B&H has ZE 50/2 in stock

agphotography wrote in post #9223248
I'm not the most well-versed in Zeiss-speak, but Makro-Planar means it will do extreme close-up correct?

All Zeiss makro lenses deliver 1:2 and there is no way to get 1:1 without the use of extension tubes as far as my research thus far has led me to believe.

I bought it for what will hopefully be superior IQ compared to what Canon has to offer at 50mm. It was delivered today so I'll do a bit of testing and a little write up on it....probably on Sunday. If I don't find it impressive....back it will go. I have high hopes for this lens (and I've read many good things about it) hopefully it lives up to my hopes

jra wrote in post #9225167
I bought it for what will hopefully be superior IQ compared to what Canon has to offer at 50mm. It was delivered today so I'll do a bit of testing and a little write up on it....probably on Sunday. If I don't find it impressive....back it will go. I have high hopes for this lens (and I've read many good things about it) hopefully it lives up to my hopes

I do hope so for you. And I'll wait for your write up. I was rather disappointed with the 28 F/2, 21 F/2.8 and 18 F/3.5 I tried. These are not lenses designed to be used wide open, IMO, what with the ridiculous amount of vignetting they showed.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #9225217
I do hope so for you. And I'll wait for your write up. I was rather disappointed with the 28 F/2, 21 F/2.8 and 18 F/3.5 I tried. These are not lenses designed to be used wide open, IMO, what with the ridiculous amount of vignetting they showed.

Kind regards, Wim

This is indeed interesting. Have any samples to share ?

18/3,5 has severe vignetting yes, the other two no.

Whats amusing, is that this comes from a hardcore fan of the 50/1,2 L judging by vignetteting shown wide open its not designed for wide open use either....and vignetting isnt the only thing troubling the 50L at wider apertures.

I would like to see some sample pics if you can share. Not sure why all ZE lenses are more expensive than ZF,ZK!!!

MR do little wrote in post #9226606
This is indeed interesting. Have any samples to share ?

18/3,5 has severe vignetting yes, the other two no.

Whats amusing, is that this comes from a hardcore fan of the 50/1,2 L judging by vignetteting shown wide open its not designed for wide open use either....and vignetting isnt the only thing troubling the 50L at wider apertures.

I only have some test shots left, but even the guys in the store were utterly amazed. All 5 of the attendants came to have a look.

What is amazing to me, that even with P.I.C. switched off (my default), the TS-E 17 doesn't vignette as much as the ZE 21, or the Nikkor 14-24, at the same f-stop, and the latter at any FL. Quite an amazing feat IMO.

The 50L barely has any vignetting, in real life shots - so far never noticeable, plus, my specimen doesn't have any other issues, not anymore anyway, as is documented on this site in several posts.

The thing that really worried me was the vignetting of the ZE 28. You need to be at F/4 at least to get rid of the worst, and considering it is a 28 mm, not all that wide, I found it to be a bit of a letdown, especially since I really would like a fast 28.

To me it means, also based on my (little) experience with 21 and 18, that this doesn't look like the way to go. Note: to me it doesn't. Considering the performance of my CZ 50 F/1.4, I am now starting to get worried about the remaining lenses in the line-up too. I really do hope the 100 F/2 will perform differently.

Kind regards, Wim

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #9223322
This lens is kinda like looking at a Ferrari and then asking "how much does that cost". It's one of those things where, if you have to ask about it, then it's not for you. The people who are buying this lens could care less about that aperture value. They are buying it for one thing, IQ. It boils down to those who care about IQ and sharp, flat field of view across the whole frame. If all you care about is aperture then well....all I can say is "...move along, there's nothing to see here".

I'll bet everyone on this forum cares about IQ. To some of us it boils down to value. A 50mm f/2 lens for $1300 doesn't represent that IMO. There have been countless threads dicussing this and we don't need to go there.

wimg wrote in post #9225217
I was rather disappointed with the 28 F/2, 21 F/2.8 and 18 F/3.5 I tried. These are not lenses designed to be used wide open, IMO, what with the ridiculous amount of vignetting they showed.

Kind regards, Wim

I shot a 120mm Schneider on a 6x17 which is considered wide and it required a center filter. Most wide angles in LF require a center filter.

Herdinohio wrote in post #9227549
I would like to see some sample pics if you can share. Not sure why all ZE lenses are more expensive than ZF,ZK!!!

They are more expensive because of the electronic aperture. The ZF2s are even more expensive, BTW.

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #9227567
I only have some test shots left, but even the guys in the store were utterly amazed. All 5 of the attendants came to have a look.

So you tested the lens in the camera store...?

wimg wrote in post #9227567
What is amazing to me, that even with P.I.C. switched off (my default), the TS-E 17 doesn't vignette as much as the ZE 21, or the Nikkor 14-24, at the same f-stop, and the latter at any FL. Quite an amazing feat IMO.

Well thats great, for many vignetting isnt such a problem.

wimg wrote in post #9227567
The 50L barely has any vignetting, in real life shots - so far never noticeable,

wimg wrote in post #9227567
plus, my specimen doesn't have any other issues, not anymore anyway, as is documented on this site in several posts.

Are you serious ? The 50L is a prime example (no pun intended) if compromises made to have a fast lens.

In one sentence you say "your" 50L dosent have any more issues, next you say no more then is documented on this site... confusing to say the least.

wimg wrote in post #9227567
The thing that really worried me was the vignetting of the ZE 28. You need to be at F/4 at least to get rid of the worst, and considering it is a 28 mm, not all that wide, I found it to be a bit of a letdown, especially since I really would like a fast 28.

This you tested in the store ?

