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!

Zeiss 50mm f14 MM for Canon dSLR

Asher, for moving subjects including models, stay away from a manual focus lens. I tried it with the Zeiss 85/1.4 and although the images looked okay on the camera, they were not accurately focussed and that's largely because I could not achieve critical focus on the fly i.e. get the eyes in sharp focus because of the shallow DOF. You need an autofocus lens, period.

The 70-200/2.8 IS is a nice lens, but heavy. Your best bet for model photography is the 85 or 100 or 24-70. I have the Canon 85/1.8 and love it for the speed. The 85/1.2 is over-priced and over-rated IMO, although it does a remarkable job of throwing the background out of focus at f1.2.
 
Thanks Bobby, Yes, I think that I should use lower focal lengths, especially since I'm trying to fit models in a 21mm distagon photo space (the b.g. image).

Since I am using a Canon 1DII with a 1.3 multiplication factor for reduced sensor size compared to full frame, the lenses will behave as if they were x1.3 longer and therefore take in 1/1.3 of the field of view of the same lenses on a full frame camera.

So in practice, for a standard camera to subject difference, the 50mm f2.5 Canon Macro (auto focus) "becomes" a 65mm lens in its reduced angle of view.

I think that to put objects espec humans in a 21mm landscape, I should stick to maybe just 50mm and at most 85mm.

The 18mm, 21mm and 28mm Distagons, espec used for careful architecture and landscape work, cause no big issue with focusing speed. further DOF masks any sins.

People that breathe are the problem, LOL !

For my models, I plan to use shorter lenses as you suggested but even down to 50mm.

A veteran Contax Vendor, Ken Hanson told me that the Zeiss lenses with larger apertures are much easier to focus. so that made me lust for the Zeiss 85 1.4 or the 85 1.2, however, I must see if I can excel with what I have!

I have the 50mm 1.4 Planar which I am going to start practicing focusing on eyes. The extra light might make focusing much easier. The 28-85 (f3.5 I believe), is tough to focus rapidly, but now, i'm doing much better with people since I adjusted the eyepiece diopter with an addon lens.

I would love to keep to Zeiss glass if I can to get the Zeiss lens interpretation of the world present in all picture components.

If it's also a problem with the 50 1.4 Zeiss planar, then I'll use the Canon 50 2.5 Macro which is superb and has the advantage of auto focus and the ability to use off center focus points to correspond to eyes.

I can use my Canon 70-200 f4L or 2.8L IS at about 85mm for the people too.

I fear that longer focal lengths would look too flat compared to the 21 Distagons "3D world".

I wonder if someone has established rules for such image people and b.g. constructions.

I was about to get an 85 1.2L, but now Bobby, you have given me pause. The Zeiss or Canon 85mm 1.8 seems a good alternative. As far as getting the best pics of a model, color, sharpness, contrast, which is the best? I don't think the money is much different in respect to the total cost of projects. It's just a matter of whether or not one is going to be able to get a better image to be great enough to be blown up to 3 up to even 6 feet high?

Someone sell me a 1DsII cheap!!

Asher
 
There's nothing cheap about the 1DsMKII right now. Maybe in a year or two when the 24 meg full frame version comes out. However the 1Ds is very, very good and far more reasonable.

As to the 85/1.2 being over rated, that is one man's opinion in the face of hundreds of professional photographers who swear by that lens. It's big, it's heavy, it's slower focusing than other L lenses ... however, it's incredibly sharp, even quite sharp at f/1.2 and the Bokeh is one of best ever in a 85mm. That lens, the 35/1.4 and the 135/2 primes are well known to be SLR image making leaders in their respective focal lengths ... and IMO along with IS, a key reason to be using the Canon system.

Where Zeiss glass on a Canon digital camera is of great help is in the wide angle focal lengths. Canon wides leave something to be desired, which is why lenses like the Zeiss 21mm are in such demand (try to find one if you can).

Anyway, the proof is in the shooting ... here's a Canon 85/1.2 shot @ f/1.2 in lower available light ... its of a running Bride which would have been more difficult to manually focus. In the actual print, the dress detail is exceptional and even the weave of the veil is sharp, what part of it is in focus.



323878.jpg
 
To me, 85 1.2 performs better than 85 1.4 at 1.4,2 and 2.8. At 4 and higher,the two lenses are the same. Correct me if I am wrong,as I got this impression only from MTF data rather than actual experience.
 
Joseph, I don't know if you are right or wrong, and I don't know if you will actually see a significant difference on a large print, but even so, remember that you still have to still deal with the bulk/weight of the lens, slower autofocus, and having to pay about 4 times more than the f1.8 version.

The 85/1.2 may a better performer below f4, but for my money, the 85/1.8 is exceptional value and the 85/1.2 is not ..... but your mileage may vary, of course. I had both versions, but I sold the f1.2 and kept the f1.8.
 
These really fast lenses like the Canon 85/1.2 are always achieved at a compromise in size and weight. Same for the Contax 85/1.2. Look at the Leica Noctilux verses a M 50/2 as another perfect ex&le. They are optimized for very low available light work, often with optics designed to perform wide open in darker conditions where contrast causes all sorts of problems with more ordinary lenses.

They certainly are not for everyone, but instead specialized lenses designed to do a specific job. In the end," when you have the need, the need for speed" f/1.8 just doesn't cut it. The image I posted above was a shot of rapid movement in low light requiring as fast a shutter speed as I could get. f/1.2 put it where I needed it and f/1.8 would not have... and in fact could never have.

As to value, the really fast lenses have traditionally held their value due to scarcity. If you are lucky enough to find a mint used ex&le of the 85/1.2, you most likely can use it for some time and re-sell it for what you paid for it. So, with some care, the lens could cost you nothing.
 
You are right on the money, Marc. There is always a demand for used/good hard-to-get lenses and I was lucky enough to pick up the 85/1.2 from a camera swap meet for about 75% of it's true market value ... and sold it at near it's market value and made about $250!

And speaking of value, even though the Canon 85/1.2 may not be "great value" to me personally, it's still way cheaper than the Zeiss version. Value and need is all very relative.
 
Yes, Bobby, I once had the Contax 85/1.2, which to this day is unparalleled in low light performance IMO. But it was, and still is an arm and a leg to buy, if you can even find one (the German made AE model). Should never have sold that lens. The Contax 55/1.2 was even better... and even rarer.

Anyway, I admit to being a speed freak when it comes to lenses. F/2 is waaaay to sloooow for my tastes ; -)
 
The Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.4 is a very sharp lens if you find the right copy. If not you will end up with a lens that is not as sharp as the Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.7. The right Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.4 will display very nice bokeh and sharp wide open, while the Planar 50mm F1.7 is very consistent lens in term of resolving power.

-Son
 
"Camera: Epson RD-1, Lens: Leica 28/2 ASPH."

marc, whats your opinion of the RD-1?
 
Back
Top