sigma 50 vs zeiss 50 1.4

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

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.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #13137024
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.

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

drewjoseph wrote in post #13123406
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.

CameraMan wrote in post #13138628
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

mike cabilangan wrote in post #13135602
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

Brian_R wrote in post #13139251
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.

n1as wrote in post #13124031
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?

drewjoseph wrote in post #13123331
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.

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

Brian_R wrote in post #13138609
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
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!

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

Brian_R wrote in post #13140589
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.

Brian_R wrote in post #13142065
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.

kenwood33 wrote in post #13136758
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