Its funny cause you can detect the ignetting on the 28/2 and not on the 50L... Just as some people wont be bothered with the vignetting on the 50L, in fact they think of it as a charateristic (wich it is, due the design compromises) same goes for the 28/2.

Now anyone having more then fondled the lens in the store, knows that 28/2 is not a "flat field" lens, meaning it suffers from FC wich in turn makes it less then ideal for someone looking for a lens for flat field reproduction. This on the other hand i would think is a real (bigger then vignetting) issue for those that need a lens performing equally across the frame.

wimg wrote in post #9227567
To me it means, also based on my (little) experience with 21 and 18, that this doesn't look like the way to go. Note: to me it doesn't

To go for you ?

wimg wrote in post #9227567
Considering the performance of my CZ 50 F/1.4, I am now starting to get worried about the remaining lenses in the line-up too. I really do hope the 100 F/2 will perform differently.

Kind regards, Wim

Why do start to get worried ? You dont own the lenses in question. Nor do you need to.

Do you have the 50/1,4 ZE ?

How do you hope the 100/2 ZE will perform diffrently compared to the 50/1,4 ZE ? (Of course it will since they are two completely diffrent designs and focal lengths.)

Nevermind the 50, I want the 100!

MR do little wrote in post #9227734
So you tested the lens in the camera store...?

Yep, indoors, but also outdoors.

Well, for me it depends on how serious it is and at what apertures. I like to shoot a fast lens in low light, and heavy vignetting is a no-no to me in that case, not because it isn't incorrigible in PP, but because you loose a fair amount of DR too, when you don't have a lot to start off with. Generally, strong optical vignetting is an indication, to some degree, of sharpness as well. Compare attached pictures.

I didn't want to put the story up another time, what is documented on this site in my own posts about my own 50L, that's all, but here you go.
In short: a few years ago I was looking for a fast 50, did test, amongst quite a few others, a 50L - focus shift. IQ in sharp areas incredible, which si why I wanted to have a good one - knew it was possible. Over period of > 1 year tested 4 more. First two of those: focus shift (just like first, from F/1.4, worst at around F/2, disappeared by F/2.8, from MFD to about 1.5 and 1.8 m, to different degrees for each lens). Next two: "normal" backfocus (same amount, all apertures, all distances). Kept last one. Sent to Canon for recalibration, twice. Second time around was perfect. Has become my preferred lens.

As I said, yes, not only indoors, but also outdoors. Walked around with it taking some shots.

It is quite a difference in scale. It is immediately noticeable with the 28 at F/2. I've attached two images, 1 at F/2, the other at F/4. They are processed exactly the same, i.e., exposure correction exactly the same amount, and sized for web in eaxctly the same procedure and steps.

If I want a flat field lens, I'll get a short macro lens, not a fast WA or standard lens. I'd get a 28 for landscape, city scape, group portraits. And I'd get a fast 28 for low light too. This is where heavy vignetting is a problem, unless you only want to see the centre, or everything in the centre sharply, see my remarks higher up. Field curvature will be taken into account when framing and focusing, so no problem for me, certainly not with this lens.

Yes. Which is why I added the note. Others may have different needs and/or opinions.

No. But I do get worried because I would like to have a fast 100 which can compete with an L-lens. Just like I was looking for a fast 50, I'd really like a fast 100. And no, the EF 100 F/2 doesn't cut it for me. Not the same.

No, I have a CZ 50 F/1.4, as I indicated. It's also in my gear list.

With regard to performance wide open, IOW, at F/2.

I played with a ZE 50 F/1.4, just for the sake of it a while ago, because I wanted to see whether it was better than the CZ 50 F/1.4. It is a little, as it is sharper at F/2. Other than that it is about the same.

I want a 100 mm which is fast, and which is excellent at F/2, without noticeable vignetting. I am hoping the ZE 100 F/2 is the lens that delivers that. I get worried because personally, I think the other ZEs I mentioned here are not as good as people believe them to be, specifically when used wide open. They are good to excellent two stops down from wide open, but that is not what I am looking for in a fast lens. To me it is F/2 and be there with a WA of 24 mm and longer lens up to 135 mm, F/2.8 with an UWA down to 20 mm, and F/4 if shorter. This is where they fall short, for me.

Kind regards, Wim

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

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

What an interesting time to be looking at lenses. So many new alternatives coming out almost constantly. Look at the debate just this one lens can produce. I enjoy it but canot imagine how complicated it must semm to someone new to all of this.

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #9223322
This lens is kinda like looking at a Ferrari and then asking "how much does that cost". It's one of those things where, if you have to ask about it, then it's not for you. The people who are buying this lens could care less about that aperture value. They are buying it for one thing, IQ. It boils down to those who care about IQ and sharp, flat field of view across the whole frame. If all you care about is aperture then well....all I can say is "...move along, there's nothing to see here".

I might buy this if the lens tests actually backed it up, but they don't. Check out the tests on the ZF version which has been out for a while. There are also several excellent macro lenses that can even do 1:1 with an extremely flat field and next to zero distortion with no vignetting. And they also cost 2-4x less and come with autofocus. Take the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro for example. $500, AF, 1:1, FF coverage, absolutely perfectly sharp corner to corner at all apertures.

gasrocks wrote in post #9228289
What an interesting time to be looking at lenses. So many new alternatives coming out almost constantly. Look at the debate just this one lens can produce. I enjoy it but canot imagine how complicated it must semm to someone new to all of this.

2 weeks ago I had no idea that Leica was an option and this week I'm sitting on 2 very fine Leica offerings and thanks to these forums and you in particular for sharing that knowledge.

I personally enjoy good healthy debate.