Carl Zeiss lens appreciation thread

James J

James J

James J

Soldato
Joined
4 Dec 2002
Posts
14,520
Location
North Lincolnshire
Howdy all,

Thought I'd start a thread on the Carl Zeiss lens line up, as I know some people own them, so would be a good place to share images and mini reviews. Doesn't matter what camera system its on, its the lens I'm interested in!

I'd like to see some Sony A7/A7R and Fuji X users results especially! Film shots are also most welcome.

So far I've got 1 Zeiss lens, but I'm looking at another for the not to distant future. Zeiss are well known for their 3D appearance, superb bokeh and pleasing colour tones.
 
Must be fate this thread being started as I received my new lens today (Otus).

My offering of lenses:

qx822p.jpg


The 21mm f/2.8, 55mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2. I'll try to get out on Sunday with the Otus to give it a test.
 
Above&Beyond said:
Must be fate this thread being started as I received my new lens today (Otus).

My offering of lenses:

qx822p.jpg


The 21mm f/2.8, 55mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2. I'll try to get out on Sunday with the Otus to give it a test.
Click to expand...

OMG

What made you buy the Otus !

OMG

It is good but £3,000 ?!

What is it like?
 
And add 5mm :p

I am glad the Sigma got announced before I pull the trigger on the 50L. I almost placed an order for one when the news dropped. What we know is that it can't be worse than their current 50mm/1.4 which in all regards the IQ is pretty decent (if QC is a little suspect in that factory as I've seen a few dodgy copies). So the new 50mm really ought to be better than the old one. It can't be the same or worse.
 
Ksanti said:
Imagine the sigma 50
And then take away autofocus

*runs away from the thread giggling*
Click to expand...

No, that's about right :D

Actually some Zeiss lenses are amazing, the Otus shows what they are capable, many others are pretty poor though. Yah, the rendering is usually nice but that is because the lenses are far simpler with less corrections so you trade things like Loca, fringing, distortion and edge softness for smoother Bokeh. Nikon and canon tend to make a more balanced lens the sharpness extending across the frame for example at the expense of ultimate centre sharpness and more ringing in the Bokeh.


Now before I get attacked, I agree that many Zeiss lenses have very nice rendering characteristics so their value is application specific. I nearly purchased the 100mm Makro-planar as it is quite exquisite and for macro MF is fine.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
OMG

What made you buy the Otus !

OMG

It is good but £3,000 ?!

What is it like?
Click to expand...

I like Zeiss lenses, if it is worth the price who knows, but you could shoot other systems and pay double the price for a lens not as good so it's all relative. I've not used it much yet, but it's fairly well balanced on a gripped D800 and smooth to focus and feels like a solid chunk of metal.

D.P. said:
No, that's about right :D

Actually some Zeiss lenses are amazing, the Otus shows what they are capable, many others are pretty poor though. Yah, the rendering is usually nice but that is because the lenses are far simpler with less corrections so you trade things like Loca, fringing, distortion and edge softness for smoother Bokeh. Nikon and canon tend to make a more balanced lens the sharpness extending across the frame for example at the expense of ultimate centre sharpness and more ringing in the Bokeh.


Now before I get attacked, I agree that many Zeiss lenses have very nice rendering characteristics so their value is application specific. I nearly purchased the 100mm Makro-planar as it is quite exquisite and for macro MF is fine.
Click to expand...

What are the many poor Zeiss lenses?
 
The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Zeiss or 85mm f1.4 although OK are not as good as the Nikon lenses, cost way more and don't autofocus. That makes them bad lenses IMO.
The Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 ZF is also pretty poor, no better than many kit lenses really which is disappointing for a high priced prime, especially when the 21mm is so fantastic.
The Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF is another poor lens, very soft anywhere away from the center and low contrast wide open. Not a patch on the Nikon or Canon 24mm f/1.4 lenses and a couple of stops slower to boot.


