Beyond L; is Zeiss better?

I have 3 Ls and love'm all. Never had any back, front focus problems with any of them. Getting a 200 2 next month. ghost you have the 24L right? That really nice glass. Love mine.

Whoa. Just looked at your gear list.......... Yeah, I'd say you're happy!

airfrogusmc wrote in post #6165571
I have 3 Ls and love'm all. Never had any back, front focus problems with any of them. Getting a 200 2 next month. ghost you have the 24L right? That really nice glass. Love mine.

Yup!

The 24L has really turned out to be a very useful lens for me and on a recent road trip up to the edge of the Arctic, I used it and to a smaller degree, the 35L exclusively as my walk around lenses with very personally pleasing results to capture everything from smaller items on display in a railroad museum to broad landscape shots!

Cheers!

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #6165632
Yup!

The 24L has really turned out to be a very useful lens for me and on a recent road trip up to the edge of the Arctic, I used it and to a smaller degree, the 35L exclusively as my walk around lenses with very personally pleasing results to capture everything from smaller items on display in a railroad museum to broad landscape shots!

Cheers!

Yeah the 35L is the one I couldn't live without. I could shoot almost everything if I had to with it.

One nice thing about my Zeiss 85 f/2.8...it cost me $230.

But yeah, if you have a bag full of L glass, you might get some improvement from certain manual focus lenses, but most of the advantages are small (with the exception of the 21 Distagon), and are likely not worth the loss of AF.

Now, for me, the advantages are huge, as I get L-class image quality from lenses 1/5 the cost. I've also found I really like using manual focus primes...I feel more connected to my subject when I shoot with them.

A lot of talk... does anyone have some sample shots?

Nick_b wrote in post #6165712
A lot of talk... does anyone have some sample shots?

I got some Hassy stuff...

Nick_b wrote in post #6165712
A lot of talk... does anyone have some sample shots?

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/66718​0

Zeiss 85mm f/2.8 Sonnar, both wide open:

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #6164870
Gentleman Villain,

Thanks for your very informative response!

You mentioned the Zeiss lenses needing to be stopped down to f/8 in order to use them on a Canon body. Why is is? And, if you are stopping down a prime to those sorts of settings, wouldn't they all take on the sort of higher praised accolades that you're attributing to the Zeiss lenses?

The Zeiss lenses can be used at all apertures on the Canon body. But remember, the aperture is set manually. So if you have the aperture set to F8 then the Iris will be very small and not much light will pass through the lens. This makes it difficult to focus on the Canon cameras when the Zeiss lenses are set to smaller apertures.

A lot of Canon users will focus the Zeiss at wide open apertures (like F2) and then stop the lens down to actually take the photograph. They call this "stopping down"

Unlike Canon bodies, you don't have to "stop down" when using the Zeiss lenses on Nikon bodies. That's the main reason why I switched to Nikon bodies.

The Ghost of FM wrote in post #6164870
Follow up question; As these lenses would be used via adapters, I'm assuming there would be no auto focus any longer, correct?

Cheers!

Correct. There is no autofocus. Everything is manual. But the in camera meter will still work just fine. Some adapters have focus-confirmation circuitry but I think that people have reported problems with it....

gasrocks wrote in post #6164982
To my way of thinking, the ideal thing about having a Canon DSLR is being able to use alternative lenses when the Canon stable just doesn't trip your trigger. Zeiss, Leica are just a few of the many, many great all-time lenses available. You can get sharper, better, color, contrast (lower or higher,) Bokeh, etc. when you have the others to choose form. See my gear list for just a few ideas. I cannot imagine doing without many non-Canon lenses.

Just looked at your gear. You're one collector for sure.

IMO, it is all relative and depends on what you are looking for.

First of all, you'll loose AF, and need to do stop-down metering. You will need a mount adapter, and you have to make sure it fits properly, and is a qualitatively good one. Slight register problems either will result in problems with infinity focusing, or worse, will mount the lens slightly skewed, resulting in decentering type problems. This is something to be aware of.

