Canon L vs. Zeiss glass

mike cabilangan wrote in post #12856529
there was a recent thread on FM (don't know if i can post a link to another forum) but they've pretty much gone to war with no real conclusion ...

but i'll go with the guy who said: "Zeiss 3D effect is BS"

because that saves me money

Well, the intention of this post to not make it an all out war. Otherwise, I'll have the thread locked. However, I do believe Zeiss glass has a special quality of it's own.

Best comparison I can make is Zeiss 21mm vs. Canon 24L II. The new 24L is considered one of Canon's better lenses, yet, I went back to the Zeiss. The Zeiss has better micro-contrast, and also the rendering allows for that "3-D effect" that everyone refers to.

The 24L II is a great lens, and if I needed AF or 1.4 when using this lens, I would have kept it, but for me, the Zeiss is a special use lens and when I'm using it, the MF does not bother me at all. The image quality goes to the Zeiss.

In last few years, i felt like Canon's quality control is not that superior as it used to be before. My 17-40 was soft at various fl range, my 7D has electronic AF issues, and after getting Zeiss 100, i got a feeling, that even my 70-200 MK II is not as sharp as it should be (bad copy probably?) Also i really like how well build Zeiss glass is, full steel body, metal hood, its look really sexy on my 5D2

I do shoot with both.I have not owned the 24L but the Zeiss 21 is my favorite lens. The IQ is stunning.
Haven't owned the 50L but I love the Zeiss 50MP. I have the 85L and have owned the Canon 100 Macro(not L version) I favor the ZE100MP because of it's MFD but both are excellent lenses. Bottom line is that the Zeiss build quality IMO is superior. The micro contrast is real. If you can work with manual focus I give the edge to Zeiss for the lenses mentioned above.I have a thing about commenting on lenses I have never owned or used.Don't do it.

i was initially planning on getting a zeiss 50 (1.4 or 2) but i figured, i won't touch the MF lenses til i complete my AF lineup, being the 50L first (then mid zoom lens)

Julian, for time composed captures i do suggest folks try the modern Zeiss ZE glass if they can fit them in the budget. Like any quality glass your not going to lose any money if you pick-up a nice 2nd copy of the stellar 21/f2.8, 50/f2mp, or 100/f2mp. While the old Zeiss CY35-70/f3.4 is no sharper then the modern Canon L glass it does still produce the contrast & 3D appeal that none of the Canon L`s can duplicate on my monitor & eyes.

The only two Canon primes that stand out for me are the TSE 24mm/f3.5 II & the 85/f1.2 but thats just me.

However i am very satisfied with the IQ & performance of the Canon 70-200/f2.8 MKII and cant justify the money to purchase any of the Leica-R APO lenses to outperform it or the Zeiss.

Regards, Ron

I wish Zeiss would make an UWA prime... Something like 16mm or 17mm at f/2.8 would be great.

I have the Zeiss 1.4/35 and 2/35. They are _very_ different lenses.

The 1.4 has a fair bit of SA so that it looks dreamy when wide open. It also exhibits some spherochromatism which makes it a difficult lens to focus precisely (even if you use magnified live view.) The SC is very visible when it's wide open and you focus on a point source of light. It's also a heavy lens - even heavier than the 2/100 MP. So that's the downside.

Now the upside - the bokeh is wonderful...

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/noisejammer/5​830862121/

Invertalon wrote in post #12856712
I wish Zeiss would make an UWA prime... Something like 16mm or 17mm at f/2.8 would be great.

Something like the Distagon 3.5/18 ?

Invertalon wrote in post #12856712
I wish Zeiss would make an UWA prime... Something like 16mm or 17mm at f/2.8 would be great.

The local Zeiss rep told me that there was an UWA under development (wider than the 18mm Distagon), however I don't know the focal length or how fast it will be. Delivery was supposed to be this year but since the lenses are manufactured by Cosina, it's possible that the eathquake changed the plans...

You could also look at the TS-E 17/4L. It's the one Canon lens i've seen that rivals a Zeiss. It's also a difficult lens to use.

Yeah, but maybe something a bit wider/faster. The 18mm has pretty bad edge light falloff but decent sharpness at the edges. But I wish it was 16 or 17mm instead.

OP, did you see Denoir's thread w/ comparison photos from Canon v. Zeiss? That should help you see for yourself if there's a difference to you. I could def. pick out the differences.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1002900

I have a couple of Zeiss lenses, 28mm and CZ 35-70. I find the Canon zooms (24-70 and 24-105) both disappointing compared to the 35-70 in terms of how much fine detail it captures for landscape use. They aren't bad, but not sharp in the same way (I think it's a microcontrast effect, esp. if you are shooting when the light is dicey). But I keep a 24-105 for the times I need AF. This is IMO and YMMV.

I don't have a Canon prime in the 28mm range to compare the Zeiss to so I won't go there.

Invertalon wrote in post #12856773
Yeah, but maybe something a bit wider/faster. The 18mm has pretty bad edge light falloff but decent sharpness at the edges. But I wish it was 16 or 17mm instead.

I lust after the Zeiss 18. Light fall off or not.

Invertalon wrote in post #12856773
Yeah, but maybe something a bit wider/faster. The 18mm has pretty bad edge light falloff but decent sharpness at the edges. But I wish it was 16 or 17mm instead.

I doubt there's anything this wide faster than f/2.8, so it's only 1/3 of a stop slower, not really an issue. And I know that 2mm is a big difference at UWA, but you could just take 2-3 steps backwards.

The thing is, 18mm is ultra-wide angle. Hell, 21mm is. It's just since the advent of cropped sensors that 20-24mm is now considered "too long" to be UWA. Zeiss lenses date back to the stone age when there was no such thing as APS-C or APS-H.

I tried the EF 35/1.4 twice but id didn't convince me why I should pay so much money for something that really didn't impress men (specialle the AF). Now with the ZE 35/1.4, I'm amazed everytime I use it ... the color, microcontrast and bokeh, just makes me enjoy this lens.
Sometimes I think about replacing my 85L for a ZE 100, but I can't since my main subjects are my kids (3 and 21 month old) and I need the AF. Maybe I will just add it later when my kids learn to stay still for a picture.