The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

55 1.8

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I don't own or run a lab and I've never shot a Lab test! I don't have a copy of imatest or a bench. All my reviews, whether informally on here or more 'written up' elsewhere, are field tests in which I use realistic real world scenes to check two things: how good a lens is, technically, and how well made it is.

If you were in St Mark's square in Venice and shot one of the facades at the far end, you'd appreciate why i do the harbour side shots: getting home and finding that the facade you shot is sharp on one edge and soft on the other would probably annoy you, as would a shot across the 'basin' to Giudecca with the same effect. Go into the basilica and shoot a fresco and see if you like a result that is soggy at one side or blurry at on corner and sharp at the other.

I too own a lot of lenses that are not 'good' technically. I keep and use them for their look. But there are lenses where are not marketed as 'look' lenses and for which certain levels of technical ability are claimed by their makers. A lens like the 55 F1.8 or the 35 F2.8 should both, at their price and design point, be capable of producing images by F5.6 that are convincingly sharp at the edges when viewed at 50% on a 100dpi screen. Good copies of both clearly are. What I am testing for is de-centering, which is a manufacturing defect rather than a design and price point compromise, and which will make all your shots look like they were taken with a tilt/swing lens.

Of course, if that's your style of shooting (and you're happy for the degree of tilt and swing to remain constant across all shots) then that's your choice and you're very welcome to it! Again, many photographers don't care about the edges. But if your purchased a Mercedes and discovered three years later, that they hadn't put the spare in the trunk, just when you needed it, it would be both Mercedes and you that were to blame by that time. That's why I test carefully at first: to get what I paid for. A look through my personal galleries will show that as a mainly landscape photographer, I very very often don't give a damn for a technically perfect look. But sometimes I do and I don't want my options to be cut off by a dodgy copy of a lens.

Your comment was also specifically regarding what I said about bokeh on this lens. That is less a technical question than an aesthetic one and I was noting that the 55 F1.8 has the double edged bokeh problem that has raised some alarm on the 35 F2.8 - it won't bother me much, but some people hate it. And it does relate to the 'look and character' of the optic rather than the strictly technical performance… there's a difference between aesthetic imperfection, which is in the eye of the beholder (or possibly the client) and manufacturing imperfection, which is in the eye of anyone who likes a sharp snap from a $1000+ lens…. I personally will often choose to keep and not return a partially de-centered lens because it isn't bad enough to be worth the hassle. But as a general point, products which are clearly poorly made and shouldn't IMHO have passed QC are really a form of rip-off and I don't like being ripped off! YMMV...
Fair enough and I guess I don't know you well enough to know if you were offended by my comments. That wasn't my intent if you were. I was just generally stating that I don't believe I'm as discerning about lenses as you seem to be when it comes to performance. I don't go through nearly as many tests as you do and my tests mostly are done around the house or with a quick walk through a few local places that I've shot before to have comparative shots of known areas. I can promise you that I don't check every corner at 100% at every aperture and maybe that's wrong but that's just how I roll. I'm 100% a hobbyist and before last year I have never even taken any sort of photography class.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Im on the fence on this lens. I got the 35 FE so i have at least one AF prime lens plus the performances rated well. My issue is I'm not a big 50mm person and I still need a 85 in my bag and not sure what to get there. Wish they had the 85 1.4 out in FE. This is about my least real decision to make.

Im leaning to a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ZF in a Nikon mount since i have the adapter now. That also gives me three lenses in Nikon just in case i ever want to go back
 

fmueller

Active member
Im on the fence on this lens. I got the 35 FE so i have at least one AF prime lens plus the performances rated well. My issue is I'm not a big 50mm person and I still need a 85 in my bag and not sure what to get there. Wish they had the 85 1.4 out in FE. This is about my least real decision to make.

Get an adaptor for your Nikon lenses. You won't have the AF but the manual focus is so darned good. Gives you time to think before you start melting plastic ;)



Fred

www.fredmuellerphotography.com
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Im on the fence on this lens. I got the 35 FE so i have at least one AF prime lens plus the performances rated well. My issue is I'm not a big 50mm person and I still need a 85 in my bag and not sure what to get there. Wish they had the 85 1.4 out in FE. This is about my least real decision to make.

Im leaning to a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ZF in a Nikon mount since i have the adapter now. That also gives me three lenses in Nikon just in case i ever want to go back
Guy,

I purchased 3 of them after seeing my first one... hopefully I can get a good enough copy out of the bunch. This lens is in the same sharpness league as your Zeiss 135. All you gotta do is get a copy that isn't decentered. I would pay a premium for a really good copy. :thumbup: Order one and see for yourself..... just make sure you can send it back.

Victor
 

ecsh

New member
With the grip and the Lae4 adapter, i will use the CZ 50 1.4 and see how that does. So far the Sigma 35 1.4 is a real nice lens.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My Sigma 35mm is for sale and its a freaking laser. Just a little too big for me with adapter so I ordered the 35FE. I may wait on the 55 till February and steal that 85 1.4 zeiss on ebay for a good price. I have the Novaflex adapter for my Leica 19 and zeiss 135 and speaking of the 135 you can't touch this lens with anything IMHO. I will never sell it. But having for MY landscape kit to start as i build it the Leica 19, 35 FE, zeiss 85 1.4 and the Zeiss 135 F2 is a good start than add in the Zeiss 25mm F2 and 55FE. I'm not going to get into Leica M glass , Leica R YES but I need to steal one or for that matter find one. LOL
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
Fair enough and I guess I don't know you well enough to know if you were offended by my comments. That wasn't my intent if you were. I was just generally stating that I don't believe I'm as discerning about lenses as you seem to be when it comes to performance. I don't go through nearly as many tests as you do and my tests mostly are done around the house or with a quick walk through a few local places that I've shot before to have comparative shots of known areas. I can promise you that I don't check every corner at 100% at every aperture and maybe that's wrong but that's just how I roll. I'm 100% a hobbyist and before last year I have never even taken any sort of photography class.
Lord no! Not offended at all - I just want to make clear that there's a direct creative reason for the testing I do.

I have been caught off guard too many times by taking equipment I trusted rather than tested into the field and discovering the weaknesses when I had returned from half way around the world.

As I say, some weaknesses are not only expected in some optical designs but can be accepted and celebrated. An F1 Noctilux wide open isn't something you'd lightly use for a group shoot at a wedding, but it might make the happy couple look even more in love than they are…

The point of the testing is...

...first to see if you've been sold a pup and as you can see from some other people in this thread, this is such a strong possibility that some people order multiple copies of a lens, test them all and keep the best. That might seem obsessive, and even I don't do it (I do them one by one!) but actually it's perfectly reasonable given the 'dud rate' (ands duds can be quite noticeably dud) for some manufacturers and models. It is harsh on the retailer, who lives on very thin margins, but it is the manufacturer that needs to get the message and I really really don't think that we should all be expected to read the high falutin' marketing claims and shell out top dollar only to be palmed off with a sub-par unit.

… to learn the lens. Assuming that you have a good copy, it might still have complex optical design compromises that leave it with a curved or wavy shaped field of focus, or a tendency to ghosting with strong point light sources, or focus shift as you stop down, or a lot of complex distortion that is hard to correct, or strong colour shading on some bodies, etc etc etc. Again I'd rather find that out by shooting a few boring but relevant test frames than half way up a glacier with no alternative optic to hand..

In the end it is about knowing and controlling variables so as to reduce unpleasant surprises. I used not to do it, because I thought that if a lens had passed QC and had a nice certificate it was likely a good one, and I didn't understand optical design constraints.

A few years on this forum cured me of that… :D:D:D
 

jagsiva

Active member
Im on the fence on this lens. I got the 35 FE so i have at least one AF prime lens plus the performances rated well. My issue is I'm not a big 50mm person and I still need a 85 in my bag and not sure what to get there. Wish they had the 85 1.4 out in FE. This is about my least real decision to make.

Im leaning to a Zeiss 85mm 1.4 ZF in a Nikon mount since i have the adapter now. That also gives me three lenses in Nikon just in case i ever want to go back
Guy, I have been thinking about 85mm as well. I have the 85/1.4 G and love it on the D800 and D800E. The MF Nikon 85/1.4 is smaller and also a great lens.

The Zeiss ZF 85.1.4 had major focus shift issues when it first came out, so not sure if this is still the case. With the A7R and on-sensor focussing, this is obviously much less of a problem.

The other option is the Sony Zeiss ZA 85/1.4, this is supposed to be a great lens and you have full and fast AF with the Sony Adapter.
 

Ron Pfister

Member
The more examples I see of the EF 1.8/55, the more I have to say that I really don't care for its OOF rendering. I find the double-edged bokeh busy and unattractive. I'll stick with my current 50s (Makro-Planar ZF.2, Planar ZM and Summicron-R)...
 
V

Vivek

Guest
The more examples I see of the EF 1.8/55, the more I have to say that I really don't care for its OOF rendering.
+1.

For me it is the sample images from Sony themselves that did it. There is something odd about the OOF distortions. It reminds me of the 55/1.2 Nikkor-O (a CRT lens made for 1/5X). One thing is for sure, it ain't a Sonnar.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The Zeiss 50 macro is a really nice lens. Thinking be nice to go all zeiss glass.
The Zeiss 25f2 is killer good, I had that lens sold it and kicking myself ever since. Zeiss 50 macro , the 135 is amazing. The 85 in the ZF and ZA has some wide open aberrations but I think still a great choice. A Leica r 80 is just too much money. I'm not that motivated to go M lenses to be honest. Just takes too much Capitol to get there unless you own it already.

One nice thing on Zeiss in the Nikon mount is you can just buy the ZF version and not need there newest ZF2 version. That can save money as chipped means nothing to us.
 

jonoslack

Active member
The Zeiss 50 macro is a really nice lens. Thinking be nice to go all zeiss glass.
The Zeiss 25f2 is killer good, I had that lens sold it and kicking myself ever since. Zeiss 50 macro , the 135 is amazing. The 85 in the ZF and ZA has some wide open aberrations but I think still a great choice. A Leica r 80 is just too much money. I'm not that motivated to go M lenses to be honest. Just takes too much Capitol to get there unless you own it already.
How about the Contax/Zeiss 85 f1.4? it's a lovely lens, and can be got very reasonably - of course, you need a different adapter, but that's not a problem. It certainly won't lose value if you go elsewhere later.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
The more examples I see of the EF 1.8/55, the more I have to say that I really don't care for its OOF rendering. I find the double-edged bokeh busy and unattractive. I'll stick with my current 50s (Makro-Planar ZF.2, Planar ZM and Summicron-R)...

Like this?



full image

Apologies for the LR processing, it was already done and loaded before I started using C1...
 

Ron Pfister

Member
Like this?

Apologies for the LR processing, it was already done and loaded before I started using C1...
Many thanks for this sample, Tim! This looks quite nice, actually. Most of the samples I've seen were taken at close range, and there was stronger contrast in the OOF areas than in your image. Was there any CA-removal applied to this image (either in-camera or in LR)? How about other corrections?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
:shocked:
How about the Contax/Zeiss 85 f1.4? it's a lovely lens, and can be got very reasonably - of course, you need a different adapter, but that's not a problem. It certainly won't lose value if you go elsewhere later.
I thought it might be the same lens formula
 

Ron Pfister

Member
How about the Contax/Zeiss 85 f1.4? it's a lovely lens, and can be got very reasonably - of course, you need a different adapter, but that's not a problem. It certainly won't lose value if you go elsewhere later.
1+. Guy, you could possibly install a Leitax F-mount, and then you wouldn't have to change adapters. However, the C/Y 1.4/85 is not listed as compatible on the Leitax site (but it's not listed as incompatible, either). A quick mail to David would clear this up, I'm sure. And if you don't need f/1.4, I can highly recommend the C/Y Sonnar 2.8/85. Small, light-weight, lovely rendering and very high performance.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Here is the rub every 85mm 1.4 in Zeiss design has that wide open aberration as i think they are all the same formula. The fact that I got the Alpa adapter is making me think the Sony ZA is maybe the way to go. My other though is just stay down the Zeiss line so all my files have that same look. Maybe not the best lens wide open is the Zeiss 50 1.4 but stopped down a touch its very good and cheap to get. Than I will get my lovely Zeiss 25 F2 back in my hands. Also having the Zeiss 135mm lens that I will never part with i am building around that as well. I found a ZA for 1100 dollars which I can pull off and get in my hands before leaving for LA and I don't have to deal with ebay and have a 14 day return window I may just go for it and see how it runs. Also the Alpa adapter was a gift from a member and i want to make use of it as that was what he wanted too. Case closed on the 85mm. Bottom line too many upsides to this call and if it sucks it goes back and Ill try something else.

Oh and I screwed up when i bought the Novaflex i had G lenses well turns out I don't anymore and don't expect to either so what i am going to do is get my Dremel out and the inside of the tube is the tab to control the aperture i am going to grind that off so when i put any Nikon mount Zeiss on I will not need that control anyway since i have aperture rings. What this does is i don't have to line up when i mount the lenses to the adapter the f stop. i can just put it on and the Novaflex is basically a tube only. When i bought it I was still in flux over keeping the Nikon system well that decision has been made i am out of Nikon but still have my lens mounts in case they come out with something better.
 
Top