Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/50  (Read 2503 times)
alifatemi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149



WWW
« on: October 17, 2009, 09:13:36 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Ali
spotmeter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 309


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2009, 09:39:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: alifatemi
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.
Logged

stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1046


« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2009, 06:42:05 PM »
ReplyReply

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

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2009, 02:38:01 AM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

A few images online here!
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2009, 04:03:24 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Janifero
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2009, 10:24:35 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2009, 10:51:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Nobody has mentioned that the macro is a flat field lens. That may affect your choice depending on the application.
Logged
Steve_Townsend
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2009, 09:21:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: 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

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.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad