[popo]

After coming into a bit of cash I gave in and got the Zeiss 50mm f/2 Macro (ZE). You may recall I was deciding which 50mm lens to get in [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/308-which-50mm-ish-lens/"]this[/url] thread.



It arrived yesterday so I've been spending time on and off comparing it against the cheap Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II. I haven't given up the FD f/1.2 mount conversion which is still in slow progress.



Anyway, my conclusions are a little surprising... tests were done on 450D and 7D.



Sharpness: Zeiss has a visible advantage over Canon wide open, evening out around f/5.6 where the Canon takes over before hitting the diffraction zone.



Bokeh: If you put aside the difference due to the number of aperture blades, they are almost the same. I can't see a significant difference between them in a side by side comparison other than the outer ring highlight might be slightly stronger on the Canon. LoCA wise, possibly the Zeiss is fractionally worse at the same aperture setting. I managed to provoke purple fringing in field testing (sunlight reflected off water).



Colour: I can't see any difference between them side by side.



Exposure: The Zeiss might pass slightly less light but it is very slight if even there. I didn't examine this closely.



Flare: The Zeiss is quite prone to veiling glare, and flare to a lesser extent. I didn't compare the Canon here.



Focus assist: this was way off on the 7D, with the true focus point often being much closer to the camera than desired. I eventually used a micro-adjust setting of +16 to offset this. Counter-intuitively, this problem was worse at longer focal distances than close up, and was particularly bad beyond 5m or so. This only really manifests itself with the lens used quite open, as the bigger DoF stopped down to f/4 - f/8 or so is enough to bring it into focus.



Astigmatism: I think this is what I'm seeing on the Canon, as it doesn't focus point sources in the frame corner to a sharp point, forming a line changing direction either side of focus. The Zeiss doesn't suffer from this forming a spot.



Overall, where the two overlap in function, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II is pretty close to the Zeiss unless you really pixel peep. Of course the Zeiss does focus closer for more magnification without the need of extension tubes or whatever. That is likely a region I'll be using and why I short listed this lens in the first place. Still, for more normal uses I was hoping for more difference.

[Guest]

That's a surprise, Popo - I have the nifty fifty and I noticed a huge difference straight away.



I may have a bad copy of the Canon, but in terms of micro contrast, sharpness, colour and flare, my Zeiss is much better. I'm quite surpised you had any flare, because it's not a problem I've noticed at all - the same goes for purple fringing, which is really non existent on my copy. I'm wondering now if it's to do with the sensor size or variations in examples.



But give it some time, it should be a very good companion.

[popo]

So far I've only used it on crop sensor. It is quite possible the sun might be within the full frame view for the test shots showing glare/flare so that would be a tough condition for any lens. I guess I should have added that to the original description. The thought occurs, I wonder if anyone does a longer hood that's compatible to pass only the crop sensor area? My main use will be indoors anyway so it is not a likely issue.



The purple fringing I've only induced once, which was on sunlight reflected off water. So it was likely massively overexposed at those points. It didn't happen at any other time.



My sharpness observation is a bit trickier, as I found it very difficult to get the focus exactly the same with both lenses even with zoomed live view. It does seem in line with the Photozone results on the 5D2 centre region. We are talking about pixel peeping differences at this point. I have to wonder if the aperture sizes might be fractionally different leading to the Canon taking over sharpness stopped down, and at the same time explaining the suspected lower exposure on the Zeiss. But again, we're really looking at fine details there.

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1289516982' post='4111']

My sharpness observation is a bit trickier, as I found it very difficult to get the focus exactly the same with both lenses even with zoomed live view.

[/quote]

This happens when the CA is very strong. It confuses us when manual focusing because sometimes focus can be seen coming in and going out at multiple distances (but at very close distances and at high magnifications only... like in your magnified LV). I've had the most trouble with this problem in the Nikon 24 1.4G corners and the Canon 50 1.2L corners.





[quote name='popo' timestamp='1289516982' post='4111']

I have to wonder if the aperture sizes might be fractionally different leading to the Canon taking over sharpness stopped down, and at the same time explaining the suspected lower exposure on the Zeiss.

[/quote]

Fractionally different at same f-numbers? Well there are other lens-specific things that can cause a difference in exposure... e.g. vignetting, light transmission, flare, etc. But I'm not sure why this should be such a big deal because we meter for each lens using TTL metering.



GTW

[Guest]

Hi Popo,

I carried out some extensive street and indoor testing over several hours with the Zeiss 25,28,35 and 50/1,4 - when I analyzed the pictures later, I found the 50/2 the best, with edge-to edge sharpness at F2 onwards. This was confirmed recently when a specialist dealer in Berlin (Monochrom) told me that the 50/2 and the 100/2 are the best of the Zeiss bunch.



It could be that the flaws in the Canon 50/1.8 show up more on a 5D MKII, making the Zeiss appear better, but it could also be that you have a bad copy (even though I'm told that there shouldn't be noticeable quality variations in Zeiss products). You might need to try another copy if you are really not happy.

[popo]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1289528233' post='4114']

This happens when the CA is very strong. It confuses us when manual focusing because sometimes focus can be seen coming in and going out at multiple distances (but at very close distances and at high magnifications only... like in your magnified LV). I've had the most trouble with this problem in the Nikon 24 1.4G corners and the Canon 50 1.2L corners.[/quote]

The CA isn't there in the focus zone, it is only really visible once you get a little out of the focus region. The focus ring of the 50 f/1.8 II really doesn't help <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Fractionally different at same f-numbers? Well there are other lens-specific things that can cause a difference in exposure... e.g. vignetting, light transmission, flare, etc. But I'm not sure why this should be such a big deal because we meter for each lens using TTL metering.



GTW

I was just making an observation, and this is just a speculation on my part on the possible cause of it. If I hadn't put it side by side with another lens I wouldn't have suspected it. I guess without samples, it might sound worse than what I saw, which was such a minor difference it's not far off the limit when I wonder if it is there at all. I'm not intending to spend any time analysing it. I think I've done far too much pixel peeping over the last day or so <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Now I'm getting on with using the lens, which of course is the reason I got it in the first place...

[popo]

[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1289528394' post='4115']

Hi Popo,

I carried out some extensive street and indoor testing over several hours with the Zeiss 25,28,35 and 50/1,4 - when I analyzed the pictures later, I found the 50/2 the best, with edge-to edge sharpness at F2 onwards. This was confirmed recently when a specialist dealer in Berlin (Monochrom) told me that the 50/2 and the 100/2 are the best of the Zeiss bunch.



It could be that the flaws in the Canon 50/1.8 show up more on a 5D MKII, making the Zeiss appear better, but it could also be that you have a bad copy (even though I'm told that there shouldn't be noticeable quality variations in Zeiss products). You might need to try another copy if you are really not happy.

[/quote]

Looking back, I guess the way I worded might have sounded negative, it wasn't intended as such. To rephrase the conclusion, the Zeiss is certainly a great lens. However, I was surprised how close the dirt cheap 50mm f/1.8 II came in most performance aspects (at least on crop sensor). I guess we're well into the point of diminishing returns here. Of course that also doesn't consider the additional ability of the Zeiss to close focus which was an important selling point to me. The 50mm f/1.8 II does take extension tubes well but it wasn't fun using it practically.

[Guest]

I think this is about what you ought to expect.

I've got the 50 makro planar, and I got it for two reasons; wide open performance as a normal lens and the convenience of having a quality normal lens with me that doubles as a macro when I don't want to carry a longer macro.



wide open at f2, it's sharper than the canon 1.8, the 1.4, and the Sigma 1.4 when they are stopped down to f2. What I found was that when I wanted shallow DOF shots with my sigma 1.4 I generally stopped it down to 1.8 or 2 to improve performance a little. So I thought why not just get the Zeiss and use it at f2? it's also better than those lenses at f 2.8 (though if f2.8 is what you care about, you could save and get the sigma 2.8 macro which is if anything sharper m- marginally - at every aperture)



So that's the reason to own it. Once you are stopped down, the nifty fifty is one of the sharpest lenses you can own. As is the Canon 1.4. For stopped down sharpness a hundred bucks on a nifty fifty (10% of the Zeiss price) is a no brainer. The Sigma 1.4, though, never gets great in the corners. NO surprise if the only bokeh difference is the blades, as the nifty fifty is a very simple symmetrical gaussian design that you would expect to have great bokeh - pity about the blades (having said that my experience is that the Zeiss does seem to have less busy bokeh)



So then why should you buy a Zeiss 50 macro? Well if you wanted really good central performance at wide apertures the champ was the Sigma. But the Zeiss is better at f2, and gets tack sharp stopped down, whereas the Sigma does not. The nifty and the canon 1.4 don't catch up until later; f4 in the case of the 1.4, f5.6 in the case of the nifty. And you get a macro (or at least near macro which is fine -- 50mm is too short a focal length for convenient 1:1 work anyway) .



If you don't need really good central sharpness at wide apertures, don't buy the lens.You can save a lot. But if you do,it's three lenses in one: a good wide aperture lens (the Sigma), a good stopped down lens (the canons) and a macro.

[popo]

I'm still in the process of learning my way around the fine details of the Zeiss. The earlier stuff has only been at longer distances where it was struggling to show any advantage. As unfair as it is, I've been looking at the macro performance of the two, with the help of extension tubes for the Canon in order to get the magnification. Of course the Zeiss blows it away in that condition.



It was pointed out elsewhere I could have got both a macro and a regular fast prime for less cash, but the Zeiss does have that unique mix of both that can be used at the same time, if less so than the individual cases. I already have other macros for use, but I did want specifically a 50mm with close focus capability, and I wasn't convinced with the f/2.8 performance of the 50mm macro lenses. No regrets on getting the Zeiss, but it does have an indirect side effect of making me want to get a 5D2 sooner...