 24, 2010 at 04:54 AM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon or Zeiss

jojomon11 wrote:
+1 zeiss all the way, use you live view and x5 and x10 focus, can't go wrong

I'm sure he can go wrong when shooting animals with live view x5 and x10

Jul 24, 2010 at 08:11 AM

jojomon11
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon or Zeiss

Sven Jeppesen wrote:
I'm sure he can go wrong when shooting animals with live view x5 and x10

Definitely motion would effect IQ

Jul 24, 2010 at 03:38 PM

Jim Victory
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon or Zeiss

I have the 21 ZE, 35 ZE, and 100 Macro and they all seem better to me than the Canon 35 and 100, they don't have a 21.

I have used manual focus lenses since 1966 and only started using AF lenses in 2003 so it is natural to me using MF. If you have live view to help with focusing these lenses can't be beat for landscape work. The 21 has a few foibles but the 35 and 100 are pure gold.

Jim

Jul 24, 2010 at 03:45 PM

BennyR
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon or Zeiss

I currently have both and I did a little side by side comparo. I shot mainly stopped down as for landscape stuff. They are both outstanding. The Zeiss is a little longer, maybe 38mm if the 35L is really 35mm. For a walk around I think the 35L would be better. Otherwise I might give just a ever so slight edge to the 35ZE but it's not as dramatic as I think others make it sound. Both are outstanding.

Jul 24, 2010 at 06:19 PM

dolina
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon or Zeiss

I saw this on DPR

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=35867474

" Thank you for your inquiry to Carl Zeiss. In reference to your inquiry from 2010-07-23:

To offer our customers different lenses for different applications than all other lens manufacturers, we will continue to concentrate on manual focus lenses for SLR cameras (e.g. with Canon EF mount). Of course, AF lenses offer some advantages in some situations (e.g. sports, press photography...). But for precise focusing of non-moving objects (e.g. landscape, architecture, stilllife photography...), our MF lenses offer the important difference to AF lenses of other manufacturers. Only MF lenses can be produced with absolutely no play and a long rotating focusing ring for most accurate focusing, e.g. in live view mode.

In professional cinematographic applications, AF does not play any role at all. And so also our current SLR lenses are highly requested for professional applications like aerial photography, industrial use, architectural photography and the new market of HDSLR cinematography.

We do not plan to make "me too" AF lenses like all other competitors.

Sincerely,
Bertram Hoenlinger "

Jul 24, 2010 at 06:46 PM

1 2 3 … 5 6 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.