I am considering purchasing a Zeiss 2/50 Makro Planar and I am wondering how it compares to, or is different from, the 2/35 which I currently own (excepting the FL).
The only 50 I currently own is the nifty one which has fared me well over the years but its beginning to make odd noises and get a bit loose so its as good an excuse as any to look for an upgrade. After my research I have my mind on the 50 MP but I have no direct experience of it, especially when compared to the 2/35.
I love my 2/35, especially the style of image it produces. I was just wondering if the rendering style of the 50 is the same as the 35 or stronger/weaker? I have seen reports on here that the 35 is the strongest 3d-look but then I have seen others that say its the 50.
If you have both do you find they complement or do you find yourself usually going for one or the other?
It appears that I cant hire one in the UK else I would probably be doing that.
The other thing to take account of is that I probably wont be using the macro capabilities very often. I did have the planar 1.4/50 a while back but I just couldnt get on with it.
I have seen good things about the sharpness and contrast but not as compared to the 35 so if anyone can help there that would be good. I have also looked at both lens sample archives.
Cheers for any info.