I also find that you don't necessarily need AF confirm adapters; since the movement from in focus to OOF goes so quickly, it can be a hindrance rather than a help quite often. You're better off with a specialized focusing screen, the Ex-S series, f.e., or a focusing screen from a third party supplier with a split prism / micro prism collar. Of course, the latter brings with it a few problems too: not being an OEM Canon focusing screen, you'll have to do your own metering adjustments rather than select the appropriate screen from the menu.

Regarding the quality of these lenses, there are two aspects to this, namely build quality, and lens IQ. Build quality of old MF lenses is generally very good, all metal, compact, etc. The electronic age with AF brought with it that lenses had to cater for AF drives and all that, and loose (less tight), fast focusing mechanisms, with less damping, which make modern AF lenses feel less solid, in some cases anyway. Whether this is better or not, is more in the eye of the beholder than anything else, as high quality lenses generally are high quality when it comes to internal mechanical and electronic designs as well.

IQ is an interesting matter, because I find it is more of a personal thing than many seem to realize. To a degree it can be made objective, by measurements, but it depends a lot on what you find important yourself. You'll also find that the truly excellently designed and highly praised MF lenses are not cheap at all, not even compared to, e.g., similarly performing L-lenses. Often a well-performing MF lens can be had for a good price, but is, f.e., a lot slower than a modern counterpart, or requires major technical (mechanical) tweaking to get it to work. If that is no objection to you, great.

You need to remember too, that lens design hasn't stopped over the years. Where in the past lenses had to stopped down 2, 3 or 4 stops to get to their optimum performance, although even with high quality modern lenses that still is true, the difference between (almost) wide open and sweet spot is not as much as it generally used to be, except maybe for designs that haven't been updated yet (some primes come to mind). Since film is more forgiving than digital, that wasn't considered a huge problem in the past.

Of course processing is of importance when it comes to IQ as well, but that is a subject for a different thread, I think.

Coming back to lens characteristics, for my own purposes, likes and dislikes, there are generally 3 types of lenses:

1. Highly corrected for the centre of the image, less so for the edges and corners.
This is often the case with 3rd party lenses, and older designs.

2. Corrected in such a way that centre and edges/corners are very similar in quality.
I find that L-lenses often are designed this way, and this is what I prefer, personally.

3. Lenses that are designed to take a shot that you can't otherwise.
High speed lenses, mostly, or specialist lenses. Canon happens to make quite a few, and often they fall in category 2 as well .

When I wanted to find a standard prime, 50 mm, for fairly close-up low light shooting, I faced a problem, and this is what finally prompted me to check out MF lenses as a potential alternative, especially with many people raving about these lenses. In the Canon line-up, there wasn't a lens in the 50 mm category designed in such a way that it either belonged to group 2, or handled focusing in low light and/or close-up well enough for my purposes. So I went hunting for a an old MF 50 mm F/1.4 lens. While doing so, I found that these older lenses do not work all that well if not stopped down at least two stops, so in that case I could just as well get an EF 50 F/1.4. IOW, if you can live with that, these are all fine lenses. Next I got a MF 60 mm macro, to replace the EF-S 60 macro I sold when getting the 5D. At F/2.8 this lens is just not as good as the EF-S lens was, so for me also slightly disappointing, although it performs fine from F/4 onwards. IOW, all of these lenses are great, but for my purposes require more stopping down than I care for in many instances. If you don't have these constraints, that's fine, but think twice if you do. Although older MF lenses generall are cheaper than Canon's, a lens with similar or slightly better performance than many Ls will likely set you back as much as an L does, if not more.

Of course, if you are looking for very specific image qualities, it may not matter to you, but the above were based on my criteria. If you are specifically looking for Zeiss or Leica type contrast and rendition, by all means, go that way, as it is the only way to go. Canon has its own way of rendering images, as does Nikon, or Konica-Minolta or any other brand for that matter. So, if you are looking for specific image qualities that any of these lenses provide, I'd say, go for it. However, be aware of the pitfalls.

Kind regards, Wim

Gentleman Villain wrote in post #6164745
Some people have reported problems with the 5d mirror hitting some of the Zeiss lenses ...

Gentleman Villain wrote in post #6166601
Unlike Canon bodies, you don't have to "stop down" when using the Zeiss lenses on Nikon bodies. That's the main reason why I switched to Nikon bodies.

Same here ...

Over the next 6 months all my sub-100mm primes or so will be Zeiss ZF on D700. I don't think I have used a nicer lens than the Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm 2.0. I am talking IQ and build and feel. Some of the L's will get close to the Zeiss in IQ terms but when you handle a current Zeiss lens then you will pick up an L and think it's almost like cheap junk.

For me feel is important. if I am gonna MF then it sure better feel good and be accurate. Try a current Zeiss and any current L and you will feel the difference immediately.

Currently I have the 25mm Distagon too, but will be getting the 18mm, 35mm and 100mm in due course. For longer I prefer AF and IS/VR/OS.

For walkaround use I have always got most satisfaction from the process of seeing, composing and exposing. I have had older Zeiss and Pentax lenses for quite a few years and they are excellent - the new ones are just a different class still IMO.

If someone is more into 'getting the shot whatever' then the slower Zeiss approach may not necesarily suit. It is as much a temperament thing and neither approach is right or wrong because it is about what gives us satisfaction in our hobby (most of us are amateurs here after all: I would think differently if I needed to earn my crust through photography!)

So for some getting the Zeiss stuff will be a great move and for others it won't. Depends on ones own personal preferences. I'm not sure it is really about post your best shots and see which are best Zeiss or L. For me it is really about being engaged in the moment of each shot and the Zeiss/D700 combo gets me closer to that than anything else I have owned.

Gentleman Villain wrote in post #6166601
The Zeiss lenses can be used at all apertures on the Canon body. But remember, the aperture is set manually. So if you have the aperture set to F8 then the Iris will be very small and not much light will pass through the lens. This makes it difficult to focus on the Canon cameras when the Zeiss lenses are set to smaller apertures.

A lot of Canon users will focus the Zeiss at wide open apertures (like F2) and then stop the lens down to actually take the photograph. They call this "stopping down"

Unlike Canon bodies, you don't have to "stop down" when using the Zeiss lenses on Nikon bodies. That's the main reason why I switched to Nikon bodies.

Correct. There is no autofocus. Everything is manual. But the in camera meter will still work just fine. Some adapters have focus-confirmation circuitry but I think that people have reported problems with it....

I have several Zeiss lenses, as well as several Olympus, a Leica, a Minolta Rokkor, and a Pentax Takumar. With the exception of a a Zeiss zoom (35-70 Vario Sonnar) and a Zeiss 85/2.8, all are 58mm and under, with a majority at 35mm and under. I use AF-confirm adapters, and have not experienced any problems with them at all. With a suitable focusing screen (EES on my 5D), I'm easily able to achieve focus all the way down to f/8, thanks in part to the larger viewfinder. On the Canon xxD series, this may not be as easy due to their smaller VF's.

Some of these lenses, especially the little Oly's, can be had for a song. Want a wide angle lens that's sharp in the corners, center, and edge-to-edge, get an Oly. How does $70 sound for a 28mm/f2.8 that's sharp across the board? I shoot mostly landscapes, so AF isn't such a big deal. This doesn't mean that I'm going to get rid of my Canon L's, but these old manual focus lenses are a nice respite from auto-everything. The Oly wide angle primes are also small and light, but they pack a pretty good punch IQ-wise. I can carry a bucketload of them in my bag, and collectively they'd weigh less than a single 24L or 35L. If I just need a lens or two, one is on the camera and the other is in the pocket of my cargo pants.

Some even say that the Zeiss 35-70 Vario Sonnar zoom performs as well as a prime, especially at the wide end. Mine is sharp corner to corner, even wide open at f/3.4. I tested it head to head against my 28-70L but haven't gotten around to sorting/finalizing the pictures, but I will say this...the 28-70L, which is not a slouch, had a very tough time of it.

Here are two from a Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2 shot on a 5D at f/2. I'd say that the bokeh from this 30-something year old lens gives that of the 85L a run for the money:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

wimg wrote in post #6167113
IQ is an interesting matter, because I find it is more of a personal thing than many seem to realize.

Absolutely correct, and a most excellent post!

I can't wait to convert one of these...