Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE Planar T* Lens Review

[Bryan Carnathan]

Discuss the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE Planar T* Lens Review ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx) - tell us what you think of the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZE Planar T* Lens.

[Jon Ruyle]

Well, maybe someone can tell me what I'm missing. With no af and that kind of money, I thought this would be a niche product for those who absolutely must have the best iq possible. But since the iq seems to fall short of the much cheaper canon f 1.8, I've gotta wonder what the point is. Are there people out there that are willing to buy a lens based on build quality alone? Or the zeiss name?


All that aside, thanks for the review, Bryan. Now I don't have to lust after this particular lens. (And can instead continue lusting after the canon f/1.2 :) )

[Daniel Browning]

But since the iq seems to fall short of the much cheaper canon f 1.8, I've gotta wonder what the point is.


"IQ" means different things to different people. You and I care more about resolution and contrast, but someone else may place more importance on the bokeh. The undercorrected spherical aberration on this lens makes the bokeh very different (and attractive) compared to lenses that are well corrected.


Also, for some users, such as 5D2 video shooters, the manual focus features are vital: "The 270°-rotating manual focus ring is wide (covering most of the lens barrel), very smooth and very precise.
There is no play whatsoever.
Again, there is no rubber on this ring - it is all metal.
Engraved distance markings on the MF ring are accurate and line up with the engraved DOF markings."


Cine lenses cost ten times their still-lens brethren just to have manual-focus related features such as precise markings, long throw ring, reduced breathing, etc.

[Jon Ruyle]

Thanks, Daniel. I can understand the point of view that bokeh is as or more important than resolution... after all, you don't have to be a pixel peeper to tell good bokeh from bad. The difference can show up in modest sized prints.


Do you have samples, or know where I can see samples, of bokeh such as you describe, ie, an undercorrected lens producing more pleasing, or at least very different, bokeh from "well corrected" one? My idea of good bokeh is what is produced by canon lenses that are held in high regard in this aspect: ie, 100mm macro or 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'm assuming these are not undercorrected, so maybe I've never seen really good bokeh.


I can also understand how for cinema, you would want better manual focus control (and manual aperture control as well, I suppose). Of course the problem with the 5D II is that in video mode, one can't judge focus accurately enough for it to matter how good the focus ring is. At least I can't.

[Keith B]

I'm absolutely sure I'll save up an extra $700 for the 85L II when I'm ready to purchase this focal length, which I am heavily considering.

[Daniel Browning]

Do you have samples, or know where I can see samples, of bokeh such as you describe, ie, an undercorrected lens producing more pleasing, or at least very different, bokeh from "well corrected" one?





I don't have samples, but you might have some luck with a few google or flickr searches. Well corrected SA gives out of focus specular highlights that are even in intensity throughout the range and look great. Overcorrected SA which gives bokeh a bright edge, with a harsh look to backgrounds. Undercorrected SA causes the edge to fade out, which is the pleasing quality that lens designers will trade resolution and contrast to attain. The worst SA is when it's a complex curve.






My idea of good bokeh is what is produced by canon lenses that are held in high regard in this aspect: ie, 100mm macro or 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'm assuming these are not undercorrected, so maybe I've never seen really good bokeh.





I think those have very good bokeh, I sure the 100mm macro is well corrected, but I don't know about the 70-200. (I have f/4 and it is definitely not undercorrected. The bokeh is still great, of course.) The 200mm f/2 IS is undercorrected, for example.






Of course the problem with the 5D II is that in video mode, one can't judge focus accurately enough for it to matter how good the focus ring is. At least I can't.





It's tough. I'm able to focus very well in locked off shots with 10X magnification, but in dynamic scenes or handheld it's much harder to get critical focus. I think I can do well enough for at least 720p though.

[atticusdsf]

looks like a rather underwhelming product.. i was initially excited about it, to the end that i would have been willing to put up with the MF, as it looked like a pretty good portrait lens.. not now! if i'm gonna spend that much on a lens, why not spent the extra few hundred and go with the canon 85mm f/1.2?

