Decision-Canon f50 1.4 or Zeiss Planar T f50 1.4????

Hi Bob,

I started a discussion with a similar concern like yours written in this forum. I am pretty sure that you have already made your lens selection. However, in case you are still experimenting with various lenses, I wanted to share my finding with you.

Please see the dpreview link for a full discussion.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/42467903

I finally received my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f2.8 lens with an adapter to Canon and X-rite color passport. Mr. Wisniewski’s entries persuaded me enough to buy these items. After testing it for a couple of days, here is what I found about this lens’ performance with Canon body.

I bought a separate Chipped Adapter to use with my Canon 5D Mk-2. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006RCLYZK/ref=pe_175190_21431760_3p_M3T1_ST1_dp_1

1. The handling of the lens on Canon body was very difficult for me. Especially when the Micro-Nikkor’s Aperture was set higher than 5.6, the focus check beep didn’t work. I shoot paintings, so micro tuning of the focus is only possible with the automatic focus or with focus confirmation light. When the manual Nikkor’s aperture value was set on higher number, the lens becomes very dark. As a result the Canon body can’t detect the focus confirmation. So I always had to focus while setting the F stop on 2.8 at first.
2. Another annoying thing was the compatibility of the adapter ring. It would lose the connection very easily. There was a slight movement on the adapter to Canon body. As a result sometimes dialing the Nikkor’s aperture value will cause the disconnection of the lens to camera communication.
3. Close comparison of the same image shot with my Canon 50 mm f1.8 and the Micro- Nikkor 55mm proved that Canon 50 mm was sharper in the center of the image. But Micro-Nikkor had more or less same sharpness across the whole image field. Micro-Nikkor’s sharpness got only comparable to Canon 50 mm on the corner fields. So as far as sharpness, the cheap plastic Canon 50mm out-performed Micro-Nikkor. The good side of the Micro-Nikkor was that it had less lens barrel distortion.
4. The contrast and color was almost similar. Nikkor being a little darker than Canon given all same specifications.

Given all these facts I do regret that I have bought this lens. Yes it is 2/3 of the Canon’s 50mm Macro. But I gave up a lot of things for a cheaper price. I don’t have the auto focus; the reliability of the lens performance jeopardized; lens becomes dark on most f-stops. My father doesn’t have much knowledge in photography, but sure he was right when he warned me that I shouldn’t buy another brand’s used lens. It just doesn’t look good. Mr. Wisniewski’s words gave me impression that there was something magical about this particular manual lens. But I didn’t see it. It had more consistent focus filed across the all frame and less distortion as the only two advantages. I am not against Nikon or anything. Just this particular lens wasn't a good choice on my Canon camera.

Now I also bought X-rite color passport. Although there were a few flaws on the software and the online tutorial, it did enhance the colors substantially. So I am quite happy with the color passport.

--
Bat