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

[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.

[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.