Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
Thread started 18 Sep 2011 (Sunday) 15:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

sigma 50 vs zeiss 50 1.4

 
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Sep 20, 2011 22:32 |  #46

jdizzle wrote in post #13136972 (external link)
Hmm...I've been using that lens on the 5D II and it works well for me without a focus screen. :confused:

probably your eyes' clarity and fingers' dexterity :)

i've been missing focus for 1.2m and up distance even when stopped down to f/5.6

i've ordered a 270EX II flash, perhaps a lighter flash would help me keep steadier.


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jdizzle
Darth Noink
Avatar
69,419 posts
Likes: 65
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Harvesting Nano crystals
     
Sep 20, 2011 22:37 |  #47

mike cabilangan wrote in post #13137024 (external link)
probably your eyes' clarity and fingers' dexterity :)

i've been missing focus for 1.2m and up distance even when stopped down to f/5.6

i've ordered a 270EX II flash, perhaps a lighter flash would help me keep steadier.

Probably. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brian_R
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,656 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2010
     
Sep 21, 2011 08:44 |  #48

still having trouble deciding if i want to get the 50 1.4 ZE or would it be more worth my while to save longer and go for the 50 f2 MP

from what im understanding the 50 f2 will perform much better. although i really like the idea of f1.4 i would rather have superior performance out of my 50 rather than the possible focus shift from the 1.4 ZE

is it worth my while to save up for much longer and spend double on a 50 or should i start with the zeiss 50 1.4 to get my feet wet and upgrade later. its hard to imagine spending that much on glass. i know for some of you you have lenses that cost way more but i have never spent that much before except when i bought my camera




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,351 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 791
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
Sep 21, 2011 08:49 |  #49

drewjoseph wrote in post #13123406 (external link)
Very few 1.4 or 1.2 lenses are very sharp at their max aperture. If they are, it is likely they are crazy expensive.

My Canon 50mm 1.4 is spot on and was not "crazy expensive" either. I recently rented a 50mm 1.2L and was not happy with it. I am getting my money back and sticking with the Canon 50mm 1.4.


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brian_R
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,656 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2010
     
Sep 21, 2011 10:52 |  #50

CameraMan wrote in post #13138628 (external link)
My Canon 50mm 1.4 is spot on and was not "crazy expensive" either. I recently rented a 50mm 1.2L and was not happy with it. I am getting my money back and sticking with the Canon 50mm 1.4.

have you had any trouble with the micro-USM does it focus quickly? i have read many complains about it and thats why i have lost interest in the canon version of the 50 1.4




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DarthMTS47
Senior Member
Avatar
547 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Sep 21, 2011 11:24 |  #51

mike cabilangan wrote in post #13135602 (external link)
hi Mike,

what's wrong with the 1.4 from MFD to before 10 feet? (i have the 50/2 btw, and i'm maybe regretting not getting the 1.4)

Since the 50mm f/1.4 doesn't have a floating element, it is prone to focus shift - although I think the Zeiss 50mm performs much better than the 50L in that regard, as it was almost unnoticeable on my two copies of the Planar. Also, some people have complained that the bokeh and micro contrast aren't as good up close - again, something I had no problems with.

As you have pointed out in your other posts, the shorter focus throw of the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar does make it a bit harder to focus than the f/1.4 Planar. This is something I do miss after upgrading to the MP, and find myself using Live View a bit more than I used to.

-Mike




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,351 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 791
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
Sep 21, 2011 12:00 |  #52

Brian_R wrote in post #13139251 (external link)
have you had any trouble with the micro-USM does it focus quickly? i have read many complains about it and thats why i have lost interest in the canon version of the 50 1.4

My only gripe is that this lens sometimes has trouble focusing in low light situations but that is very rare.


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ofafeather
Senior Member
645 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Ancramdale, NY
     
Sep 21, 2011 13:57 |  #53

n1as wrote in post #13124031 (external link)
The solution is to press the DOF button and focus the lens at the working aperture.

Do you need to use the DOF preview with AF on the Sigma or only when you use manual focus?


Canon 7D, 5D Mark II and some Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dadgummit
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2008
     
Sep 21, 2011 13:57 |  #54

drewjoseph wrote in post #13123331 (external link)
The Zeiss 50 1.4 is generally not to highly rated. It's slower Makro Planar brother the Zeiss 50 2.0 is a stellar performer.

Exactly what I was going to recommend! I am currekntly saving up for the 50mm Makro-Planar.


