How much is a used Zeiss 50 1.4 worth? Are they really THAT amazing???

Hi guys,

Today I was bumming around some camera shops around here and saw two Zeiss Planar 50 1.4s. One was $600, the other one (and this seemed like an incredible deal) was $400! Both in boxes and seemed to be in great shape. (Unfortunately, both were also Nikon mounts).

Is that a decent price for them? (I'm just wondering if I should keep my eyes open for a Canon mount copy)...and...most importantly...are they all that great?

Use 35L

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14744343
Hi guys,

Today I was bumming around some camera shops around here and saw two Zeiss Planar 50 1.4s. One was $600, the other one (and this seemed like an incredible deal) was $400! Both in boxes and seemed to be in great shape. (Unfortunately, both were also Nikon mounts).

Is that a decent price for them? (I'm just wondering if I should keep my eyes open for a Canon mount copy)...and...most importantly...are they all that great?

I honestly wouldn't bother. the EF 50mm F1.4 is a terrific lens for the money.

Manual focus is cool, but gets old real quick on a dslr type camera.

wow...reading reviews and they're not that great...certainly not great enough to make me want to ditch AF and aperture control...seems like it's merely a decent, average 50 1.4, and that a good copy of a Sigma would be the way to go...

gunston wrote in post #14744389
Use 35L

I'm not asking for random lens suggestions...I'm asking

1: what this specific lens is worth
2: if this specific lens is good

not to mention the 35L is $1,400

sheesh...some people on here...

pyrojim wrote in post #14744392
I honestly wouldn't bother. the EF 50mm F1.4 is a terrific lens for the money.

Manual focus is cool, but gets old real quick on a dslr type camera.

Thanks for the feedback...I'm not a huge fan of the EF 50 1.4 (owned two, was disappointed twice), but I hear great things about the Sigma 50 1.4...so if I were to get a fast 50 it'd be that...I was just shocked that a Zeiss could be had for $400...I always thought that even used they were much more expensive than that...I wouldn't have minded adding something like that to my collection if:

a: the quality was mindblowingly amazing
b: the $400 was an insanely good deal I couldn't pass on

But it seems like the lens is just ho-humm as far as 50 1.4s go (which, generally, tend to be pretty darn good)...certainly not worth giving up AF for...

Odd. I owned a Canon 50mm 1.4 and now use a Zeiss 50mm 1.4 and the difference is downright embarrassing. Sure, you have to focus manually, but it's not that big of a deal, it makes you think about your shot more than just pressing a button.

The two aren't even in the same league. Don't listen to the haters who don't even own Zeiss lenses. Look at anyone who owns Zeiss. It seems that once people try it out, they don't go back to L lenses.

Pay attention to reviews from people that own the lenses. Reviews from people just borrowing the lenses or just putting it under a microscope with test patterns, you can ignore those.

The Zeiss 50P is a very good lens with the limitation that it is not optimized for shooting subjects at short range when wide open (or close to it). Once you get to medium distances and beyond it is easily superior to the Canon 50/1.4, which has poor colors and average build quality, bokeh, general rendering...though sharpness stopped down is excellent.

$400 is a very good deal, and the fact that is a Nikon mount really is not a big deal. Get an inexpensive adapter and enjoy.

Lack of AF kinda sucks since DSLR's aren't optimized for MF, but there are a couple of ways to mitigate that. One is to use a replacement focusing screen that uses a split prism, if that's feasible on your camera. The other is to load up the Magic Lantern firmware and use the focus peaking feature in live view, if you have a compatible body.

I've never shot Zeiss glass, but everyone I know of that has loves them, and comments on how their character is totally different in terms of color saturation and contrast.

I've got Z50/1.4 in Eos mount format. It's not the best offering from Zeiss, and certainly lags behind the 50/2 and 100/2, but has a distinctive look that can be appealing in some situations.

Bob

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14744470
Thanks for the feedback...I'm not a huge fan of the EF 50 1.4 (owned two, was disappointed twice), but I hear great things about the Sigma 50 1.4...so if I were to get a fast 50 it'd be that...I was just shocked that a Zeiss could be had for $400...I always thought that even used they were much more expensive than that...I wouldn't have minded adding something like that to my collection if:

a: the quality was mindblowingly amazing
b: the $400 was an insanely good deal I couldn't pass on

But it seems like the lens is just ho-humm as far as 50 1.4s go (which, generally, tend to be pretty darn good)...certainly not worth giving up AF for...

I did used to use a converted Minolta Rokkor-X 50/1.2.

Made the zeiss feel cheap.

The 50 1.4 ZE isn't the best when compared to the 50 f2 MP. I own the 50 f2 MP and it's stunning! The rendering from Zeiss is something else.

Like a few others, I own the 50/2 MP not the 50/1.4 but I like the tactile feeling that a really well crafted lens gives me. I've almost abandoned L-glass.

To my mind, $400 for a ZF 50/1.4 is an incredible bargain. Before you put your money down, take a good look at it to make sure there's no fungus. It would work as an entirely manual lens but that's not a big hassle, particularly if you fit a Zacuto Loupe and Frame to your camera.

Zeiss 50 1.4 is crap....worse than canon 50 1.4 and sigmalux.

Zeiss 50 MP is the one you want.

LowriderS10 wrote in post #14744343
Hi guys,

Today I was bumming around some camera shops around here and saw two Zeiss Planar 50 1.4s. One was $600, the other one (and this seemed like an incredible deal) was $400! Both in boxes and seemed to be in great shape. (Unfortunately, both were also Nikon mounts).

Is that a decent price for them? (I'm just wondering if I should keep my eyes open for a Canon mount copy)...and...most importantly...are they all that great?

IMO you would be better off considering the CY 50mm f1.7 which is not only cheaper but the quality and rendering is just as good. I have owned them both at one time and quite a few folks use these lenses for video also:

http://slrlensreview.c​om …t-50mm-f17-cy-lens-review

Sharpness is ideal with the 50/f1.7 throughout the range but similar to the 50/f1.4 the bokeh is a little busy compared to the newer much more expensive ZE & MP versions.

Regards, Ron