Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50

[alifatemi]

any body got first hand experience on Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50 with EF mount for Canon please?

[spotmeter]

any body got first hand experience on Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50 with EF mount for Canon please?

I bought the lens, but later found that the Zeiss 50 macro is much sharper in the center, and especially the corners, on my Canon 5D2, if that is of any interest to you.  I just keep the 1.4 as a normal lens for my old back up camera, which I hardly use.

[stever]

i recommend you subscribe to diglloyd.com DAP+Zeiss lenses, considering the cost of these lenses i think the $60 subscription is pretty reasonable

[BernardLanguillier]

Unless you need 1.4, the Zeiss 50mm f2.0 macro appears to be a better performer, the macro capability being a bonus.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dustbak]

I have both. De macro is bigger and heavier. The 1.4 is lighter and smaller. The macro is easier to focus, it is easier to see the image 'pop' into focus. The macro performs better optically however both lenses perform really well.

If you plan to use the lens on a cropped sensor body you should definitely go for the macro IMO.

I use the lenses on Nikon equipment.

[Janifero]

I use the 1.4 on Nikon equipment since it was released, about 3 years ago.  It is a great lens.  

In terms of durability it is extremely well built.  I've hauled it through deserts, exposed to sea water, had it slammed in the back of a pick-up, with no negative effects so far except a crushed hood and the expected scratches.

There is no effect on the image quality either.  I originally had a Nikon 1.4 that was lighter, but the Zeiss makes things "pop" and the bokeh is very pleasing.  Wide open it conserves good contrast and has soft DOF transition.  In subjective "magic" terms, it seems to inherit a bit of the "clinical" sharpness of the Zeiss lenses, but the bokeh/DOF reminds me more of a summicron.  

My misgivings are its size and the focus seems a little loose now, although that might be due to it's wear and tear.  These are minor points really.

If you already have a 50mm that you are 80-90% content with, or if you do not use 50mm that much,  I would recommend you stick with a Canon prime.  If the extra stop is not too important, then the 2.0 might be better.  Otherwise it really is a great lens, and half the fun is using it wide open.

Good Luck

[K.C.]

Nobody has mentioned that the macro is a flat field lens. That may affect your choice depending on the application.

[Steve_Townsend]

i recommend you subscribe to diglloyd.com DAP+Zeiss lenses, considering the cost of these lenses i think the $60 subscription is pretty reasonable

I will second that comment. I bought the 100mm before reading the report, but after reading went on to buy the 35mm and just ordered the 50mm makro which I understand from Lloyds report is the better of the two.