DPR Forum
Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!
CY Lens Collection Question
- Thread starter tscollins
- Start date
I have the 60 year version Chi. It does not have a built in hood.
The 50 year was an AE, and the 60 year was a MM. Both were made in Germany. I'd suspect that any improvements in T* coating made over the decade between the two could make a minor difference, if at all. As I understand it, these lenses could vary slightly one to the next. The one I currently have was selected from a batch of four 60 year versions as being the best optically.
Strangely, I previously had a 85/1.2 that had no anniversary markings on it at all.
I recently used the lens on a Canon 1DsMKII fitted with a split prism screen to facilitate manual focusing. I shot a corporate picnic featuring a lot of portraits of kids in outdoor park settings. Like all Zeiss lenses, it has a cool cast to it when compared to say Leica glass. Compared to the well thought of Canon 85/1.2 (which I own), IMO there is no comparison. The subtile tonal gradations are nicer with the Zeiss lens and the color is richer... both evaluated on the 1DsMKII. But it better be at 3X the cost!
Here's one of the picnic kid shots from the Zeiss 85/1.2 ...
The 50 year was an AE, and the 60 year was a MM. Both were made in Germany. I'd suspect that any improvements in T* coating made over the decade between the two could make a minor difference, if at all. As I understand it, these lenses could vary slightly one to the next. The one I currently have was selected from a batch of four 60 year versions as being the best optically.
Strangely, I previously had a 85/1.2 that had no anniversary markings on it at all.
I recently used the lens on a Canon 1DsMKII fitted with a split prism screen to facilitate manual focusing. I shot a corporate picnic featuring a lot of portraits of kids in outdoor park settings. Like all Zeiss lenses, it has a cool cast to it when compared to say Leica glass. Compared to the well thought of Canon 85/1.2 (which I own), IMO there is no comparison. The subtile tonal gradations are nicer with the Zeiss lens and the color is richer... both evaluated on the 1DsMKII. But it better be at 3X the cost!
Here's one of the picnic kid shots from the Zeiss 85/1.2 ...
A
antonyb
How about the easier to find Zeiss Planar 1.4 / 85 mm? how does that stand up against the 1.2?
I brought the 50 yr 85 1.2 today, it has no built in hood. I have not shoot it yet.
The theoretical advantage of 85 1.2 to 85 1.4. Sharpnesswise, 1.2 version is better than 1.4 version at every stop. 85 1.2 at 1.2 is sharper than 85 1.4 at 1.4. 1.2 at 2 is better than 1.4 at 2 and the rest.
I have put a second aperture in front of my 85 1.4, it makes the f2 sharper compared to the original f2 of 85 1.4, you can see the difference even in the viewfinder. In terms of sharpness, my 85 1.4 at 2 is as sharp as my M 90 2 ASPH. However, there is still something missing in my 85 1.4. I believe it is due to the astigmatism. I found lenses with no astigmatism produces very good skin tone in portraits. Ex&les are C-Y 60 2.8, C-Y 100 2, C-Y 100 2.8 macro and the new Zeiss M 50 2. On the other hand, those lenses which has astigmatism produces skin tone which is less pleasing, ex&les are C-Y 50 1.7,C-Y 85 1.4. So my 85 1.4 is deadly sharp but there is still something missss...sing.
This is the reason why I spent so much on the 85 1.2,hoping that I could obtain THE kind of skin tone reproduction I want.
85 1.2 has a lot less astigmatism than 85 1.4, so it should have a better bokeh.
Does everyone agrees with me at this stage ?
The theoretical advantage of 85 1.2 to 85 1.4. Sharpnesswise, 1.2 version is better than 1.4 version at every stop. 85 1.2 at 1.2 is sharper than 85 1.4 at 1.4. 1.2 at 2 is better than 1.4 at 2 and the rest.
I have put a second aperture in front of my 85 1.4, it makes the f2 sharper compared to the original f2 of 85 1.4, you can see the difference even in the viewfinder. In terms of sharpness, my 85 1.4 at 2 is as sharp as my M 90 2 ASPH. However, there is still something missing in my 85 1.4. I believe it is due to the astigmatism. I found lenses with no astigmatism produces very good skin tone in portraits. Ex&les are C-Y 60 2.8, C-Y 100 2, C-Y 100 2.8 macro and the new Zeiss M 50 2. On the other hand, those lenses which has astigmatism produces skin tone which is less pleasing, ex&les are C-Y 50 1.7,C-Y 85 1.4. So my 85 1.4 is deadly sharp but there is still something missss...sing.
This is the reason why I spent so much on the 85 1.2,hoping that I could obtain THE kind of skin tone reproduction I want.
85 1.2 has a lot less astigmatism than 85 1.4, so it should have a better bokeh.
Does everyone agrees with me at this stage ?
One more point I wish to add is 85 1.4 has more bubbles in the glass and the size of the bubbles are bigger, compared to 85 1.2 counterpart. The bubbles of 85 1.2 are tiny and they are more evenly distributed. You could see the bubbles by shinning strong pointed light source from the back of the lens.
Marc, how did you test these 85 1.2 when you have a number of them in from of you ?
Marc, how did you test these 85 1.2 when you have a number of them in from of you ?
The Kid photo was at f/1.4 I think (lens meta data is lost when using these adapted lenses on the 1DsMKII). It is a crop of a shot taken further away.
The selection amongst the four different 85/1.2 lenses was made by the person I purchased the lens from. Two were excellent performers, and two were inferior. The inferior lenses were sent back to Zeiss to be corrected.
Today I pick up the C/Y 28/2 that I purchased (the so called "Hollywood 28"). Will report back on that lens after using it in real world conditions.
I am now hunting for the extremely elusive 55/1.2. (the most perfect 50mm ever made?) I have a line on one and will be pursuing it straight into the poor house ; -)
Meanwhile, here's a shot using the 35-135/3.3 in low available light with the 1DsMKII set to ISO 800. The file was converted in PSCS2 using the red channel overlaid on the green channel, then using the eraser tool at 25% to reveal slight tones where needed.
The selection amongst the four different 85/1.2 lenses was made by the person I purchased the lens from. Two were excellent performers, and two were inferior. The inferior lenses were sent back to Zeiss to be corrected.
Today I pick up the C/Y 28/2 that I purchased (the so called "Hollywood 28"). Will report back on that lens after using it in real world conditions.
I am now hunting for the extremely elusive 55/1.2. (the most perfect 50mm ever made?) I have a line on one and will be pursuing it straight into the poor house ; -)
Meanwhile, here's a shot using the 35-135/3.3 in low available light with the 1DsMKII set to ISO 800. The file was converted in PSCS2 using the red channel overlaid on the green channel, then using the eraser tool at 25% to reveal slight tones where needed.
As far as the question of the perfect 50 ever made, I believe other candidates are Canon FD 55 1.2 SSC ASPH. Never use this one. Any experience or idea ?
My vote is to C-Y 60 2.8 Macro, skin tone,colour and bokeh are all beautiful and in fact, better than other Zeiss lenses I encountered. I prefer C-Y 60 to Leica R60 2.8 Macro that the skin colour is better this time for Zeiss than Leica. I prefer 60 to 50 or 55. The image from 60 feels more intimate than 50. For 50, you might have to get nearer to achieve the same size, in doing so got the perspective of the near distance. Near distance perspective might be interesting in kids photos.
My vote is to C-Y 60 2.8 Macro, skin tone,colour and bokeh are all beautiful and in fact, better than other Zeiss lenses I encountered. I prefer C-Y 60 to Leica R60 2.8 Macro that the skin colour is better this time for Zeiss than Leica. I prefer 60 to 50 or 55. The image from 60 feels more intimate than 50. For 50, you might have to get nearer to achieve the same size, in doing so got the perspective of the near distance. Near distance perspective might be interesting in kids photos.
A
antonyb
I'm finding the leitz dual range f2 5cm summicron absolutely lovely. will post some pics when scanned - although they may have to live on the leicainfo forum ;o).
Here is an image from my Sony DSC717, f2.4,1/200 sec hand held. This camera is amazing, it has a shutter more vibration free than my Leica M3. The lens Vario-sonnar is very sharp too. The limiting factor of this camera is the image recording ability, rather than the optics.