Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4ze vs Canon 50mm f/1.2

[Abitconfused]

OK, I realize these are very different lenses but both get a very, very similar score on DXO's lens compare (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/) when mounted on a Canon Mark ll. However, the 50mm is vastly less expensive. Additionally, you could take two shots side by side with the 50mm and stitch them together using a panorama program, such as the very reasonably priced PTGUI or Adobe Photoshop, and obtain a wider FOV than using the 35mm alone. So is there any reason to buy the more expensive Zeiss?

[Black Pearl]

Test can mean very little these days and can't define the way a lens renders an image.

Zeiss glass has a 'look' to it and only you can decide if its worth the money.
Why not also look at the 55mm f1.4 OTUS?

[William W]

. . . Additionally, you could take two shots side by side with the 50mm and stitch them together using a panorama program, such as the very reasonably priced PTGUI or Adobe Photoshop, and obtain a wider FOV than using the 35mm alone.

But the multiple shots with the 50mm lens, then stitched, will have two (or more) CAMERA VIEWPOINTS and thus the PERSPECTIVE of the resultant stitched image will be skewed.

The result might be a little or very much different to the shot made with (any) 35mm lens: the difference mainly depending upon the Subject Distance.

WW

[jcuknz]

It is quick and easy to take a wide view and a bit longer to stitch two or three or more together ... really it is better to use a narrower angle of view and more frames, particularly if using a stitch programme rather than your regular editor.
A short lens can waste a lot of pixels at the bottom and top of the picture it takes ... though of course with high Mp cameras we can afford to waste I suppose The main thing is to avoid close objects close to the overlap area when not having the camera mounted on a panoramic head etc. it makes the stitch tricky.

Bearing in mind that the 35mm lens has an AoV of 56mm with Canon APS-C and the 50 is 80mm AoV. so neither is very wide by today's standards.

[AB26]

Yes, because it is a Zeiss lens. Remember it also has a lot to do with build quality and colour rendition.
DXO? Sometimes things in the real world does not work the way it does in a lab.

[RustBeltRaw]

But the multiple shots with the 50mm lens, then stitched, will have two (or more) CAMERA VIEWPOINTS and thus the PERSPECTIVE of the resultant stitched image will be skewed.

I would like to challenge that assertion. Exhibit A: a 93-person team photo stitched from 5 shots with a 50mm f/1.4 on 1.6x crop. Hand-held, with perspective correction applied in Photoshop. It is quite possible to do this under the right circumstances.

Additionally, you could take two shots side by side with the 50mm and stitch them together using a panorama program, such as the very reasonably priced PTGUI or Adobe Photoshop, and obtain a wider FOV than using the 35mm alone. So is there any reason to buy the more expensive Zeiss?

Shooting a two-shot panorama is frequently impractical. One needs a static or very slow-moving subject. On the other hand, the Zeiss's full-time manual focus is also impractical in many cases. Zeiss lenses do have a "look" that quite a few people admire, but I strongly suspect one could approximate it fairly well with careful color adjustment. As you said, sharpness is probably too close to be distinguished in the real world.

As I see it, there are a few reasons (in no particular order) one might choose the Zeiss.

• Reputation.
• Prestige.
• Getting the "look" without painstaking post work.
• Preference for all-manual lenses.
• Preference for high-end construction.
• No real need for AF.

As far as the 35mm vs. 50mm comparison, that's as old as photography. A 35 gets you the necessary field of view when a 50 is just a bit too long. Or maybe it's the way you see. Or perhaps the wider lens separates the subject from the background that little bit more. Or the 50 was more expensive, and you couldn't afford it. Or someone gave it to you.

There's a reason basically everyone has both 50mm and 35mm focal length equivalents in their kit. One need not be forced to choose between the two.

Is there a buying decision in the works, or is this simply a thought experiment?

[dubaiphil]

Manual focus with the f1.4 may be tricky for the uninitiated, especially at f1.4. It's also big and heavy, especially with the metal lens hood deployed.

I'd recommend the f2 Distagon also in the comparison. Not by using charts though, but in real life shooting.

It blows my pro zoom 24-70 out of the water....

[William W]

. . . Additionally, you could take two shots side by side with the 50mm and stitch them together using a panorama program, such as the very reasonably priced PTGUI or Adobe Photoshop, and obtain a wider FOV than using the 35mm alone.

+

But the multiple shots with the 50mm lens, then stitched, will have two (or more) CAMERA VIEWPOINTS and thus the PERSPECTIVE of the resultant stitched image will be skewed.

+

I would like to challenge that assertion. Exhibit A: a 93-person team photo stitched from 5 shots with a 50mm f/1.4 on 1.6x crop. Hand-held, with perspective correction applied in Photoshop. It is quite possible to do this under the right circumstances.

Well the devil is in the detail and in the in the exact meaning of the words that were written.

Stitching and subsequent ‘Perspective Correction’ in Photoshop (or any other Post Production Mechanism) seeks to address “perspective” and in many cases it can do a very good job to make a facsimile, but the devil is in detail and the fact remains that PERSPECTIVE is conditioned ONLY by the CAMERA’S VIEWPOINT, relative to the SUBJECT – and to make a Panorama one must change the camera’s viewpoint.

***

I think that your words and my words (which were not cited) were written to have a similar meaning, however, with respect, I stand by my words as being correct:

“It is quite possible to do this under the right circumstances.

The result might be a little or very much different to the shot made with (any) 35mm lens: the difference mainly depending upon the Subject Distance.

WW

[rpcrowe]

Test can mean very little these days and can't define the way a lens renders an image.

Zeiss glass has a 'look' to it and only you can decide if its worth the money.
Why not also look at the 55mm f1.4 OTUS?

Doubtless, some lenses have a "way" of rendering an image that cannot be covered by tests and is only noticeable in "real life" shooting...

I suspect though, that liking or disliking the "way" the lens renders an image is up to some subjective decision making and may not be considered the same in the opinion of all photographers...

I really like the way my 12-24mm Tokina f/4 Mk-1 renders an image. It seems almost three dimensional to me. However, I suspect that every photographer would not agree with my assessment of that lens...

OTOH... although I skipped the Canon EOS film cameras and remained with the manual focus Canon A-1 and its FD lenses until I switched over to digital, I would not want to revert back to manual focus. However, that might be enjoyable to other photographers.

It all goes to prove that photography is both a science (which is measurable) and an art (which cannot be measured).

[Abitconfused]

Well, my friend has a Zeiss 50 f/1.4 that has fantastic color but which I believe has a somewhat narrow FOV. So, I think a Zeiss 35mm would be great but ouch...the price. So my small brain thinks, I will just use the excellent Canon 50mm f/1.4 and, since I shoot RAW anyway, Photoshop in contrast, color and selected saturation.

But wait! Not so fast my evil twin Rex says. Check out the chromatic aberration in both lenses. There is more of it in the Canon lens. Well, can't Photoshop fix that? But that's the $1,300 question. Or two questions really, 1) does chromatic aberration effect colors throughout an image or is it a phenomenon that is localized along areas of high contrast. And, 2) does Photoshop adjust the entire image when removing CA or just the obvious fringing?

[lukaswerth]

Yes, because it is a Zeiss lens. Remember it also has a lot to do with build quality and colour rendition.
DXO? Sometimes things in the real world does not work the way it does in a lab.

Agreed. In these days, one might add, there is a lot of talk about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4. I have the humble Zeiss 35mm f/2, and I am very happy with the results. I also have the still humbler Zeiss 18mm f/3.5 which does not at all that well on DxO, but which is one of my most used lenses, and which holds out very well in practice - a real sleeper in my view.

With regard to stitching images together as a substitute for a wide angle, my own view is this is not going to work at all. Stitching is, with the right software, a wonderful technique, but, whatever they say in those tutorials, it is simply something different from straight shooting. It involves different problems, a different aesthetic, a different way of viewing. At least, this is my approach.

Lukas

[Manfred M]

I few thoughts. Both are specialty lenses. The f/1.2 Canon is a low light lens, (1/3 stop faster than a f/1.4) so we need to realize that this is primarily a low light / shallow depth of field lens and was quite frankly designed to be shot wide open (otherwise, one could opt for the far less expensive f/1.4 or f/1.8 versions). A f/1.2 lens, with it's large light gathering capabilities is going to have to bend the light at its edges quite accutely, and that will require a complex design to minimize aberations, and my guess is that shooting wide open would have drive a lot of the associated design decisions. I would expect the less expensive lenses to have better performance throughout the slower apertures for this reason.

The f/1.4 35mm Zeiss is actually built by Cosina in Japan for Zeiss (to a Zeiss design and to Zeiss specs). Zeiss contracted out the small lens production a number of years ago; but It is a low production volume product and being manual focus, with a high price, means limited demand. It will have the impeccable mechanical construction and almost surgical crispness. both key reasons why people buy Zeiss (n.b. the Zeiss branded Sony lenses need to be excluded from this discussion).

Personally, I don't believe the two lenses can be compared directly; one is a "normal" lens and the other is a moderate wide angle, so two totally different photographic roles. Sure, the FoV on the 50mm is going to be narrower, but, I generally would not shoot them the same way, so this is really a bit irrelevent, just like one lens being 1/3 of a stop faster than the other...

I own a f/1.8 35mm and f/1.8 50mm lens; and use them primarily when I want to be relatively unobtrusive when I shoot. The 35mm is a crop frame lens, so it is really a "normal" lens for use on a crop frame camera, while 50mm is a full frame lens.

[NorthernFocus]

Seems like the first thing you need to do is to decide what focal length lens you need. If you are concerned enough with optical quality to be considering prime over zoom lenses, then it seems rather self defeating to go into a decision planning on stitching to achieve your ultimate result.

[RustBeltRaw]

Well, my friend has a Zeiss 50 f/1.4 that has fantastic color but which I believe has a somewhat narrow FOV. So, I think a Zeiss 35mm would be great but ouch...the price.

Sounds like there's a bit of green-eyed gear lust at work here. Is this a question of needing the lens, or wanting the lens? Both are valid, but the former is more subject to logic.

So my small brain thinks, I will just use the excellent Canon 50mm f/1.4 and, since I shoot RAW anyway, Photoshop in contrast, color and selected saturation.

Quite doable. You are likely to alter the Zeiss images to a mood and color palette you prefer, anyway. So where you start from doesn't strike me as massively important.

Check out the chromatic aberration in both lenses. There is more of it in the Canon lens. Well, can't Photoshop fix that? But that's the $1,300 question. Or two questions really, 1) does chromatic aberration effect colors throughout an image or is it a phenomenon that is localized along areas of high contrast. And, 2) does Photoshop adjust the entire image when removing CA or just the obvious fringing?

How often do you shoot heavily-backlit subjects? CA will be worst when light is glancing around the edge of something. Since it is caused by a lens focusing different light wavelengths to different points, it can theoretically show up anywhere there's a color shift. But I can't recall the last time someone complained that chromatic aberration was costing them sharpness in someone's eyebrow, for instance.

Speaking for myself, I don't lose much sleep over chromatic aberration. I don't own pro-grade lenses, but I've never encountered a problem I couldn't correct with a combination of ACR aberration-reduction tools and careful cloning. It's a pain, but to me, it's worth saving that $1,300. I am speaking specifically about the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM, which does have some CA problems. But then you look at the price, and the calculus changes.

[Manfred M]

I am speaking specifically about the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM, which does have some CA problems. But then you look at the price, and the calculus changes.

That being said, ACR does a decent job of removing CA, so long as the lens profile is in the database, if not it can be done manually as well.

[inkista]

Personally, I don't believe the two lenses can be compared directly; one is a "normal" lens and the other is a moderate wide angle, so two totally different photographic roles. ...

+1. I think the OP should try getting closer to comparing apples to apples. Either look at the ZE Distagon 35/1.4 against the EF 35/1.4L USM, the ZE Planar 50/1.4 against the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, or (because I like longer lenses), the Planar 85/1.4 against the EF 85mm f/1.2L USM.

