Zeiss ZE 50 1.4 vs 100 2 vs 50 2

me again, i have this previous thread on the 100 2
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=958007

i was thinking that the 100 2 would be a big amount of money to shell out to try out MF (i don't want to try a rokinon because 1) i dont like the FL and 2) i want it to be a one go thing)

so in comes the 50mm FL.

the 50 1.4 seems to be very affordable and is right up the "old school MF FL alley"

only things stopping me:
1) i'm seeing negative reviews on the 1.4 e.g. bokeh, corners and whatnot
2) i don't want to buy the cheaper 1.4 and then in the end regret not buying the 50 makro 2

but that would push me back to 100 2 pricerange, but that's another topic.
was thinking the 50mm FL would be a great all rounder

help me get my thoughts in order.

also, what shooting mode would i be using when using this MF lens? manual mode? what happens if one were to use shutter priority?

p.s. if you suggest i go some c/y thing, i would need "buy it now" links as i can't do ebay or the sort since i will only be in the USA for a month and i don't want the hassle of dealing with unknown people.

edit: alright, it's come to a point that what i need from everyone is: "don't buy the 50 1.4 because ..." i kinda need to hear the against arguments because really the reviews are not really convincing me to go out and buy one, the only thing that's FOR it is the supposed "magic" it can give the pics.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12173046
me again, i have this previous thread on the 100 2
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=958007

i was thinking that the 100 2 would be a big amount of money to shell out to try out MF (i don't want to try a rokinon because 1) i dont like the FL and 2) i want it to be a one go thing)

so in comes the 50mm FL.

the 50 1.4 seems to be very affordable and is right up the "old school MF FL alley"

only things stopping me:
1) i'm seeing negative reviews on the 1.4 e.g. bokeh, corners and whatnot
2) i don't want to buy the cheaper 1.4 and then in the end regret not buying the 50 makro 2

but that would push me back to 100 2 pricerange, but that's another topic.
was thinking the 50mm FL would be a great all rounder

help me get my thoughts in order.

also, what shooting mode would i be using when using this MF lens? manual mode? what happens if one were to use shutter priority?

p.s. if you suggest i go some c/y thing, i would need "buy it now" links as i can't do ebay or the sort since i will only be in the USA for a month and i don't want the hassle of dealing with unknown people.

Any of those lenses would be nice. Seriously, any.

The C/Y thing, you can get a 50/1.7 or 1.4 from E-bay, both are good lenses.

I've researched, shot with and obsessed over 50s more than most folks around. There's a really good 50 comparison over at fred miranda(here's the link: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/99638​7 )

Anyway, to make a long story short. If I had to pick two and only two 50s for use on Canon cameras, I'd get the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2*can be coverted to EF mount and loads on Ebay already are* and the ZE 50 Makro Planar.

You might try the ZE2/35. It's great & runs about $1k.. For a lot less - say $100 - you could get an OM-50/1.4 and decide whether you like MF lenses. A decent adapter with the Dandelion chip will cost ~ $30. Achieving good focus without one does take some luck old lenses like the Zuiko series are not quite as sharp as the more modem designs. As in all things, you pay for what you get.

Seriously, if you want good advice on the ZE lenses, you should consider subscribing to Lloyd Chambers' site. That said, the 1.4/50 has a bit of focus shift (like all fast lenses) which can make it tricky. The 2/50 and 2/100 are widely regarded to be two of the finest lenses money can buy.

Rgds, Bruce, Toronto

plasticmotif wrote in post #12173124
Any of those lenses would be nice. Seriously, any.

The C/Y thing, you can get a 50/1.7 or 1.4 from E-bay, both are good lenses.

I've researched, shot with and obsessed over 50s more than most folks around. There's a really good 50 comparison over at fred miranda(here's the link: http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/99638​7 )

Anyway, to make a long story short. If I had to pick two and only two 50s for use on Canon cameras, I'd get the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2*can be coverted to EF mount and loads on Ebay already are* and the ZE 50 Makro Planar.

thanks for the link! i just find it funny that the comparison pretty much sells me to the sigma 50 1.4

noisejammer wrote in post #12173152
You might try the ZE2/35. It's great & runs about $1k.. For a lot less - say $100 - you could get an OM-50/1.4 and decide whether you like MF lenses. A decent adapter with the Dandelion chip will cost ~ $30. Achieving good focus without one does take some luck old lenses like the Zuiko series are not quite as sharp as the more modem designs. As in all things, you pay for what you get.

