11-19-2010, 12:45 PM
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.
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.