[Jon Ruyle]

Interesting, but confusing.


I don't know anything about how lenses work, but I thought an undercorrected lens sacrifices in-focus image (and foreground bokeh) for background bokeh (so what you said about the zeiss made sense). Yet the 200 f/2 has a basically perfect in-focus image wide open. If it is undercorrected, what would the in-focus image look like if it was well corrected?


I agree that one can get good focus with 10x magnification on still objects, and I find this the best way to focus on still objects (this is especially useful for astrophotography... at high iso I can see dim stars with live view). I usually start movies focusing manually in this way. The problems start when something decides to move :)

[Daniel Browning]

Yet the 200 f/2 has a basically perfect in-focus image wide open.


Maybe I'm wrong. My information came from an astrophotographer on Cloudy Nights; he said that the 500mm f/4 IS and 600mm f/4 IS were well corrected (and therefore highly suited to astrophotography), while the 200mm f/2 was undercorrected for bokeh.

[Benjamin]

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]Bryan,
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]Thanks for a great review![:)]
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]The Zeiss 85/1.4 was once my most anticipated lens with great expectations. I personally don&rsquo;t mind a full manual lens that maximizes manual experience as long as the image quality is top of the line. To be specific, I was expecting the Zeiss to at least match up the performance of the Canon 85/1.2L II at identical apertures (although nothing can get too much better than the Canon); but now it seems that the Zeiss is a bit behind (overall performance). I have heard tons of discussion around the internet about the Zeiss lens, some of them are quite good and some of them are negative &ndash; that in the end brings me here to listen to you and play around with the ISO12233 charts. This certainly helps me greatly in understanding such a lens, I will thank again for the help!
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]So my decision, I think I will save the money for the Canon 85/1.2L, its optical quality is worth the $700 extra &ndash; I do portrait and some time it&rsquo;s in the evening or indoor. However, I do hope Canon to change the focusing mechanism of the 85/1.2, I actually tried this lens already in person before and I dislike (sorry to say) the focus-by-wire system and the extension of the lens barrel. Well, since I have the 85/1.8 for now I think I&rsquo;ll keep watching for a while.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]All the very best!
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial;"]Benjamin

[adam]

Interesting...the first impressions I read of this lens had focus shift written all over them...uncorrected focus shift is entirely acceptable on a full-manual lens, because you can focus stopped down. But you'd think Zeiss would know enough to do something about it on a lens with no aperture ring...

[Jon Ruyle]

I suppose you can still focus stopped down (dof preview), as zeiss suggests. Seems a little annoying, though.

[cian3307]

Believe it or not, there are people out there who will buy purely for the Zeiss name, regardless of IQ. A kind of snobbish brand loyalty[;)] I've never used Zeiss camera lenses but their binoculars, spotting scopes and riflescopes are superb but other cheaper manufacturers can be just as good or even better!

[electric eel]

Sharpness is not the only measure of lens quality. I have been using this lens on a Nikon (the ZF 85mm) for over a year now and I have never been disappointed with it in any way. At the time of purchase I shot the Nikon 85mm F1.4 Af and the Zeiss 85mm F1.4 side by side. Looking at the pictures I immediately purchased the Zeiss. Here is why. The Nikon made skin colors appear yellow and it had high contrast that made portraiture more garish unless the lighting was dull. The Zeiss on the other hand had the most beautiful tones I have ever seen in a lens, skin tones were gorgeous and the contrast was soft and pleasing, something very welcome in a portrait lens. If the optics on the Canon version of the Zeiss 85mm are similar (and I think they are) the lens should behave the same. Whether the Canon lenses are more like the Nikkors or Zeiss I can not say having not tested against the Zeiss. I have tested old classic Leica Summicrons against the Canon 70-200mm F4 IS......the Canon is just as sharp but again the contrast and subtlties of tone are better in a 1960 Leica lens than a current (extremely good) Canon lens. Btw- soft corners are not to be taken as a negative with portraiture, especiall at f1.4, it can actually contributes to the image, this would not be generally true of landscapes though.