Seriously, if you want good advice on the ZE lenses, you should consider subscribing to Lloyd Chambers' site. That said, the 1.4/50 has a bit of focus shift (like all fast lenses) which can make it tricky. The 2/50 and 2/100 are widely regarded to be two of the finest lenses money can buy.

Rgds, Bruce, Toronto

i'm not really into the 35mm FL. will check out lloyd chambers' site ... it might be the digilloyd thing i'm seeing many user reviews on the ZE on google

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12173295
thanks for the link! i just find it funny that the comparison pretty much sells me to the sigma 50 1.4

i'm not really into the 35mm FL. will check out lloyd chambers' site ... it might be the digilloyd thing i'm seeing many user reviews on the ZE on google

Like I said, my end two 50mms will be a Rokkor 58 and a ZE 50 MP, but I'll keep my Sigma. It's amazing. I use 50 focal length for EVERYTHING...and it's my only AF lens. Love it.

additional question on 50 1.4 vs 50 2 makro

the latter item being a makro, does that mean there's less focus ring circumference to fine tune a focus in the non-macro range

e.g. .3m to infinity
would the 1.4 have more fine tuning capability than the makro?

If you decided to go with a vintage lens and adapt it check out this site first http://slrlensreview.c​om …31/98-50mm-challenge.html

I ended up with the c/y mount 50mm 1.4 and love it.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12173046
also, what shooting mode would i be using when using this MF lens? manual mode? what happens if one were to use shutter priority?


edit: alright, it's come to a point that what i need from everyone is: "don't buy the 50 1.4 because ..."

because..., MP 50 is said to be a lot better than Planar 50/1.4. If you can afford the MP, buy it. You won’t regret it. Amazing resolution, great colors and contrast.

BTW, You can shoot in Av or Tv mode, as well as, in the manual mode, of course. You just need to focus manually. That’s all.

thanks guys!

pratman: what about the focus ring, does being a makro mean it has less focus ring travel due to the longer macro distance? what i mean is, how is it with regards to fine tuning the focus (i don't plan on using live view, just the EG-S screen)

There are so many good and great 50's why start your MF life with expensive ones? Look at my gear list for some ideas. Most everyone says the ZE 50/1.4 is not that special.

gasrocks wrote in post #12199104
There are so many good and great 50's why start your MF life with expensive ones? Look at my gear list for some ideas. Most everyone says the ZE 50/1.4 is not that special.

Then 'most everyone' have no clue what they are talking about!

The 50 Planar is very special. In it's own way it's one of the most interesting lenses Zeiss has on the market today. The problem is however that it is a bit too special for people just looking for a general purpose fast 50. It's not a general purpose lens and it has a steep learning curve. Many people seem to make the mistake of buying it as their first Zeiss lens because of it's price and not realizing what they were buying. It's a mistake from Zeiss - they should have priced it twice the price of the 50 MP. Then only people that really knew what they were getting would have considered it. The same goes for the 85 Planar.

If you want a 50 that you can use for anything with excellent results, the 50 MP is the obvious choice.

Luka, I think 'gasrocks' was talking about 50/1.4, not the 50MP

Sorry Luka, I misread your post

gasrocks wrote in post #12199104
There are so many good and great 50's why start your MF life with expensive ones? Look at my gear list for some ideas. Most everyone says the ZE 50/1.4 is not that special.

well, 1) i don't have access to the other lenses mentioned here: i.e. c/y
2) i can get anything from online stores, but prefer not to spend money on something half stepped (e.g. rokinon 85) and end up wanting the zeiss anyway (thus losing more money since it will not be easy to unload it here.

I vote you grab the 100mm, of course I'm also currently selling one...

In seriousness, either 50 is stellar. I'm more familiar with the mp and if it's anything like it's 100mm sibling then go for it.