Beyond L; is Zeiss better?

Apart from a couple of color tweaks and resizing, the shots are straight OOC. The 40D + Contax Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 T*

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Shot of my friend, to date has been printed in local magazines and newspaper, and looks great on glossy. F2.8 from C/Y Zeiss 50/1.7. And with a 400D at that!

Quite clearly visible is is the great contrast, and slight 'coolness' that some Zeiss are known for.

Gentleman Villain wrote in post #6164848
Canon lenses are probably perfect for 98% of Canon users. I think once somebody starts getting seriously into Zeiss it's probably an indication that he/she might be happier in another system altogether.

One thing that Canon has going for it is that the lower contrast is much more forgiving on skintones. There are a lot of applications where Zeiss lenses may just be too sharp for the subject.

NOT TRUE!. All Zeiss lens from the M42 and Contax/Yashica mount days can be easily adapted to Canon EOS. Plus if you're REALLY serious and have some money you're ready to part with you can pick up the Contax N-mount lenses and have them converted to EOS by Conorus (do a search on fredmiranda.com). Contax N = Contax AF mount. The Contax N Planar T* 1,4/85 is the same legendary optics of the Contax Planar T* 1,4/85 but with an AF motor... when converted by Conorus it will have full AF and electronic aperature control on an EOS body so you can use it as a wide-open metering lens (same as any EF lens).

If you don't wanna spend the extra dough on the Contax N's + conversion (and be clear it is expensive... the conversions alone START @ US$350), get the C/Y mount Contax 1,4/85 or 1,4/50's and just use stop-down metering.

I use an old CZJ Biotar T 2/58 that is simply stunning in the IQ department, contrasty, rich colors, and as sharp @ f/2 (wide-open) as my 70-200 f/4L IS USM is @ f/4 (also wide-open).

Why are Leica M mount lenses so expensive, they cost twice as much as Zeiss or L.

Because they say 'Leica' on the box (and 'leitz' on the glass). They're VERY good lenses, but the extreme price is due to the Leica name more than anything else. They are essentially the best rangefinder lenses available, though the Zeiss M mount lenses are also very good, and a lot cheaper.

Jman13 wrote in post #7883190
Because they say 'Leica' on the box (and 'leitz' on the glass). They're VERY good lenses, but the extreme price is due to the Leica name more than anything else. They are essentially the best rangefinder lenses available, though the Zeiss M mount lenses are also very good, and a lot cheaper.

I don't understand rangefinder cameras and lenses, what are they good for and why are thy so special

The new Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZE looks appealing. Unfortunately, it's over $600 - and only manual focus, no less.

kingdaddy wrote in post #7885267
I don't understand rangefinder cameras and lenses, what are they good for and why are thy so special

They are not necessarily special, but I love mine. Sorry, about to get abusively lazy, but the following quote from Wikipedia does a pretty good job of pointing out the 'pros and cons' of rangefinders in relation to SLRs:

"The viewfinder of a rangefinder camera is necessarily offset from the taking lens, so that the image shown is not exactly what will be recorded on the film; this parallax error is negligible at large subject distances, but increases as the distance decreases. More advanced rangefinder cameras project into the viewfinder a brightline frame that moves as the lens is focussed, correcting parallax error down to the minimum distance at which the rangefinder functions. The angle of view of a given lens also changes with distance, and the brightline frames in the finders of a few cameras automatically adjust for this as well. For extreme close-up photography, the rangefinder camera is awkward to use, as the viewfinder no longer points at the subject.

In contrast, the viewfinder pathway of an SLR transmits an image directly "through the lens". This eliminates parallax errors at any subject distance, thus allowing for macro photography. It also removes the need to have separate viewfinders for different lens focal lengths. In particular, this allows for extreme telephoto lenses which would otherwise be very hard to focus and compose with a rangefinder. Furthermore, the through-the-lens view allows the viewfinder to directly display the depth of field for a given aperture, which is not possible with a rangefinder design. To compensate for this, rangefinder users often use zone focusing, which is especially applicable to the rapid-fire approach to street photography.

The rangefinder design does not lend itself to zoom lenses, which have a constantly-variable field of view. The only true zoom lens for rangefinder cameras is the Contax G2 Carl Zeiss 35–70mm Vario-Sonnar T* Lens with built-in zoom viewfinder.[2] A very few lenses, such as the Konica M-Hexanon Dual or Leica Tri-Elmar,let the user select among two or three focal lengths; the viewfinder must be designed to work with all focal lengths of any lens used. On a technical level, the rangefinder may become misaligned, leading to incorrect focusing, a problem absent from SLRs.

Nonetheless rangefinder cameras have advantages over SLRs for certain applications. Since there is no moving mirror, as used in SLRs, there is no momentary blackout of the subject being photographed. The camera is therefore often quieter, particularly with leaf shutters, and usually smaller and less obtrusive. These qualities make rangefinders more attractive for theater photography, some portrait photography, action-grabbing candid shots and street photography, and any demanding application where portability matters. The lack of a mirror allows the rear element of lenses to project deep into the camera body, making high-quality wide-angle lenses easier to design. The Voigtländer 12mm lens was the widest-angle rectilinear lens in general production for a long time, with a 121 degree angle of view; only recently have comparable SLR lenses entered the market.

Rangefinder users also sometimes talk of a "stream of consciousness" approach to shooting. The key to this is that rangefinder viewfinders usually have a greater field of view than the lens in use, with the photographer being able to see what is going on outside of the framelines and therefore better anticipate action. In addition, with viewfinders with magnifications larger than 0.8x (e.g. some Leica cameras, the Epson RD-1/s, Canon 7, Nikon S, and in particular the Voigtländer Bessa R3A and R3M with their 1:1 magnification), photographers can keep both eyes open and effectively see a floating viewfinder frame superimposed on their real world view.

If filters which absorb much light or change the colour of the image are used it is difficult to compose, view, and focus on an SLR, but the image through a rangefinder viewfinder is unaffected. On the other hand some filters, such as graduated filters and polarizers, are best used with SLRs as the effects they create need to be viewed directly."

That WAS worth posting.

My internal summary, with pinch of salt:
SLR: Accurate lens view, macro friendly, and obviously fast. Large, comparatively loud, lens and filters can impede view.

Rangefinders: Compact, zone focusable, can be quiet, no mirror blackout, different and possibly very useful shooting approach. Parralax issues, not currently "king of the photographic hill".

I just got an Argus C3, super clean so I'm so happy this sub-issue popped up. I was thinking rangefinders were only for enthusiasts and Ken R.

zeiss are niceeee

I know people hate posts like this, but it seem that whenever I feel like I should upgrade my gear I run across a photostream like this and I realize that its not my gear that's holding me back...

All taken with a 5D and a "lowly" Canon 50mm f/1.4.....

http://www.flickr.com …oneos5dcanonef5​0mmf14usm/

versedmb wrote in post #7885553
I know people hate posts like this, but it seem that whenever I feel like I should upgrade my gear I run across a photostream like this and I realize that its not my gear that's holding me back...

All taken with a 5D and a "lowly" Canon 50mm f/1.4.....

http://www.flickr.com …oneos5dcanonef5​0mmf14usm/

A 5D and Canon 50mm/1.4 is not exactly a lowly setup. That said, you're point is right, and for newcomers reading this thread, it is important. Check out what Robert Clark has done with a camera phone for his Image America series (in the "special projects" link):

http://www.robertclark​photo.com/

Aside from how they handle contrast, one reason why I use Zeiss is because I only shoot manual focus, and I like an aperture ring and a depth-of-field scale on the lens. Plus, my East German era Zeiss 35mm Flektogon cost only US$180.

For that matter, my Zeiss 50mm Planar T 1.4 ZS (M42 mount) cost about US$470 when I bought it new in January 2008, and currently, at Japan's MapCamera, the Zeiss Planar T 50mm ZS is 53,100 yen (US$530) compared with the Canon 1.4 at 58,275 yen---getting a Zeiss would be a "downgrade."

I have quite a few Contax zeiss lenses from back in the day that I was thinking of selling, but this thread made me go ahead and order an adaptor. I'll be curious to see what my beloved T* 100 f2 will look like in my canon.

will-san wrote in post #7885675
I have quite a few Contax zeiss lenses from back in the day that I was thinking of selling, but this thread made me go ahead and order an adaptor. I'll be curious to see what my beloved T* 100 f2 will look like in my canon.

It will blow your mind. The Contax 100 f/2 is one of the finest short telephoto optics ever made for ANY system...you will fall in love with it all over again. I wish I could afford to sink that much money into an MF prime, but my Canon 100 f/2 (which is VERY good) will have to do.

I just LOVE Zeiss lenses, and they definitely spank the L lenses in most cases. But, they each have their place. The Canon's AF much better, some zoom and some are weathersealed. What the Zeiss lenses offer is incredible sharpness, great bokeh, neutral color, zero distortion and incredible flatness of field.

Look at all the other manufacturers that rely on Zeiss optics; Hasselblad, Contax, Sony, etc. Even Mamiya snagged optical formulas like the Biogon for their lenses.

IMAGE LINK: http://litpixel.com …on=9&ee_lang=en​g&u=2044,4

IMAGE LINK: http://litpixel.com …on=9&ee_lang=en​g&u=2044,5

IMAGE LINK: http://litpixel.com …on=9&ee_lang=en​g&u=2044,3