Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE vs older Contax mount Zeiss

gavin_g · May 8, 2011

Hi,

I've been using an older Contax mount Zeiss 50mm 1.4 on my 5dMkII via an adapter. I just bought a ZE version of the identical model to take advantage of the native EOS mount. I noticed a decrease in wide open performance, specifically the center sharpness.

Did I get a bad copy? Is my old lens an exception? Is Zeiss more marketing now that performance?

Note I did this test on a tripod with a remote release, and locked down the ISO to 100. I focused using the Live View magnified x10. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get the new Zeiss to match the old one. The new lens is simply softer from 1.4 to 5.6.

Rick Knepper · May 8, 2011

gavin_g said:
Hi,

I've been using an older Contax mount Zeiss 50mm 1.4 on my 5dMkII via an adapter. I just bought a ZE version of the identical model to take advantage of the native EOS mount. I noticed a decrease in wide open performance, specifically the center sharpness.

Did I get a bad copy? Is my old lens an exception? Is Zeiss more marketing now that performance?

Note I did this test on a tripod with a remote release, and locked down the ISO to 100. I focused using the Live View magnified x10. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get the new Zeiss to match the old one. The new lens is simply softer from 1.4 to 5.6.

You may have a soft copy of the ZE or a stellar version of the Contax version. I think my main focus if I were in your shoes would be to determine which to keep and limiting speculation on company direction. I owned the 50 1.4 ZF (sold it to buy the 50 Makro) and if it was soft (in comparison to other 50s), I did not see it. If it was soft, images from it processed into very fine images. I will say that I did not care for images shot wide open on the 50 ZF primarily because I didn't find the bokeh as pleasing as I would have liked.

gavin_g · May 8, 2011

Rick Knepper said:
You may have a soft copy of the ZE or a stellar version of the Contax version. I think my main focus if I were in your shoes would be to determine which to keep and limiting speculation on company direction. I owned the 50 1.4 ZF (sold it to buy the 50 Makro) and if it was soft (in comparison to other 50s), I did not see it. If it was soft, images from it processed into very fine images. I will say that I did not care for images shot wide open on the 50 ZF primarily because I didn't find the bokeh as pleasing as I would have liked.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep the Contax version for my Aria, but talk to the shop about the possibility of the ZE being a "soft copy", and possibly trying another. I am considering the Makro in replacement though - 2.0 will likely be wide enough, but most scared by the extra size/weight. Any other thoughts on the Makro vs normal Planer?

Mike K · May 8, 2011

gavin_g wrote:
Any other thoughts on the Makro vs normal Planer?

The Zeiss 50/2 MP is quite a bit better than the 50/1.4 Planar at shorter distances. Here the floating element of the Makro Planar provides better IQ over a much broader range of focal distances.

stephoto · May 9, 2011

Are you sure that your new 50mm ZE lens softness is not due to micro-adjustment setting?
S.

Mike K · May 9, 2011

stephoto said:
Are you sure that your new 50mm ZE lens softness is not due to micro-adjustment setting?
S.

Yes, a decent question. If you are using focus confirm to MF your 20/1.4 ZE it could be that this is resulting in misfocusing as micro adjust will change the focus confirm position. However, if you are using Live View 5-10X to manual focus your Zeiss lenses, micro adjust calibration will have no effect.

gavin_g · May 9, 2011

stephoto said:
Are you sure that your new 50mm ZE lens softness is not due to micro-adjustment setting?
S.

I focused using live view x10, while the camera was on a tripod. I did the same with my C/Y Zeiss 50mm. I really paid attention in trying to make it fair and accurate.

I ended up taking the lens back to the store I bought it from for a refund. They offered no reason or answer. I found another store that will rent out 50 ZEs...I am going to give it another try. I really hope I just had a soft copy.

I have to say, I am not obsessed with sharpness usually, but I do like the lens for low light 1.4 work, and it strikes me as strange that my 10 year old C/Y 50 can be sharper.

Einst Stein · May 9, 2011

I have used many manual focus lenses on Canon mount. They are all bad, whether it's Zeiss, Leica R, Canon's 50mm L1.2, 24-70/2.8 L, or 70-200/4, I found the problem in Canon's focusing system.

Avoid manual focusing on Canon SLRs. If you have to, choose the proper focusing screen. Choose one for accurate focusing, not for fast focusing.

In my opinion, unless you are using the T&S lens, use AF always.

Rick Knepper · May 10, 2011

Einst Stein said:
I have used many manual focus lenses on Canon mount. They are all bad, whether it's Zeiss, Leica R, Canon's 50mm L1.2, 24-70/2.8 L, or 70-200/4, I found the problem in Canon's focusing system.

You don't say why manually focusing is bad. Care to expound?

Einst Stein said:
Avoid manual focusing on Canon SLRs. If you have to, choose the proper focusing screen. Choose one for accurate focusing, not for fast focusing.

In my opinion, unless you are using the T&S lens, use AF always.

Rick Knepper · May 10, 2011

gavin_g said:
Rick Knepper said:

You may have a soft copy of the ZE or a stellar version of the Contax version. I think my main focus if I were in your shoes would be to determine which to keep and limiting speculation on company direction. I owned the 50 1.4 ZF (sold it to buy the 50 Makro) and if it was soft (in comparison to other 50s), I did not see it. If it was soft, images from it processed into very fine images. I will say that I did not care for images shot wide open on the 50 ZF primarily because I didn't find the bokeh as pleasing as I would have liked.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I'll keep the Contax version for my Aria, but talk to the shop about the possibility of the ZE being a "soft copy", and possibly trying another. I am considering the Makro in replacement though - 2.0 will likely be wide enough, but most scared by the extra size/weight. Any other thoughts on the Makro vs normal Planer?

