What's the tradeoff between Canon L lenses v. the new Zeiss primes for the Eos?

AF is one obvious difference. But what does the Zeiss glass being to the table that makes a difference for photographing groups people and v. large prints.

I have always been a fan of the Zeiss (MM lenses with an adapter) and have a good collection for landscape and have had a lot of enjoyment using them with my 1DII and with my film cameras.

Right now I have a choice between the new 35mm Zeiss and the well-respected 35mm 1.4 L.

I'm especially interested in the 35mm EF focal length as it would allow me to photograph groups of 4 musicians with bulky instruments in one shot from the end of my studio. I do have a 24-105mm L IS, which could cover that but I'd like to have the best optic and be able to focus easily. With live view on the 5DII we have a focus aid for studio work.

I looked at the Zeiss 35mm 2.0 in the store. It seems a beautiful instrument. It has a very gradual focus with the long gearing of the manual focus ring. The camera does respond with the green focus light, however it's much slower to use than the 35mm f1.4. In the beginning I just went past the focus point many times. So the question is this, how much difference in quality does one get for sacrificing AF when the goal is a giant blow up with the maximum resolution, contrast and clarity? Anything else I have missed like CA, distortion, flatness of field, would be good to know.

Thanks,

Asher

Asher

DigiLoyd has a comparison (pay for) that goes into some detail. The Zeiss came out ahead up to about f4, then they were equivalent. Both are great lenses, though the Zeiss is probably better for manual focus and the ef is the only af option.

I've got a ZF1 that I use via an adaptor that gives me focus confirmation, but not auto aperture....

It draws really nicely.

Mike

Mike Shimwell said:

Asher

DigiLoyd has a comparison (pay for) that goes into some detail. The Zeiss came out ahead up to about f4, then they were equivalent. Both are great lenses, though the Zeiss is probably better for manual focus and the ef is the only af option.

Click to expand...

Samy's has a 15 day return policy so I guess I could get the Zeiss and save the extra $400 on the Canon 1.4 L. Maybe I should pay for the digilloyd review!

I can see that the background Bokeh is attractive.


[/QUOTE]

These are really nice family images. So you must have developed good MF skill with this lens since kids at lunch aren't famous for patience with photographers.

would you choose it in the faster pace studio environment, or do you think that one just gets into the manual focus acquisition much faster after a day or two. For architecture or landscapes, it's never been a problem since they don't generally move much! That's where I've mostly used my Zeiss lenses with my 1DII with aplomb.

Asher

Hi Asher

I did get better at MF, but I also got lucky Of these sets only one was obviously soft. However, I would choose the EF for faster paced work, just to get the best chance the focus was spot on. I have no issue admitting that the camera focuses faster and more accurately than me almost all the time (provided there is a suitable focus point -though of course the impact of limited focus point divergence on framing can be an issue).

Following the earlier discussion on Cem's new 24, I'm quite interested in trying one of the alternative screens though. That would likely help, thogh then it may prove more difficult focusing at smaller apertures.

Oh yes, I've got a 28/2.8 Zeiss Contax distagon - another nice lens.

Mike

Asher

in general, the Zeiss lenses (Contax and new series) have better microcontrast and most of them more of what's called 3-D or plasticity - than the Canons.

I know, that can become a long discussion
as I haven't the time for it, I leave it at the point, how it renders a 3dimensional object. ;-)

Michael Fontana said:

Asher

in general, the Zeiss lenses (Contax and new series) have better microcontrast and most of them more of what's called 3-D or plasticity - than the Canons.

I know, that can become a long discussion
as I haven't the time for it, I leave it at the point, how it renders a 3dimensional object. ;-)

Click to expand...

Michael,

All my early pictures of the Walt Disney concert Hall were made with the Zeiss 17mm or 21mm on the 1D Mark II. As it was on the tripod and the building have lots of patience, timing did not bother me. Then when I used the 28-85 Varrio Sonnar to make a portrait of a young lady, getting the focus tack sharp on her eyes revealed my slowness!

I think I might test the lenses in my studio by buying both the 35 1.4 and the Zeiss 2.0 and returning one! I do like the dimensionality of the Zeiss but I'll have to use it in the studio.

Asher

I'm upset with myself.
I just spent 30 minutes typing out about the adjustable focus confirm adapter and how to adjust them and lost it.
To be short this time. You can adjust for front and back focus then fine tune in micro adjust, you can name the focal length, tell the camera what f/ number for perfect metering and set for M/F or A/F. Priced at $23.something for M42 and I believe $6 more for C/Y mount. I have a nice collection of M/F lenses and changed to this adapter for all of them.

With this adapter you might find the M/F lenses you already have will work great for you.

Some examples with the adapter set to A/F.

CZJ flectogon 35mm/2.4



SMC 50mm/1.4 Takumar



A very under rated great lense. Russian jupiter 37A 135mm/3.5.
Many people rate this higher than the Zeiss sonnar it is based on.

Ron Morse said:

I'm upset with myself.
I just spent 30 minutes typing out about the adjustable focus confirm adapter and how to adjust them and lost it.

Click to expand...

Hi Ron,

Please don't be upset, this happens to me as well every once in a while so you are not the only one. Thanks for persevering anyway.

Cheers,

Asher Kelman said:

Michael,

All my early pictures of the Walt Disney concert Hall were made with the Zeiss 17mm or 21mm on the 1D Mark II. As it was on the tripod and the building have lots of patience, timing did not bother me. Then when I used the 28-85 Varrio Sonnar to make a portrait of a young lady, getting the focus tack sharp on her eyes revealed my slowness!

I think I might test the lenses in my studio by buying both the 35 1.4 and the Zeiss 2.0 and returning one! I do like the dimensionality of the Zeiss but I'll have to use it in the studio.

Asher

Click to expand...

Asher,
I never heard about a Zeiss 17...

Focusing: I'm used to mf but as Ron pointed out, you might get some AF-confirm chip with the adaptor - it works identically then as with a TSE, for example.

Michael Fontana said:

Asher,
I never heard about a Zeiss 17...

Focusing: I'm used to mf but as Ron pointed out, you might get some AF-confirm chip with the adaptor - it works identically then as with a TSE, for example.

Click to expand...

Oops,

It's 18mm, LOL!

Asher

Asher, can't compare canon 35 l as never had one. i use the nikon zf 35/2 about 70% of the time..

The pic I just posted of ayesha is with it. *0% of nepal pics with nikon were with the zf 35/2.

Zeiss micro contrast, color, transition to oof areas, minimal ca, very flare resistant, and sharp at f2. I never really care that much about sharpness. equally superb at near and infinity.

Of course I am biased. Cons ( ? ) mf, f=2. the build is metallic, the focus ring is smooth with the right
tension.

Pure photographer's joy.

Regards.