Well, I have experience with C-Y 50 1.7 on Canon 10D. I also brought Canon 50 2.5 macro for my 10D. C-Y 50 1.7 is marginally better than C-Y 50 1.4 and Canon 50 2.5 has the same performance with Canon 50 1.4. All together I use 9 C-Y lenses, 3 Leica R lenses and one Canon lens on my 10D. Zeiss 50 mm lens is better than Canon 50 in terms of resolution,flare control,large scale contrast and colour fidelity. Managing Zeiss lens on a 10D means you stop down to focus and turn the aperture ring for the right aperture while looking at the viewfinder. To me,the gain in image quality from Canon to Zeiss is well worth it. You only use Canon lenses if rapid focusing is required in certain situations.
Thanks Albert! Yes, it does remind me of the good old Velvia film. I made a 13 x 19" print of this image and I was totally blown away by the clarity/sharpness and color/contrast. This lens is as good as the best L-series lenses from Canon, and this is no exaggeration.
Aside from a relatively noisy focussing motor (this is a non-USM lens) everyone who has ever used this lens rave about the sharpness, even wide open - unlike the softness of the 50/1.4 wide open.
You can read the user reviews in the FM forum pages here:
Nice photo Bobby,but it could be even better if you shoot it with C-Y 50 1.4 or 1.7. Of course 50/1.4 is soft wide open,it is because it is 1.4. Do you think it is fair to compare Zeiss at 1.4 with Canon at 2.5 ? Have you compare them at equal aperture ?
It is easy to test the lens performance of lenses with Canon digital body. If you compare Canon 50 2.5 and Zeiss 50,you will find Zeiss outperform Canon at every aperture.
Canon made many good lenses such as 85 1.2 and 200 1.8. One important feature that Canon has still not reached the standard of Zeiss is the ability to reproduce colour and hence the reproduction of colour contrast. To me,the ability to reproduce colour contrast is of diagnostic importance. Zeiss's fidelity to reproduce colour has not been matched by any others including Leica,Canon and Nikon.
Wang, color reproduction is a matter of opinion, not fact. Either you like a certain look or not. For ex&le, in my opinion Leica glass is equal or superior to Zeiss because it looks a little more natural.
No need to get defensive Andrew. I was responding to the discussion in general, not just your post. Mostly disagreeing with Wang's contention that Leica lenses were somehow inferior to Zeiss, and asking for proof of such a statement that lumps Leica in with Canon and Nikon. I have extensively used all 4 brands both personally and professionally, and do take issue with such a sweeping statement.
Let's make photos not arguments : -)
Here's one from Leica shot while I was in LA last week-end filming a TV commercial. I came across this little doll of a girl at the Chinese New Year parade. She was having a very grown up talk with her Grandfather in China. Camera: Epson RD-1, Lens: Leica 28/2 ASPH.
Marc, colour reproduction is both a fact and personal opinion. Let me explain the first point in my own experience.
Photography of pigmented lesions of the face requies lenses with accurate colour reproduction. We always use studio flash to do the photography. We send both the negatives and Scandisks to the same lab for processing. We have took thousands of photos using various lenses including Minolta, Canon, Leica and Zeiss. Poor colour reproduction of lenses leads to images of poor diagnostic informations. We compare the prints directly with the faces of our patients under white light. In the end,we found that Zeiss in general,and in fact always,produces images with good colour reproduction and hence good diagnostic informations.
For artistic considerations, people could have different opinions concerning the colour reproduction of lenses. For clinical evaluations,we exclusively uses Zeiss for its leading role in its accuracy of colour reproduction.
Although some,like Marc,would say Leica is more natural in colour reproduction, Leica lenses lose more colour informations than Zeiss in our opinion,but it does not affect its status for artistic use. Zeiss is very accurate in colour tones and to some people it becomes too vivid.
Joseph - you may be right ... that Zeiss color is better than Canon ... but realistically, how much better is it? Unfortunately, I don't have a 50mm Planar to compare against the Canon 50/2.5 macro.
The point I was getting at is that some of the Canon lenses, like the 50/2.5 macro, is so good (in sharpness/resolution and color/contrast) that it's just not worth the hassle of using a Zeiss manual focus lens - in my opinion anyway. The Canon 50/2.5 is relatively inexpensive, fast to focus (i.e. autofocus vs manual focus) and it has extremely good optics.
Let me add something else re Zeiss vs Canon lenses. I do have a Zeiss 28/2.8 and 85/1.4 and I have done a test of the 85/1.4 vs a Canon 70-200/4.0 and, honestly, I do not see a big difference in terms of color/contrast and sharpness ... and I was looking at 13 x 19" prints.
I generally agree that Zeiss lenses are better ... but only very marginally ... when compared to the better Canon lenses, like my Canon 50/2.5 and 135/2.
> I agree that the Canon 50 2.5 Macro is exceptional. I have the Zeiss > 1.4 and so far haven't chosen to use it because the 50 2.5 is so good. > I will use it when I want to add foreground objects to background > pictures taken with the 21mm Distagon so that the Zeiss look is > maintained, however, subtle it may be.
URGENT: For my buying guidance:
I'd really love to know how easy is it to focus the 85 1.4, 85 1.2 and the 100 f2, because I'm considering extending upwards my range of Zeiss glass. I am wondering if it would be practical for shooting models, to focus on the eyes or would be to slow to handle in those situations, hand-held.
I do have the 700 2.8IS and was considering the Canon 85 1.2/1.8, the 100 f2 and the 200, 2.8L.