Printable View
I am planning to upgrade on 50mm lens .
The dilemma is between canon 50mm 1.4 vs sigma 50mm 1.4 vs zeiss 50mm 1.4.
Some of the pros and Cons I have read from reviews is
Zeisss
Cons : manual focus, pics are soft at wide open
Pros : superior optics.
Sigma
Cons: trail and error as it has some focus issues ,
Pros :Released recently in 2008 ,sharp and great bokeh
Canon
Cons : Old technology, not sharp when wide open
Pros: Cost and good photos.
Thanks in Advance
If you look at the ISO charts none of those lenses are sharp wide open. The Sigma is "better" until you hit F/4 then Canon and Zeiss are the winners.
Release date doesn't mean anything if you are comparing manufactures, only if you are comparing release dates of lenses from the same manufacture.
I think manual focus vs auto focus is the big point here.
IMO the cheapest lens is the best lens, the Canon.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=5
I've had the Canon and Sigma. I preferred the Sigma for better bokeh, sharpness, flare, and vignetting wide open.
I have also owned both and I agree, +1 for the Sigma! Plus the weight of it balanced out well with the camera and it felt solid using it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
I tried both and ended up with the Sigma. It is IMO a lot better than the Canon. It also has a better build and it uses 77mm filters which was good for me. Mine does require AF adjustments of +13 for front-focusing, but after that it is sharp every time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
I also don't notice a real difference in AF speed between HSM and USM on my other lenses.
It doesn't always mean a lot I think, but of course technology has changed over the years. Coatings and optics have improved. Also newer lenses have (more) of those special glass elements(aspheric or something:rolleyes:)Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
How about this lens;
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Planar_ZE.html
gandhi; In an earlier post you were debating between the 35mm F/1.4 and a 50mm. This lens is in the price range of the 35mm L and I think it might be the best choice.
Thoughts any one? I could use a good 50mm as well.
Have you considered renting them to find your personal favourite? lensrentals and borrowlenses have them all.
I have to admit that I would be eager to read your review :-)
Arnt
I haven't used those three, but I have used the Zeiss 50/2.0MP, brilliant:D and the Canon 50/1.2, brilliant:D these are the best at that length, if I had to choose from those selected I would go for the Sigma 50mm. And then if Canon release a 50/1.4 mk2, I would buy that.
But all of the above lenses produce better images than an unreleased lens. :(
Steve; so Zeiss 2.0 or the Canon 1.2? Which would you go for.
If I had the 24-70 mk2, I would have the Zeiss 50, but I don't so i would probably go for the Canon 50/1.2 as the length of that lens lends itself to AF. 50mm and 85mm I would use for people shots and fast AF is very helpful and the 50/1.2 is fast and accurate and wiiiide.
At 35mm and 21mm the Zeiss wins hands-down for me.
No mention of Leica?
Never even held a Leica, but i do own and love me Zeiss.
I have never used manual focusing till now, is it easy or does it needs to be mastered before getting zeiss?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
Also read complaints from several users regarding back focusing issue for ef 50mm 1.2
I already have EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM so I want to get the 50mmQuote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
The link was to the Zeiss 50mm F/2, it was the lens I was referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by gandhi
Zeiss has a fairly long focus throw, so they are relatively easy to manual focus.Quote:
Originally Posted by gandhi
Back focus with 50/1.2 is not an issue if further than a metre away, I have never shot closer than that with it.
These 5 are all great lenses with superior IQ. The two (2) Zeiss are MF and very different and both very good.
Because I have a few 77mm filters and you would also have a few already owning the 24mm, the Sigma offers great IQ and the same filter size and is probably best value for money for you.
What you shoot is a big part of the MF AF debate. Still subjects and time to compose and focus? MF isn't a big issue. Otherwise I found MF to be a big hindrance. On my Zeiss 35/2, which I sold, the shots were AMAZING when I got the focus right - which was not often enough when trying to shoot anything moving. The keeper rate was too low for me to justify keeping the lens.
After reading this thread and reading up on the 50mm lenses, I am thinking about giving the Zeiss 50mm F/2 Makro Planar a go. I think with its close minimum focus distance and sharpness wide open it could be a very creative fun lens to own. The choice would be a new one from B&H for $1,283 or a used one from LensRentals.com for $1,025.
Steve; I appreciate your thoughts, I'm not much of a people shooter and I don't think the AF will be a big issue for what I like to do. Which brings up another thought, you use Manual Focus lenses with the new 5D III. When I went from the 5D II and 7D to the 1D IV I noticed that it is much easier to manual focus with the 1D IV, it seems to have a better clearer view and more light. Does the 5D III seem better than the 5D II for manual focus?
Hey Rick, the Zeiss are not hard to Manual Focus, definitely the 5D III makes things easier, being the latest and the best.
Here are 2 shots one AFand one MFwhich one do you prefer, straight OOC, very bright day nothing adjusted.
Attachment 1089Attachment 1090
Both f8.0 ISO100 1/400sec, 50mm.
Steve, thanks;Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
Looking at normal size, they are very equal. The manual focus vs auto focus sure doesn't matter.
I saved the pics and took a closer look in full screen view. I really didn't see much of anything that gave one the edge over the other until I got to 400% or more. All in all I think I would be very happy with either lens.
The Macro ability is the thing that might push me more toward the Zeiss. I had the Zeiss in the cart twice last week, once even had the credit card number entered and then changed my mind. I keep thinking I should wait and try and get a 24-70mm II when it comes out instead.
Are you prepared to try and guess which is the Canon 50/1.2 and which is the Zeiss?
It is the top one. It was the one I guessed and it really was just a guess, but honestly I know for sure now since I have seen the EXIF data :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Steve U
Most of the differences I could see at 400x or better could easily be attributed to camera angle and framing, or could have been lens. The differences I see are in the bokeh in the background. The main subjects are near identical. The top pictures seems to handle the OOF area better. There is a bit of difference in the colors, but that could be just a slight variation in color temperature from one to the next. The lower picture also has a color cast on the side of the dogs face, not sure if this from the light reflecting off of the dog's clothes or if it is an aberration. Probably just the light.
The wife liked the top one as well, her comments were that the background shadows looked more natural (whatever that means)
All in all if comparing the two pics neither one wins over the other IMO. It appears the decision of one over the other would be AF vs Macro.
Yeak I liked the top one as well and I don't know why. It literally took me about 200 shots to get 2 with the same ISO and shutter speed to compare in real life terms. People in the Zeiss world talk about Zeiss rendering of colours and so on, I don't see it but I do like using them, they tend to push you as a photographer and I like that.
BTW, how do you check Exif data when I just upload like this?
Steve, I right clicked on the pictures and saved them in a folder. Then viewed them with adobe bridge. The exif data was there.
I got sigma lens , pics are amazing ,colors are great and are tack sharp.