My Humble Gear List
I shutter to think how many people are underexposed and lacking depth in this field.Rick Steves

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brian_R
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,656 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2010
     
Sep 21, 2011 15:23 |  #55

I have a bad feeling I should probably save up extra and go for a 50 that is in the $1000 range or go sigma which runs the possible but unlikely risk of being frustrating




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Sep 21, 2011 17:48 |  #56

Brian_R wrote in post #13138609 (external link)
still having trouble deciding if i want to get the 50 1.4 ZE or would it be more worth my while to save longer and go for the 50 f2 MP

from what im understanding the 50 f2 will perform much better. although i really like the idea of f1.4 i would rather have superior performance out of my 50 rather than the possible focus shift from the 1.4 ZE

is it worth my while to save up for much longer and spend double on a 50 or should i start with the zeiss 50 1.4 to get my feet wet and upgrade later. its hard to imagine spending that much on glass. i know for some of you you have lenses that cost way more but i have never spent that much before except when i bought my camera

things you need to answer for yourself:

1) do you need 1.4? do you need macro?
2) what will be the distances of your subjects? (if most are 1.2m and above, i'd choose the 1.4)

and to answer your post in the sample thread
1) how clear are your eyes, the focus beep gets you to the "Area" but not precisely.
2) you might have to use live view on your 7D.

DarthMTS47 wrote in post #13139438 (external link)
Since the 50mm f/1.4 doesn't have a floating element, it is prone to focus shift - although I think the Zeiss 50mm performs much better than the 50L in that regard, as it was almost unnoticeable on my two copies of the Planar. Also, some people have complained that the bokeh and micro contrast aren't as good up close - again, something I had no problems with.

As you have pointed out in your other posts, the shorter focus throw of the 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar does make it a bit harder to focus than the f/1.4 Planar. This is something I do miss after upgrading to the MP, and find myself using Live View a bit more than I used to.

-Mike

thanks Mike!


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brian_R
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
2,656 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Aug 2010
     
Sep 21, 2011 20:35 |  #57

yea the closest i would ever shoot is maybe a headshot of someone on occasion which would only be like 3 feet away maybe. i have no need for macro at all. and i do enjoy taking advantage of shooting wide open especially with my 50 1.8 and like shooting under poor strange lighting. and my eyes are fairly good as i do lots of manual focus for live TV broadcasts and my director has yet to tell me to find my focus.

so i think i can still safely say that the zeiss planar 50 1.4 would still be a good choice :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CameraMan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
13,351 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 791
Joined Dec 2010
Location: In The Sticks
     
Sep 21, 2011 20:38 |  #58

Brian_R wrote in post #13140589 (external link)
I have a bad feeling I should probably save up extra and go for a 50 that is in the $1000 range or go sigma which runs the possible but unlikely risk of being frustrating

After the frustrating time I had with a rented 50mm 1.2 L I'd suggest the 50mm 1.4. The 1.2L lens had a bad CA problem and from what I learned here is that it is a common problem with that lens. The 1.4 is tack sharp and is a great performer. One of my favorite lenses in my bag.


Photographer (external link) | The Toys! | Video (external link) | Flickr (external link)
Shampoo sounds like an unfortunate name for a hair product.
You're a ghost driving a meat-coated skeleton made from stardust, riding a rock, hurtling through space. Fear Nothing!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spacetime
Goldmember
Avatar
1,276 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Sep 21, 2011 20:51 |  #59

Brian_R wrote in post #13142065 (external link)
yea the closest i would ever shoot is maybe a headshot of someone on occasion which would only be like 3 feet away maybe. i have no need for macro at all. and i do enjoy taking advantage of shooting wide open especially with my 50 1.8 and like shooting under poor strange lighting. and my eyes are fairly good as i do lots of manual focus for live TV broadcasts and my director has yet to tell me to find my focus.

so i think i can still safely say that the zeiss planar 50 1.4 would still be a good choice :)

I'd get a Super Takumar 50/1.4 and a m42 adapter. It's remarkably sharp wide open and at closer focusing distances, has pleasing bokeh and is relatively cheap at under $200. If the focus shift of the ZE 50/1.4 bothers you then get the fully manual C/Y 50/1.4 or perhaps even the ZF 50/1.4.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noisejammer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,053 posts
Likes: 6
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto ON
     
Sep 21, 2011 21:09 |  #60

kenwood33 wrote in post #13136758 (external link)
sorry but what is focus shift?

Ken, it's an effect that's often seen with fast lenses that don't use aspheric elements. The effect is that as you stop the lens down, the focal surface appears to move toward the camera.

To understand it, think of light from a point source entering a lens in concentric rings. The larger the diameter of the ring, the further forward light from that ring will be brought to a focus. Now say you focus on the light source with the lens wide open. Since the largest ring dominates the image brightness, you will focus using this light. On stopping down, light from the centre section will come to a focus behind the imager plane. This is the same as having the camera come to focus from a point that's closer than the subject you focused on.

The effect is usually important for lenses that are faster than f/2 but it largely disappears by f/4. It is also most apparent if your subject is close to the camera.

In case it's of interest, the spherical aberration that leads to focal shift is also the cause of lenses looking soft when they are wide open. There's a reasonable page on Wikipedia here (external link)


Several cameras and more glass than I will admit to.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

10,480 views & 0 likes for this thread, 19 members have posted to it.
sigma 50 vs zeiss 50 1.4
FORUMS Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.55forum software
version 2.55 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is marsmith64
958 guests, 222 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.