Choosing a 50mm; Zeiss or Canon?

FatWhore

FatWhore

Active member
Ive been looking for a 50mm for quite some time now. I know there is a lot a variation in price, quality , etc.

Things I've Been Looking At:

Canon 1.8

Canon 1.4 (is the .4 really worth it?)

And if I choose to spend a lot Zeiss 50mm 1.4.

Does anyone have any experience with the Zeiss? Ive seen some raw videos and it looks amazing!

Thanks for any help.
 
The canon 50mm isn't worth buying. Awful build quality, horrible AF, and a very tiny focus ring. If you want AF, the sigma 50mm f1.4 (not the new art one, also good, but way more expensive) is supposed to be great.

For video work, I would recommend you try out a vintage lens. They are manual focus only, and manual aperture, but they have awesome build quality and very good focus rings. Contax makes some great ones, Pentax, and Nikon also have some very solid offerings. Also, if you haven't already, check out the Helios 44-2. Only $20 usually, sharp, and they give a very cool swirly bokeh.
 
Zeiss. Hands down.

If you are shooting photos and need auto focus, then go with the canon, but for optics...Zeiss>Canon.

I have worked with both the ZF.2 50 1.4/2 macro. I prefer the f/2 macro (as do most tests), but they are both superb lenses. I personally have the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 though. I say this because you are debating on spending the money or not and there isn't much better of an investment than into glass.
 
13295419:goodiepocket said:
Zeiss. Hands down.

If you are shooting photos and need auto focus, then go with the canon, but for optics...Zeiss>Canon.

I have worked with both the ZF.2 50 1.4/2 macro. I prefer the f/2 macro (as do most tests), but they are both superb lenses. I personally have the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 though. I say this because you are debating on spending the money or not and there isn't much better of an investment than into glass.
Click to expand...

Thanks goodie!
 
13295433:FatWhore said:
Whats the difference in the "ART" vs the non "ART" one?
Click to expand...

The ART 50/1.4 was basically Sigmas response/rival to the Zeiss Otus. It is surprisingly comparable to the Zeiss Otus, however, build quality and optics aren't as high as the Otus...which, one would hope since the massive price difference!

The ART series is "designed to achieve truly notable optical performance and is ideally suited for creative and artistic applications." On that note, the 18-35/1.8 is a phenomenal lens in respects to both optics, the uniqueness of it's zoom + speed and its price.

I have never been a big fan of Sigma, but I do like their art series and will probably get that 18-35/1.8 in the future.
 
I'd keep a 50 f1.8 kicking around as a backup no matter what. You can get them for like 60-80 used, and they weigh nothing - which is nice if you're trying to save weight on occasion.

The Canon f1.4 is decent. Good quality and not too pricy, but I've also seen far too many of them go bad - especially with the electronics for the diaphragm and focus ring.

the Sigma f1.4 is a solid option, but the focus ring is sticky and I'm not a fan using it for manual focus and video. If you're shooting AF all the time, sure it's totally fine, but for video it's definitely not my favourite option (granted, I'd rather use something vintage for the hard infinity focus stop and aperture ring in that case)

the Otus and the Art are great.. but I feel like they're a bit ridiculous and overkill to have unless you're doing studio photography or something where that kind of sharpness and lack of distortion is a real necessity.
 
13296467:DingoSean said:
I'd keep a 50 f1.8 kicking around as a backup no matter what. You can get them for like 60-80 used, and they weigh nothing - which is nice if you're trying to save weight on occasion.

The Canon f1.4 is decent. Good quality and not too pricy, but I've also seen far too many of them go bad - especially with the electronics for the diaphragm and focus ring.

the Sigma f1.4 is a solid option, but the focus ring is sticky and I'm not a fan using it for manual focus and video. If you're shooting AF all the time, sure it's totally fine, but for video it's definitely not my favourite option (granted, I'd rather use something vintage for the hard infinity focus stop and aperture ring in that case)

the Otus and the Art are great.. but I feel like they're a bit ridiculous and overkill to have unless you're doing studio photography or something where that kind of sharpness and lack of distortion is a real necessity.
Click to expand...

I understand the point you are trying to make and when on a budget, yes...those options would work. However, for each of those lenses you basically talked me/anyone out of wanting to buy one. Why buy a cheap lens, struggle with such issues and probably end up having to buy another cheap lens to replace it down the road...when (if you have the funds) you could buy a good lens and have it last for a MUCH longer time. IMO, saving and spending the extra money is completely worth it.

I say this with a full lineup of vintage Nikkor glass (24,35,50,35-70,80-200) as well. I have gotten some beautiful results with these lenses and they are a light and cheap solution. Getting vintage lenses takes some time and research to make sure you are getting the correct year/model of each lens and they still have their visual drawbacks (other than some of the $$$ vintage lenses).

Obviously the example of an Otus is overkill for most photographers/videographers, but it is one that I could provide as a personal experience. My point is, I don't think though that you should believe that unless you are doing 'studio work' that you should have the best lenses you can afford. Glass is a great investment and there's a lot more that goes into such lenses than just the optics that makes it worth the increase in price...
 
13296774:goodiepocket said:
I understand the point you are trying to make and when on a budget, yes...those options would work. However, for each of those lenses you basically talked me/anyone out of wanting to buy one. Why buy a cheap lens, struggle with such issues and probably end up having to buy another cheap lens to replace it down the road...when (if you have the funds) you could buy a good lens and have it last for a MUCH longer time. IMO, saving and spending the extra money is completely worth it.

I say this with a full lineup of vintage Nikkor glass (24,35,50,35-70,80-200) as well. I have gotten some beautiful results with these lenses and they are a light and cheap solution. Getting vintage lenses takes some time and research to make sure you are getting the correct year/model of each lens and they still have their visual drawbacks (other than some of the $$$ vintage lenses).

Obviously the example of an Otus is overkill for most photographers/videographers, but it is one that I could provide as a personal experience. My point is, I don't think though that you should believe that unless you are doing 'studio work' that you should have the best lenses you can afford. Glass is a great investment and there's a lot more that goes into such lenses than just the optics that makes it worth the increase in price...
Click to expand...

I mean, the drawbacks of the 50 f1.8 mk2 are obvious... But for 70 bucks or something used, honestly it's a throw-away kinda thing. If any of the others had a problem, or you were traveling and wanted to lighten the load, it's a great option. That's why would have always had one even if I had nicer glass in that focal length had I stayed with Canon. Hell, if I get a Nikkor 50 f1.4 I'm still keeping around my 50 1.8D for virtually the exact same reasons (plus, then one can just sit on my film camera semi-permanantly).

You can even get the 50 f1.8 mk1 if you want to avoid the more startling quality issues for 150$... gives you a better focus ring, a focus window so you can figure out your infinity stop, and a metal mount with the same high quality glass.

As for vintage glass... you can find an M42 mount 50mm for like 10-20 bucks and adapt it for another 5-10. For the longest time I was using old pentax glass on my Canon for this very reason. Old 50's are a dime a dozen, they're all mostly high quality, and very affordable. For video they're absolutely worth having in any situation.

Both the Sigma and the Canon 50 1.4's are good lenses. I like them both optically (especially the sigma) but I had to point out the issues I've seen with both. Are they worth 3 or so times as much to have a 7 or 8 blade diaphragm and manual focus override? That's your decision.. I was just posting my gripes about each rather than sugarcoating it and telling you exactly which one you should buy.
 
As for the Zeiss and Otus and the Art.. yeah. It's great stuff, but I also feel like it's almost unnecessary for video what with the fact that even 4k cameras can't utilize the full potential of the resolution of such lenses. You can get beautiful stuff out of almost any 50mm lens out there, really.
 
Just bow down to your Red dotted overlords trampling their great big black leather riding boots all over Zeiss.

Screen%20Shot%202015-01-15%20at%2003.04.58.png
 
I have the voigtlander 58mm f1.4. It's a little known option, but it's a solid all metal manual focus lens with modern optics. Good deal cheaper than the zeiss offerings too. I really like it. A little bit bloomy wide open (but so are pretty much all vintage 50s), but pleasantly sharp f2 and beyond. Really smooth bokeh, especially at f2. Great build quality and buttery focus ring as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top