[Jon Ruyle]

electric eel-


Did you do controlled tests, or are these impressions based on a few shots? Don't get me wrong- if you're just speaking based on impressions based on a few shots, I'm not trying to challenge the truth of what you say; it's more that I wonder what you look for and how you filter out differences in lighting etc to know what aspects of color to blame/credit the lens for.

[airfang]

I think the problem really lies in:


Is the ZE mount as sharp as the ZF mount (or even earlier Y/C mount)


When the reviews came out, I was a bit disappointed at Zeiss 50 f/1.4 ZE mount though cuz I thought I would buy it for my 50mm focal length. For 85mm I definitely will go after 85L II.


But now there's another Zeiss lens I am lust after: Makro Planar 100/2, too bad it only has ZF mount available right now (but the sharpness of the ZF mount is incredible), again if there is a ZE mount coming out I would worry if the optical quality would be the same, I am really reluctant to play with convert rings.

[BerndGeh]

Believe it or not, there are people out there who will buy purely for the Zeiss name, regardless of IQ. A kind of snobbish brand loyalty/emoticons/emotion-5.gif I've never used Zeiss camera lenses but their binoculars, spotting scopes and riflescopes are superb but other cheaper manufacturers can be just as good or even better!
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








You are certainly right. The brand name has to do with it. I bought a Planar 85/1.4 ZE last December even though I work for Zeiss since more than 20 years (not for the photography division, though), I am also not quite immune to the magic of this name.


To begin I was a little disappointed about the obvious high amount of spherical aberration which causes the f-number dependent focus shift as well as the softness of the image in best focus. I started focusing just through the eye piece, which works ok in low light conditions. After a while I calibrated the Microfocus adjustment on my 1D Mark III, whith this, the focus confirmation works very well, much better then visual. And of course Live view works always. I also realized, that despite my disappointment, I've been using this lens almost all the time. The nerd in me doesn't like the aberration, the artist in me still appreciates the nice feel the photos have with f=1.4. This is a true vintage lens.


A friend of mine has the 85/1.2L from Canon. I played with this lens and although it is certainly a very nice lens, I like my Zeiss lens better.


After all. I would buy it again.


The photos at the link below are all made with the Planar 1.4/85 ZE at f=1.4. I just love the bokeh and the in focus quality harmonizes well with the rest of the picture.


http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&amp;ss=2&amp;w=all&amp;q=planar8514ze%2C+f%3D1.4&amp;m=tags

[Fast Glass]

Hey BerndGeh, I looked at your pictures and in all honesty I can't see anything different about them. Mabye if you post a side be side comparison I could see a differance, but just looking at the pictures I can't tell.

[BerndGeh]

You are right. In terms of having a real apples to apples comparison I would have to take the same shots with two different lenses. That's something I haven't done. So it's not really a quantitative statement. What I did see in the past (different lenses, different photos) that the area of best focus is extremely crisp and sharp and then out of focus the details are blurred in a way that doesn't seem pleasant. Example here:


http://kubm.smugmug.com/Events-Whats-New/2009/Oct-09-Mamady-Keita-in-Phoenix/10046246_3x9t8#688445387_3Sw3F


This is a photo that a friend of mine took, who I adore for his work. On this particular photo I personally don't like the way the hair looks. Some curls are crisp and others are simply mush. Again, I'm aware that this is not quantitative and prone to personal and subjective liking and disliking. There are different kinds of bokeh and as far as I know there is no quantitative theory available to parametrize the beauty of bokeh.


That was my point to begin with. If I'd judge the lens by its MTF and aberrations, chromatic errors, I probably wouldn't like it. If I look at the photos, I like the results, so I like the lens. Very subjective....