Zeiss 85mm/1.4 vs. Zeiss 85mm/2.8

G

Guest

The 1.4 is of course faster but when comparing at f8.0, is there a visuable difference in sharpness/image quality ?? I know when reading mtf curves at photodo the 1.4 wins at f8 but here it is about the same at 5.6 but I dont trust the mtf to much, maybe because it is only sharpness measured but what about contrast and u know.....
one last thing...G2 with the 90mm2.8 ???
 
G

Guest

Hi John,

Well, two out of three isn't bad: I have the 1.4 Planar and the G's 90/2.8 Sonnar.

I'll give the nod to the 90 for contrast and color saturation. My 85 is a made in Germany AE, so is quite old (although still in "9" condition), I figure there's a very good chance that Zeiss has improved the lens in the years since. Mine gives very good results, just not on par with the Sonnar.

One thing you can't duplicate with the other lenses is the 1.4's viewfinder "pop." I was shooting with it yesterday using my new Aria. The bright viewfinder image and very shallow depth of field leave no doubt as to when a subject is in focus; the Aria's autowinder make it easy to concentrate on composition (versus my other manual wind bodies). Too, the ability to isolate a subject by shooting wide open is a fantastic creative tool. I consider the Planar to be my best portrait lens (of several that I own).

Ultimately, it's a matter of matching the tool to the task. I'd have a hard time giving up either lens. I use the Sonnar more often, because I use the G2 the most of any camera I own.

--Rick
 
G

Guest

Hi,
I own and use both lenses since some years.
Optik and barrel is on the same level (the older 2,8/85 West Germany with whole metal barrel, any 1,4/85). MTF and practical difference is to small to think about, both are great.

The differences to consider are weight, volumne, speed, DOF, price.
The little 2,8/85 ist better on short distances with extension tubes, in my experience.
The balance of the 2,8/85 with small bodys like S2, RTS I/II, 167 is better, while the 1,4/85 may perfectly fit to bigger bodys like RTS III, AX.

Perhaps it is an argument, to use the E55 or E67 accessorie with other of your lenses.

Not for your prints or slides, but for your heart: the Planar 1,4 looks really great and "professional" with it´s huge T* coated glases, the Sonnar 2,8 has a decent look. Not worse, but different. A little wonder when you see the pictures.

regards, Stefan
 
G

Guest

i did not yet ready good critics of the g-90/2.8 compared to the other g-lenses. i have both 85/2.8 and 1.4 but unfortunately i cannot tell you about differences. maybe the 1.4 is better at 2.8 compared to the other lens full open 2.8. this seem to be a rule when compairing similar lenses like zeiss.
 
G

Guest

John,

> I dont trust the mtf to much, maybe because it is only
> sharpness measured but what about contrast and u know.....

From "only Zeiss":
MTF (Modulation Transfer Function)
MTF indicates the ability to define the lens, not by the resolving power (sharpness!), but by the percentage of what information is collected throug the lens against what what information exists in the target. In other words, from the original target (subject) what percentage is passed through the lens... The striped patterns in black and white, similar to resolving power chart, are, in reality, a sptial frequency chart, or rectangular wave chart. It is enough to say that genaral subjects are a combination of various spatial frequencies and &litude (contrast). Lens performance is evaluated by measuring contrast (rate of &litude decrease) on the focused image field for various spatial frequencies. This is MTF.

There is a great article about resolving power and contrast by E. Heynacher from Zeiss in the download section of contaxinfo.com. Read it and you'll understand MTF much more!

Matthias
 
G

Guest

One thing I meant by not trusting the mtf to much is that You find different result depending on who does the mtf.
I will check out the article about resolving power and contrast by E. Heynacher from Zeiss in the download section of contaxinfo.com
 
G

Guest

Hi,

with no intension to call the MTF comparison debate nonsense, I want to state a experience of mine with Zeiss lenses from 25 to 300mm and many other brands (Leica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Schneider, Minolta).

One big advatage of the Zeiss C/Y lensline is:
All lenses/focal length deliver very high, top class quality. There is no need, to look for little differences in contrast, resolution,...
Choose your Zeiss lens by focal length, speed, weight, volumne, Price. That´s it. You will be satisfied. When the pictures aren´t thrilling, it´s probably on you (I speak of myself ;-)).

There are very few exceptions from this general rule: the old zoom 40-80 has a lot of distorsion, a 2,8/45 Tessar can´t be better than a Planar, but is of small size and weight. And the super wide 21 is especially good, as the Apo 200 and 300. These information you can see in the Zeiss charts and will guess it, when reading the price list.

Nikon (AI, AIS and AF)and the other also have somne great lenses, but not all are on the same high niveau (except Leica M). Some lenses in the other systems come from other manufactures (the Tokina 35-105 was common in nearly all systems, like the Sigma 28-70. Leica R has designs from Minolta, Zeiss, Schneider, Sigma, Angeniuex).

Zeiss delivers high class Zeiss design, Zeiss quality, Zeiss colors, barrels, service over years.

In my eye this is a main argument for Contax/Zeiss.

regards, Stefan
 
Top