A lot depends on what you want to shoot though, soft and cloudy wide open with very soft corners is perfectly fine for some portrait needs for example and the rendering characteristic of the Bokeh may be a big plus in these scenarios. In other genres many are very disappointing. For example in architecture and landscape you might forgo auto-focus if the lens offered very sharp results into the corners at very low distortions but only some lenses like the 21mm Distagon actually offer that.
 
D.P. said:
The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Zeiss or 85mm f1.4 although OK are not as good as the Nikon lenses, cost way more and don't autofocus. That makes them bad lenses IMO.
The Distagon T* 18mm f/3.5 ZF is also pretty poor, no better than many kit lenses really which is disappointing for a high priced prime, especially when the 21mm is so fantastic.
The Distagon T* 25mm f/2.8 ZF is another poor lens, very soft anywhere away from the center and low contrast wide open. Not a patch on the Nikon or Canon 24mm f/1.4 lenses and a couple of stops slower to boot.


A lot depends on what you want to shoot though, soft and cloudy wide open with very soft corners is perfectly fine for some portrait needs for example and the rendering characteristic of the Bokeh may be a big plus in these scenarios. In other genres many are very disappointing. For example in architecture and landscape you might forgo auto-focus if the lens offered very sharp results into the corners at very low distortions but only some lenses like the 21mm Distagon actually offer that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it makes them bad lenses per se, but maybe bad for your needs yes I can see that definitely if you need autofocus (which is a deal breaker/maker to a lot of people) and that clinical sharpness across the frame or colour uniformity in a portfolio etc. The Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 I wasn't raving about either on the D800, but getting used to the limitations and focusing on a DSLR I started to warm to its rendering and achieving results that I couldn't get out of my similar OEM lenses. I guess it's horses for courses really, but with the new A7R and adapters and focus peaking these old manual lenses are coming into their own again.

I'd recommend anyone seriously interested in Zeiss lenses to look up Lloyd Chambers site. He reviews them in depth and although behind a paywall his information is sometimes invaluable when you have a decision to make on expensive glass.
 
Beautiful lens characteristics don't just rely on sharpness and how well the lens handles distortion. Lenses like these are often built for specific jobs, such as the 50mm being a portrait and photo journalist lens. Being slightly soft in the corners means nothing in that regard. Stick with the clinical lenses from canikon if you don't want the look of a zeiss prime.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I've heard this term before, when they describe a Zeiss lens as soft, they call it "Zeiss soft".

What does that mean?
Click to expand...

Probably something similar to how a Leica 50m noctilux F1.0 renders its images wide open. Not super sharp by todays "standards", but has a nice glow characteristic that makes it stand out.
 
James J said:
Probably something similar to how a Leica 50m noctilux F1.0 renders its images wide open. Not super sharp by todays "standards", but has a nice glow characteristic that makes it stand out.
Click to expand...

So to use an 80s TV reference, Cybil Shepherd soft :D
 
James J said:
Probably something similar to how a Leica 50m noctilux F1.0 renders its images wide open. Not super sharp by todays "standards", but has a nice glow characteristic that makes it stand out.
Click to expand...

It's hard to get my head round the worlds Soft and nice glow is actually a good thing.

I am sure a soft image stands out, I just find it difficult to imagine that it is good, unless it is intentional, like buying a soft focus lens.
 
Raymond Lin said:
It's hard to get my head round the worlds Soft and nice glow is actually a good thing.

I am sure a soft image stands out, I just find it difficult to imagine that it is good, unless it is intentional, like buying a soft focus lens.
Click to expand...

Very similar to a soft focus lens. Retains a lot of detail but not to the point of the clinical sharpness that people seem to get a boner over nowadays. Some of the best photos ever taken in the last 100 years where taken using lenses that weren't super sharp of had sharpness throughout the entire frame etc. People who crave such pointless things as that need to get a life tbh and take more pictures.

As for my new 50mm, it's extremely sharp in the centre (more than the summilux in fact) and has softer edges. This is on a sensor without an aa filter so the sharpness is easily noticed. Can't tell the difference in this in terms of sharpness compared to my fantastic leica 35 f2, which also produced stunning results wide open.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom