Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ Lens Test Report - Zeiss Planar T* ZA 85mm f/1.4
#11
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285411171' post='3216']

Hail to the king ...

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/554-zeissza85f14ff"]http://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/554-zeissza85f14ff[/url]

[/quote]





Klaus,

In the summary, you say: "Unlike its cousin - the Zeiss ZF/ZE 85mm f/1.4 - it shows a very snappy contrast at f/1.4 and the close focus performance is superior as well."

Why should the Sony version be better than the Canon or Nikon version of the same lens?



Michael
#12
[quote name='HarryLally' timestamp='1285598818' post='3294']

Klaus,

In the summary, you say: "Unlike its cousin - the Zeiss ZF/ZE 85mm f/1.4 - it shows a very snappy contrast at f/1.4 and the close focus performance is superior as well."

Why should the Sony version be better than the Canon or Nikon version of the same lens?

[/quote]





A cousin is a little bit more distant than a brother. :-)
#13
[quote name='HarryLally' timestamp='1285598818' post='3294']

Klaus,

In the summary, you say: "Unlike its cousin - the Zeiss ZF/ZE 85mm f/1.4 - it shows a very snappy contrast at f/1.4 and the close focus performance is superior as well."

Why should the Sony version be better than the Canon or Nikon version of the same lens?



Michael

[/quote]



It is not the same lens - just to mention the most obvious difference:

ZA: 8 elements in 7 groups

ZE/ZF: 6 elements in 5 groups







#14
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1285605654' post='3296']

It is not the same lens - just to mention the most obvious difference:

ZA: 8 elements in 7 groups

ZE/ZF: 6 elements in 5 groups









[/quote]

<Many thanks Klaus. I wasn't aware of that. Is there any reason why the Sony version of the lens is not available in Canon and Nikon mount?

Michael
#15
[quote name='anyscreenamewilldo' timestamp='1285597291' post='3293']

for the example shots do you pop the pictures into acr and then, using adobe's standard settings only, the picture pops out - or you put a bit of effort into it?

[/quote]



I use the defaults (maybe with a little exposure correction at times) & +10 clarity & +10 vibrancy. That's across all tests and brands whenever I use CS5.
#16
[quote name='HarryLally' timestamp='1285616796' post='3300']

Is there any reason why the Sony version of the lens is not available in Canon and Nikon mount?

[/quote]



Main reson is contract between Sony and Zeiss which says that AF Zeiss lenses are exclusive for A-mount, This year that contract wad extended till 2015.
#17
[quote name='HarryLally' timestamp='1285616796' post='3300']

<Many thanks Klaus. I wasn't aware of that. Is there any reason why the Sony version of the lens is not available in Canon and Nikon mount?

Michael

[/quote]



I guess the ZF/ZE is a "classic" design - the number of elements/groups is identical to the old Carl-Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 in C/Y mount - possibly a little improved.

The ZA is probably a brand new design. Remember that AF lenses have a different focus group design which needs to be more light-weight in order to be driven by a AF motor. In THEORY a higher number of elements allows a better correction of aberrations (optical defects).
#18
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1285531948' post='3266']

IF shoudln't be a deal breaker, IMO. Don't forget that IF essentially makes a prime a varifocal, or even a zoomlens (automatically, with focusing rather than exact control) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />

[/quote]



"Due to the heavy weight of the lens system the AF speed is Okay but it's nothing rave about."
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />



I want the fastest AF possible and my experience taught me that in order to achieve that you need both IF (or RF) and ring-USM. If it had them, I might have been tempted. The 135/1.8 is too heavy and slightly on the long side (FL wise) for the A33. Now, if one may dream of a 100/2 makro with AF and IF.....
#19
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1285706734' post='3332']



"Due to the heavy weight of the lens system the AF speed is Okay but it's nothing rave about."
<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



I want the fastest AF possible and my experience taught me that in order to achieve that you need both IF (or RF) and ring-USM. If it had them, I might have been tempted. The 135/1.8 is too heavy and slightly on the long side (FL wise) for the A33. Now, if one may dream of a 100/2 makro with AF and IF.....

[/quote]

IF doesn't necessarily make a lens AF faster. It all depends on how many elements move to make IF possible, and on how complicated the movements are. Of course, really long lenses always have relatively speaking only very light and small lens requirements for IF, but the shorter a lens gets, the heavier these elements grow. And IF Macro lenses, unless they have a limiter, are not generally known for fast AF behaviour, and we're talking F/2.8 lenses here, not even F/2 ... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' /> Ok, non-IF macros are really slow <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#20
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1285718776' post='3336']

IF doesn't necessarily make a lens AF faster. [/quote]



I vividly remember my experience with AFD lenses. 24/2.8 and 135/2.8 (IF design) were faster, sometimes noticeably so, than 35/2, 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 which extend during focusing. So I guess we'll have to agree that we disagree on that.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)