How About Some Zeiss Glass...?

At some point (before I travel) I'm going to need one or 2 nice lenses.

I shoot photo-journalistic style and love the wide apertures of primes.

I like 50mm, so I was looking at the Canon 50/1.4, I've used it before and produces some nice images, although the build isn't brilliant.
I can't afford the 1.2 L.

Anyway I really love the old 1.4 50mil FD lens I have on my AV-1 body, and in a way I love to manually focus with a prime... makes me feel much more involved. Plus I have good vision so it's no problem.

So I was thinking of considering the Zeiss plannar 50/1.4
I know the build-quality is superb, and apparently ziess glass is great for video (a big part of my photography).

Has anyone used zeiss glass, or even the 50/1.4. I'd expect image quality to be good, but does anybody have any opinions on it?

Thanks

Does Carl Zeiss produce autofocus lenses for Canon?

The Zeiss 50/1.4 together with the 85/1.4 are generally considered to be the black sheep of the Zeiss family. The 50/1.4 is soft (halos) wide open and basically no better than Canon's 50 f/1.4. The build quality is superb, that's true.

The really good Zeiss 50 mm is the 50 mm f/2 Makro Planar. It is considered to be one of the best 50mm lenses ever built with nearly zero optical flaws. The downside is that the price is twice the one of the Zeiss 50 / 1.4.

MMX wrote in post #10227911
Does Carl Zeiss produce autofocus lenses for Canon?

No. The Zeiss ZE line has electronic aperture control and AF-confirm. It's like autofocus but without a AF motor in the lens. You still get guidance by a 'beep' and a green dot in the viewfinder but you have to turn the focus ring yourself.

denoir wrote in post #10227914
The Zeiss 50/1.4 together with the 85/1.4 are generally considered to be the black sheep of the Zeiss family. The 50/1.4 is soft (halos) wide open and basically no better than Canon's 50 f/1.4. The build quality is superb, that's true.

The really good Zeiss 50 mm is the 50 mm f/2 Makro Planar. It is considered to be one of the best 50mm lenses ever built with nearly zero optical flaws. The downside is that the price is twice the one of the Zeiss 50 / 1.4.

So would you say it's a bad lens? Or just soft wide open... because I could live with softness at 1.4

Yeah, it's pretty soft wide open. One small part in me returning it, other (and larger) reason was because of the bokeh the 50mm f/1.4 produces in some conditions (double lines and such) (the 85mm does the same but it's easier to avoid).

benesotor wrote in post #10227955
So would you say it's a bad lens? Or just soft wide open... because I could live with softness at 1.4

No, it's not a bad lens - it's just not as good as some other Zeiss glass. The principal problem with it is the softness when wide open. It's actually not softness per se, but a halo effect - something that you get with the Canon 50 f/1.4 as well. Bokeh is not fantastic - at least not as good as for instance the 50/2 MP.

It should be better optically than your current Canon 50 f/1.8 and the build quality is of course first rate.

denoir wrote in post #10227981
No, it's not a bad lens - it's just not as good as some other Zeiss glass. The principal problem with it is the softness when wide open. It's actually not softness per se, but a halo effect - something that you get with the Canon 50 f/1.4 as well. Bokeh is not fantastic - at least not as good as for instance the 50/2 MP.

It should be better optically than your current Canon 50 f/1.8 and the build quality is of course first rate.

Thanks,

I'm not tooo worried about it being super-sharp at wide to be honest. For a prime I'm looking for nice bokeh (which you say isn't great actually) good colour rendition and a nice smooth focus ring.

Zeiss micro contrast and pop is still there with the 50 1.4. I wouldn't rule it out as a terrible lens and bad buy. I have the 50 1.4 and LOVE it for the time I was using it. The only thing I did not like about it was the CA wide open and the minimum focus distance, which is the main reason why I'm selling mine for the 50 makro.

bangarang wrote in post #10227998
Zeiss micro contrast and pop is still there with the 50 1.4. I wouldn't rule it out as a terrible lens and bad buy. I have the 50 1.4 and LOVE it for the time I was using it. The only thing I did not like about it was the CA wide open and the minimum focus distance, which is the main reason why I'm selling mine for the 50 makro.

How would you compare it to the Canon 50/1.4, as that's what the Zeiss is up against to be honest.

The Canon 50/1.4 has a lousy AF system, especially near MFD. The focus ring is terrible and the build quality is, well, plastic fantastic. With cheap plastic that is. Optically, well.. so-so wide open and excellent stopped down. It will do in a pinch but it's my least used lens. I'm looking to get rid of it but I have not found a good alternative (Sigma 50 1.4 and the 50L are to big and bulky for a 50mm, Zeiss 50 f/1.4 isn't much better optically and the 50 f/2 MP is too slow).

So you think the Ziess, about twise as expensive... is worth the extra? I'm thinking just the build quality would warrant me spending more, especially for travel/film.

benesotor wrote in post #10228051
So you think the Ziess, about twise as expensive... is worth the extra? I'm thinking just the build quality would warrant me spending more, especially for travel/film.

For film, yes absolutely. With or without follow focus a decent focus ring is a necessity. The Canon 50 f/1.4 won't give you that. As for travel (photography) having no AF can be a disadvantage. Manual focus is fine for stationary subjects and when you are not under time pressure. With AF you can use a DSLR as a point & shoot - not so when you go manual.

Edit: I've noticed now that you have a 7D. Since you have a 50mm already, would you not be more interested in a fast prime in the normal range (normal for crop)? The Sigma 30 f/1.4 is excellent and has a decent focus ring which makes it very suitable for film. If you are set on Zeiss, then there's the 35mm/2 or the old 35/1.4, both excellent lenses.

benesotor wrote in post #10228051
So you think the Ziess, about twise as expensive... is worth the extra? I'm thinking just the build quality would warrant me spending more, especially for travel/film.

Some people will find it's worth it while others won't. I suggest renting it first.

http://www.lensrentals​.com …ss-ze-50mm-f1.4/for-canon

What makes me miss the Zeiss is the fantastic build quality and the nicely damped focus ring.

I have the 50mm f2 makro-planar and all I can say is it's truly excellent! I'll buy more zeiss glass in the future.