Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: zeiss ZE for cannon  (Read 11048 times)
Photostudent
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« on: October 30, 2008, 04:08:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi guys,

looking for review and sample images of zeiss ZE series lenses on cannon full frame camera.

looking for help

regards
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2008, 04:15:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I see there is a review of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE Planar over at www.the-digital-picture.com. Looks like he was sent a crap copy which is rather disappointing. I would have excepted more of Zeiss than this.
Logged

pgmj
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2008, 02:42:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Photostudent
Hi guys,

looking for review and sample images of zeiss ZE series lenses on cannon full frame camera.

http://www.reidreviews.com/ has a review of the ZE 85.
Logged
Thomas Krüger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452



WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2008, 04:37:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Other Zeiss tests are at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php...=1&si=zeiss
Logged
cjmonty
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2008, 02:24:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I just purchased the Zeiss 50/1.4 from B&H.  I began running some comparison tests with the Canon 50/1.4 this morning.
Unfortunately It hasn't been conclusive so far- I am having some real trouble getting the focus to line up equally with both the lenses.  Even at f/8, Canon's handy focus beep is woefully inconsistent.
Once I get them in the studio with everything squared-up and able to focus with an L-Finder or LiveView, I'll put up some images on the forum.

My early impression is that these two are pretty similar.
There MIGHT be more softness at the edges on the Canon, and barely more softness at the center on the Zeiss.  However, there are so many funky variables and focusing problems with those results that I cant be sure.

The Zeiss is built like a fine piece of machinery- really solid and almost heavy.  For an ex-view camera guy like me this is a positive sign.  However, as far as I can tell so far this quality may be simply cosmetic.  I don't care for auto focus, but I won't pay twice the price to not have it.

I expect to find more softness at the corners on the cheaper Canon lens.   However, I'm trying to keep my expectations from influencing the testing.  There is a chance these finely built Zeiss lenses aren't worth the hype- although I can already tell my 50/1.4 is fine lens despite any comparisons.
Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2008, 10:44:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cjmonty
I just purchased the Zeiss 50/1.4 from B&H.  I began running some comparison tests with the Canon 50/1.4 this morning.
Unfortunately It hasn't been conclusive so far- I am having some real trouble getting the focus to line up equally with both the lenses.

That's the real issue, manual lens on auto-focus cameras.  I have a bunch of FD glass that I sometimes use on my EOS's.  Some of them have infinity, some not (but are good for table top products).  Anyway, I've read that the Zeiss, being so sharp, is very unforgiving and will show focus error to a greater extend than to manual focus a softer or AF lens.  I have an FD100 F/2.8 that will resolve fine pitch font on a catheter at twenty feet (it's sharper than my EF100 2.Cool, but I have to use f/5.6-8 and a tripod and very precise movement to get that sweet spot.  I can only emagine the Zeiss having the same issue, and I do want one but wonder if it would be an issue with hand holding or run and gun.

However, I'd be interested to know your results for on tripod studio use, as much of my product shots wind up on large banners for conventions and flaws will show.
Logged
photoshutter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2008, 12:01:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I just sold 50mm Zeiss ZE, my 50mm 1.2 L is much much much better (+ very good AF), sorry Zeiss.
Logged
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2008, 01:28:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting ...  The review at SLR Gear certainly doesn't rave about the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar (not ZE). Seems to be similar to the Canon 50mm f1.4. Mediocre at f1.4, ok centre sharpness at f2 (good for portraits) and very good when stopped down at about f5.6.

I think I will keep my Canon 50mm f1.4. What i'm really keen to see is the Zeiss 21mm ZE on my 1DS Mrk3. Hopefully it will live up to expectations.

Dave
Logged

Marlyn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 253


« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2008, 10:28:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DaveDn
Interesting ...  The review at SLR Gear certainly doesn't rave about the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar (not ZE). Seems to be similar to the Canon 50mm f1.4. Mediocre at f1.4, ok centre sharpness at f2 (good for portraits) and very good when stopped down at about f5.6.

I think I will keep my Canon 50mm f1.4. What i'm really keen to see is the Zeiss 21mm ZE on my 1DS Mrk3. Hopefully it will live up to expectations.

Dave


Agree on the 21mm,  I have high hopes for a top-notch Zeiss wide-angle to complement my 1ds3.

Mark

Logged
cjmonty
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2008, 12:45:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I did my careful (but admittedly not scientific) lens comparison this morning.  I shot several lenses off from a tripod at a wall covered with newspapers.  Shot on a 5D Mark II, Controlled lighting, with all shots at 1s exposure @f/8, at a distance of 14'.  All focusing was done at 100% via the EOS utility on the a 26" monitor.  I have attached a view of three 100% comparisons.   I tested my Canon manual focus exposure against an Auto-Focus version , and it was a bit sharper.  
Sorry to the low-light shallowDOF folks, but since I always shoot at around f/8 I didn't do a comparison set wide open.

I'll list off a couple of observations:

Zeiss 50/1.4 vs. Canon 50/1.4
1:  The Zeiss is much more enjoyable and usable to focus in a critical setting.  The play on the rubber Canon focus ring is frustrating.  However, if you shoot AF, then voila problem solved.  If you are doing landscape or studio work the precision of the Zeiss play is very nice.  However, if you are focusing through the 35mm viewfinder, you would never be able to discern tack-sharp  focus anyway.

2:  Sharpness on these two is pretty darn near identical. If anything the Zeiss is a teeny tiny bit more soft, but the Canon is a teeny tiny bit more soft at the edges, while the Zeiss is consistent throughout.  By "teeny tiny" I mean really difficult to tell whether this is due to focus shift or a minute irregularity with my manual focusing.  Given the amount of time and effort I spent manually focusing however, in real world terms you would get near identical results with these two.

vs. Canon 45 TS-E

When I originally switched to digital I was a 'two-exposure stitcher' with a 45 TS-E: to get that nice 4x5 aspect ratio, keep parallels straight in-camera, and I thought I'd get a bit more resolution per-landscape.  The reason why I now own two prime 50s is because it dawned on me that by using a less-sharp tilt-shift lens I was losing detail and throwing away the benefits of having a $8K 21MP camera. Duh.  So I decided tho throw on my 45 TS-E and compare it to the Canon 50/1.4.  The image was cropped to the 50mm coverage and the Canon 50/1.4 was rezed-down to match the TS-E image size.  Results:

1.  That extra 5mm of coverage makes a very large difference.  it feels like a 35mm lens in comparison to the 50mm
2.  As expected, the 45 TS-E is a touch softer at the center, and sharpness does noticeably fall-off to the edges, but not tragically.  I know from experience that this does get much worse with shifting.  You get nice and blurry detail at the edges of your frame as a reward for all your effort.

vs the Canon 24-105/f Zoom lens @50mm:  
This is my second 24-105, after I returned the first for seeming very soft relative to the prime 50mm.  This one is better, but of course still softer than the prime.  Considering what a zoom it is, it still is pretty sharp, even edge-to-edge.  You would notice the different pixel-peeping and printing over 30x40, but otherwise it is close.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2008, 02:21:35 PM by cjmonty » Logged
cjmonty
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2008, 12:51:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I'll probably return this lens.  I'll be sad to do it, given the solid play and feel, but it just doesn't warrant the extra price.  If you never use auto focus and have the cash however, this lens looks to be every bit as good as the Canon.  The next question is how it stacks up the cheaper $80 Canon 50mm!

As for my final conclusion- I want to get my hands on a Zeiss ZE 35mm/2 Distagon, when they finally release it!  If it stacks up to the expensive and highly regarded Canon 35mmL, then that would be well worth it.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad