Carl Zeiss Sharpness

Graham004

Graham004

Suspended / Banned
Messages
123
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
Been looking at the EF mount ZE Carl Zeiss lenses where all electrical connections for metering etc work although you need to focus manually. I want the ultimate sharpness mounted on a 5D MKII. The M42 mount is a bit limiting. Anyone used the ZE version. Would I notice much difference in sharpness compared to canon equivalent prime or zoom ( canon 24-70 2.8L)
 
It depends on the lenses you are comparing. I used to have the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm f/2.0 and the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4, both in Contax/Yashica mount. Now I have the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L (MKI) and the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L. I was lucky with both my Canon lenses ao, they are slightly sharper than the Zeiss ones I used to have, especially wide-open. The 28mm, when stopped down, was probably a little sharper than the Canon 24mm. Anyway, the look of the Zeiss lenses is different, regarding colour, micro-contrast and bokeh. They are also very, very sharp, I just was lucky to get some very good Canon copies.

I still have the Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 and I think it's much better than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM.

The ZE versions are not much different. Theorically, they should be better, however there are tests showing the superiority of the Contax ones when used on some apertures.
 
I don't know how it works in the UK, but in Portugal we have to pay a high tax to import equipment from outside the EU so, most of the time, it's a waste of time.

There are people considering the Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 to be better than the Canon 35mm f/1.4 L, but I have serious doubts about that. Probably they never had a calibrated copy of the Canon. On the other hand, you don't need a calibrated copy of the Zeiss, since it's a mf lens.

I have owned some of the best 35mm lenses ever made for a reflex:

Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2.0 E55
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 35mm f/1.4
Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM
Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 Ai
Olympus OM Zuiko 35mm f/2.0
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.4

Each one of them has its own character and I think they are all great, but the Canon is the sharpest. Wide-open it really is the king.

The Zeiss ZE 35mm may be slightly better stopped down, but I think it's impossible to be better than the Canon wide-open.
 
I have the Zeiss Jena 35mm f/2.4 Flektogon in M42 with an AF confirm adapter.
I find it to be quite sharp from f2.4 and very sharp from f4 upwards.

It also focuses from a few cm and makes an excellent 1:2 macro.
 
The Flektogon is great. It's the worst from the ones I mentioned, but it's also the cheapest. For the price, we can't ask for more!
I agree the macro capability is very nice and useful.
 
The more I think about it the less inclined I am to use manual focus due to my aging years and varifocals. In the days when I used film cameras I had no problems using manual focus. Maybe I should calibrate my series of L canon lenses to the camera, if thats what is commonly performed?
 
Mf lenses are great and I have been using them for years. I just came back to AF (only on the focal distances I use the most) recently, because I was loosing some moments while trying to get an accurate focus. I love to shoot wide open with very fast glass. There's no way you can get a perfect shot at f/1.4 with a mf lens if you only have 1-3 seconds to focus.

Graham004 said:
Maybe I should calibrate my series of L canon lenses to the camera, if thats what is commonly performed?
Click to expand...

Believe me, it makes all the difference! My 24mm L was terrible at f/1.4 and, after some micro-adjustment on the 5D Mark II, it turned into a completely new lens! I really was amazed by the results. Now it is as good as my 35mm L.
Using very small apertures you won't notice any difference, but if you like to shoot wide-open, you really have to check for your lenses calibration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top