And the reason to go with the Zeiss is its character. Whether you call it microcontrast, 3D "pop", or "the Zeiss look", if you see it and you think it's worth the PITAness of an all-manual lens and the pricetag, then you go for it. Personally, I adore my adapted Contax-Yashica mount Planar 100/2 to the point of idiocy. And I own a 135L. It's not that the Zeiss lens is sharper/better than the Canon L, it's that it's a different flavor.

This shot demonstrates the 3-d depth cuing thing Zeiss glass is prized for. Maybe you'll see it. Maybe you won't.


5DMkII. C/Y Zeiss Planar T* 100/2.

The theory goes that the in-focus-to-out-of-focus transitions with Zeiss glass, because of the very high microcontrast, tend to be more distinct than with other glass, so you get a diorama-like depth "pop" in the images. It's not just about thin DoF, either. It exhibits the same depth cuing with deep DoF, as well, it's just a little more subtle with less out of focus blur.


Canon XT/350D. C/Y Zeiss Distagon T* 28/2.8

One more note: the 50/1.2L USM may also not be what you think it is, either. Go google up "focus shift" and the 50L.

[RustBeltRaw]

This shot demonstrates the 3-d depth cuing thing Zeiss glass is prized for. Maybe you'll see it. Maybe you won't.

Does Zeiss glass provide 3D pop, or is anyone attentive and patient enough to find scenes with strong fore, mid, and background components more likely to be a Zeiss user? I'm not sure. But I'm tempted to rent a Zeiss 135/2, shoot my usual fare with it, and see what I can see.

[inkista]

Does Zeiss glass provide 3D pop, or is anyone attentive and patient enough to find scenes with strong fore, mid, and background components more likely to be a Zeiss user? I'm not sure. But I'm tempted to rent a Zeiss 135/2, shoot my usual fare with it, and see what I can see.

Actually, a C/Y Sonnar 135/2.8 is probably one of *the* bargain Zeiss lenses out there. In the $250 range on eBay, last time I looked. [grin]. But the Planar 100/2 is especially pronounced in creating the 3D pop easily. With a few of the other Zeiss lenses, you just get wicked sharpness from the microcontrast. [grin].

But for comparison with the Planar shot above...same shoot, same scene, same focus-on-the-fountain, different lens.


Canon 5DMkII. + OM-mount Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.2. Wide open at f/1.2, because hell if you have an f/1.2 lens, and it's getting dark, that's what you do.

The Olympus glass is surprisingly sharp wide open at f/1.2, but it's more Leica-like in its character: the design is more for resolution over contrast. The bokeh is smoother and doesn't have the bite that the Zeiss can give. It does give you depth cuing, but it's not as specific or pronounced as with the Zeiss lens. Both are very very pleasing, though.

[Manfred M]

I haven't shot Zeiss lenses in a very long time; but would agree with Kathy that they are surgically sharp and almost three dimensional in their rendering. I fell in love with the Leica look (sharp, accurate colours with almost creamy bokeh), so shot Leicas exclusively until I went digital.

I haven't quite forgiven Leica that they have not produced a full-frame DSLR (can't afford the S2 line) yet so that I can use all of my Leica glass. I have to reserve that for those couple of times of year that I go back to shoot film.

[inkista]

I haven't shot Zeiss lenses in a very long time; but would agree with Kathy that they are surgically sharp and almost three dimensional in their rendering. I fell in love with the Leica look (sharp, accurate colours with almost creamy bokeh), so shot Leicas exclusively until I went digital.

My only experience with Leica is cheap adapted Leica-R lenses on Canon, but what freaked me out was that when I shot with them, I couldn't see the fabled Leica look--until I looked at the histograms. It's so weird to fall in love with a lens's histogram. But I've never seen that kind of evenness in the color distribution before. And once I started pulling sliders about in Lr, then I really got it. Creamy-smooth transitions everywhere, and yes, super-accurate colors. Fullest data of any glass I've used. Not the way most folks would put it, though.

I haven't quite forgiven Leica that they have not produced a full-frame DSLR (can't afford the S2 line) yet so that I can use all of my Leica glass. I have to reserve that for those couple of times of year that I go back to shoot film.

I think this feeling has sold not a few Sony A7r bodies to M glass owners, despite the issues with wider-than-35mm lenses.