I chose to go with the 50mm makro for a rather mundane reason. I saw a chance to carry a 50mm in the bag capable of really decent landscape shots while doubling as a macro lens. Turns out I have had few needs for macro in the field because my photographer's eye tends to see the wider landscape rather than the "macro".

wkay · May 13, 2011

Are you focusing the Contax at wide open of stopped down? Focus at wide open ZE will cause out of focus when stopped down for the exposure.

gavin_g · May 13, 2011

wkay said:
Are you focusing the Contax at wide open of stopped down? Focus at wide open ZE will cause out of focus when stopped down for the exposure.

Sorry, not sure I follow you. I focused through the live view magnified x10 on a tripod just to be sure.

MirekE · May 13, 2011

gavin_g said:
Is Zeiss more marketing now that performance?

No, the ZE lenses are actually great. It is my understanding that the 50/1.4 is optimized for infinity and has mediocre performance up close. Did you compare the lenses at close distance or at infinity?

gavin_g · May 13, 2011

MirekE said:
MirekE said:

Is Zeiss more marketing now that performance?

Click to expand...

No, the ZE lenses are actually great. It is my understanding that the 50/1.4 is optimized for infinity and has mediocre performance up close. Did you compare the lenses at close distance or at infinity?

Focusing was at about 2m, which I would say is not 'up close' as far as the 50 1.4 goes.

I've never heard that the 50 1.4 ZE lenses are optimized for infinity. I just expected the same performance as my old C/Y 50, with the convenience of the native EOS mount. I can accept getting a 'soft copy' or that my C/Y is exceptional, but I just don't believe they changed their requirements so that a careful hobbyist could notice a drastic difference.

I ended up with a Voigtlander 40mm 2.0. At 2.0 it is closer to the C/Y than the ZE, which when accounting for the lower price and compactness of the lens is reasonable to me. The fact that both the ZE and Voightlander are made by the same company (and I would guess same factory with the same equipment) is kind of funny. Its a great lens!

MirekE · May 13, 2011

gavin_g said:
I've never heard that the 50 1.4 ZE lenses are optimized for infinity. I just expected the same performance as my old C/Y 50, with the convenience of the native EOS mount. I can accept getting a 'soft copy' or that my C/Y is exceptional, but I just don't believe they changed their requirements so that a careful hobbyist could notice a drastic difference.

I don't have either and can't comment on ZE 50/1.4 vs. C/Y. But the close distance performance is well documented by users and one of the reasons I got the 50MP with floating elements instead.

Mike Ca · May 13, 2011

If you have the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T*ZE Lens, then the resolution tests at The-Digital-Picture do not look that sharp at f/1.4 either:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=709&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

In these tests the Zeiss lens looks worse than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and significantly worse than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.

Gunzorro · May 14, 2011

Are you focusing with Live View with the lens stopped down to the taking aperture? The 50 and 85 Zeiss Planar f/1.4 lenses suffer from focus shift through their mid apertures.

Gunzorro · May 14, 2011

Gavin -- Using LV, you need to stop down your lens to the taking aperture to do precise focus due to this lens having focus shift. Don't try to focus with the lens wide open if you are using mid-apertures. Additionally, some distances may be more affected than others.

You may have a bad sample, but if not, you will likely encounter this same problem with replacement. The Zeiss 50 MP macro is not supposed be influenced by this focus shift.

gavin_g · May 14, 2011

Gunzorro said:
Gavin -- Using LV, you need to stop down your lens to the taking aperture to do precise focus due to this lens having focus shift. Don't try to focus with the lens wide open if you are using mid-apertures. Additionally, some distances may be more affected than others.

You may have a bad sample, but if not, you will likely encounter this same problem with replacement. The Zeiss 50 MP macro is not supposed be influenced by this focus shift.

Thanks - I understand now. So you are saying with the ZE, if I was taking a photo at 5.6 and focusing via live view, that I should actually press the DOF button to get it accurate. Interesting.

At least comparing 1.4 to 1.4 with C/Y and ZE, I should have not had this issues, but anything above 1.4, you are saying I would potentially see the effect of focus shift.

Einst Stein · May 14, 2011

Rick Knepper said:
Einst Stein said:

I have used many manual focus lenses on Canon mount. They are all bad, whether it's Zeiss, Leica R, Canon's 50mm L1.2, 24-70/2.8 L, or 70-200/4, I found the problem in Canon's focusing system.

Click to expand...

You don't say why manually focusing is bad. Care to expound?

It has something to do with the design of the focusing screen, at least. If you look up bhphoto.com for Canon's the focusing screen, you'll find which screen is best for (critical) manual focusing. I found none are satisfactory, but I guess I lost my patient before I put in enough practice. It might improve.

I also found the same lens could perform differently on different cameras (same model, different sample, shoot in the store). It's all due to the focusing. There was no live-view focusing assistant at that time. With today's live-view, it might help.

Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE vs older Contax mount Zeiss

New member

Forum Pro

New member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

New member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

New member

Leading Member

New member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts