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!

Zeiss 55mm 1.4... this is going to cost me

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
IMHO, while it seems to provide extraordinary performance, it is simply way too big for a regular use 50, let alone a MF one... I'll happily stay with my 50/1.4G AF for most 50 work -- it renders pretty darn nice. And then my (newly acquired) 50/1.2 MF which renders beautifully for the special stuff -- not pristine optical performance, just a gorgeous overall look I happen to like a lot! Actually, in full disclosure the little 1.2 is now on my cam like 99% of the time, and virtually never leaves f1.2 :ROTFL:
 

ryc

Member
IMHO, while it seems to provide extraordinary performance, it is simply way too big for a regular use 50, let alone a MF one... I'll happily stay with my 50/1.4G AF for most 50 work -- it renders pretty darn nice. And then my (newly acquired) 50/1.2 MF which renders beautifully for the special stuff -- not pristine optical performance, just a gorgeous overall look I happen to like a lot! Actually, in full disclosure the little 1.2 is now on my cam like 99% of the time, and virtually never leaves f1.2 :ROTFL:
The latest blog entry shows a smaller version of the lens ready for prod. I think it went from82mm to 77 or 72. I don't exactly remember.
 

jduncan

Active member
Most of those buying this lens would be people who don't need it and don't understand its value. They'll buy it because it's the most expensive and supposedly the best 50mm lens for 35mm ever made. But if that is what makes the world go round, so be it.

Those who can really make good use of it are video users, studio and portrait photographers, landscape photographers and others who don't really care if it's AF or not. Yes, it would be nice if it was AF, but it isn't, and there's always the Nikkor, the Sigma and, for those who are into Canon cameras, the 50mm L.
In general terms, I agree with you. But It's my understanding that not al lot of portraits this days are done at 50mm. People this days prefer a more tight perspective.

I still don't understand what is between Zeiss and auto focus.

Best regards,

James
 

ohnri

New member
I, for one, am glad to see it. My understanding is that this is the first of at least three lenses in this line from Zeiss.

At $4,000 I think it is reasonably priced for the performance it seems to offer.

At some point I expect Nikon to offer a camera with significantly more resolution than their well regarded D800 and I imagine this lens will be a fine match for it.

I've been shooting everything with 24 MP and less. While that is really plenty for most images I will be excited to have the option to use some much higher resolution gear.

As far as MF goes, I wish it was AF as well. Although I shot plenty of sports with my M9 and Noctilux f/1 I find the digital Nikon SLR's far harder to MF than my old M9 was.

Possibly Sony will come out with a good body with an excellent EVF and Zeiss will release this lens in an A mount? For me, that would be a strong enticement to switch systems.

Best,

Bill
 

Hulyss Bowman

Active member
This Zeiss lens is a vast niche joke. C'mon guys ... there is wonderful 50mm out there and the Nikkor 50f1.2 is just a gem. If you skilled enough to use it, like all manual focus lenses you can have some awesome rendering. 4 Grands for a manual lens ? Rent it !!! Buying it is ok if you have the money (at least a load of money because 4k is not nothing even if you have money). I salute the technological achievement, I salute the performances, I salute the weight (1kg.. omG...), I salute the intention, I salute every thing but the price and the ridiculousness of making a 55 mm design this expensive. If it was a 85 mm or, better, a 90/95mm f1.4/f1.1 lens @ 4000 bucks I would applause and eventually buy one. But this is a 55mm, a normal focal, even not really suited for portraits. This is hard to justify the expense. I tend to think that a lens, in the pro world, should not exceed the price of the digital pro/semi pro body. For example, just wait SIGMA to launch a new 50mm calculated on their A1 bench machine (based on foveon sensor, not bayer). I do not want to make the SIGMA fan boy but hell, if they launch it, in the vain of the 35 f1.4, this Zeiss Oddity will be, for real, an Oddity.

The 50f1.2 just rock, even hand-held, you have almost the same results on the D800, just a raw out of ViewNX2 without tweak...:



 
I think it's a somewhat peculiar lens, just because the most common uses for the 50mm range are street and snapshooting. And this lens is huge. Which would seem to point to a particularly small niche.

But I don't think the price is a problem. Exploiting the capabilities of smaller, denser sensors will require more and more sophisticated optics. $4000 is not even in the high range for medium format lenses. We could reasonably expect the best small format lenses to get more expensive still.
 

Biglou

New member
I wonder how this Zeiss will compare with the latest Leica 50/2 apo which is staking the same "best 50" territory albeit at f2.
One is small and light, the other one huge and a brick.
For travel guess wich one i would take, even if marginally less perfect.
 

RVB

Member
One is small and light, the other one huge and a brick.
For travel guess wich one i would take, even if marginally less perfect.
300grams for the APO cron and 1000grams for the Zeiss.. the only fault of the Leica is that some of them flare,but at the weight I would prefer the Leica,If you don't carry it you won't shoot it.. :)
 

Biglou

New member
So right, i bought a very good Nikon D800e i leave at home and carry my small Leica everywhere, quality i get with it is enough for my needs. :)
In order to increase quality and aperture you need also to increase size as we saw long ago with enlarging lenses for electronics.
The Zeiss lens will be usefull when sensors will be bettered and for studio work or labs.
 

RVB

Member
So right, i bought a very good Nikon D800e i leave at home and carry my small Leica everywhere, quality i get with it is enough for my needs. :)
In order to increase quality and aperture you need also to increase size as we saw long ago with enlarging lenses for electronics.
The Zeiss lens will be usefull when sensors will be bettered and for studio work or labs.
It will be interesting to see what Sigma and Canon come out with..for 4K you could by a medium format lens for studio work,you can buy the HC 50mm mk2 or Phase one LS55 2.8 for just a few hundred dollars more and they have leaf shutters and A.F..of course you need to own a medium format body.. ;-)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
... and here I was sweating and choking over the $1,500 price tag on the new Zeiss ZA 50/1.4 ASPH with SSM Auto Focus ... of course it only has 8 elements.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
... and here I was sweating and choking over the $1,500 price tag on the new Zeiss ZA 50/1.4 ASPH with SSM Auto Focus ... of course it only has 8 elements.
That is understandable since you don't have a camera to justify it in the Sony line up! :p
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Apart from the price, which I can't afford to pay (I think), I can see the uniqueness of this lens. If it's absolutely sharp wide open, has beautiful bokeh at any aperture, can resolve the finest detail of 35mm sensor now and in any foreseeable future, this may be the lens that I could travel the world with with one lens only. It would be a fun and interesting experience. 50mm is useful for environmental as well as closer portraits. That's basically what I need. I do think should come up with a focusing screen optimized for the 55 though, maybe even include it in the price.
 

AlexLF

Well-known member
I think this lens moves 35mm format further to the MFD territory. This way the price is ok I guess (not saying it's on par to the MFD but we're getting there). But I'd prefer to have autofocus in this lens. Nikon, wake up! :)
 
M

mjr

Guest
Morning

I'm not sure what the issues are with the D800 focusing screen, sure it isn't the easiest ever made but it is far far from impossible to manually focus. I have a few af lenses and I have 2 Zeiss mf lenses, I alway use the Zeiss and have little real problem. When I'm shooting landscapes I have never used af, just switch it off on an af lens and focus manually, never really understood the need for it!

Obviously these are just my views, just saying I don't think it's that hard and I'm just the wrong side of 40.

So, this 55 looks amazing for me, if I can afford it. Great image quality, manual focus, I like to feel as though I've had some input to the photographs I take beyond half pressing the shutter and then pressing it a bit more!

I'm going to find one when they're available, take some shots with it and if it feels good, buy it, easy!

Mat
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Mat,
I find it difficult to focus accurately with wide aperture lenses at maximum aperture with modern digital cameras, particularly at close distance when the DOF is very shallow. The focusing screen on my Contax RX does a much better job in this respect, plus it has split screen. I consider installing Katzeye focusing screen with split screen on all my Nikon cameras because of this.
 
M

mjr

Guest
Jorgen

For sure it could be easier and especially as time passes, strangely I struggle to see this laptop screen clearly without wearing glasses and yet through the viewfinder, I can see perfectly, we all have different requirements.

If there was a split screen available then I'd probably buy it just because it would be easier but there is no way I'd not buy a great lens just because it was tricky to focus, I'd just practice and practice and the keepers would have much more value to me for that. I'm not a pro though so my comments should be taken as little more than the ramblings of an enthusiastic idiot!

I use 1 central focus point if I use af at all, have always focused that way, never even turned continuous af or focus tracking or whatever it's called so mf lenses make a lot of sense to me personally, I like the process, I like taking my time and sometimes I like the final result!

I appreciate that if getting paid required getting the shot then I'd maybe think differently but as there are many many guys like me who work hard, can afford to spend a little on stuff they enjoy and spend all their free time buggering about with cameras then this is a very exciting lens for the D800.

Have a good day!

Mat
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Morning

I'm not sure what the issues are with the D800 focusing screen, sure it isn't the easiest ever made but it is far far from impossible to manually focus. I have a few af lenses and I have 2 Zeiss mf lenses, I alway use the Zeiss and have little real problem. When I'm shooting landscapes I have never used af, just switch it off on an af lens and focus manually, never really understood the need for it!

Obviously these are just my views, just saying I don't think it's that hard and I'm just the wrong side of 40.

So, this 55 looks amazing for me, if I can afford it. Great image quality, manual focus, I like to feel as though I've had some input to the photographs I take beyond half pressing the shutter and then pressing it a bit more!

I'm going to find one when they're available, take some shots with it and if it feels good, buy it, easy!

Mat
I think it all depends on how, and what one shoots.

This lens appears to bring an acuity that addresses the short-comings of some manufacturer lens line-ups when such acuity is the application priority. It is no secret that to avail yourself of the resolution available from the higher meg FF 35MM DSLRs requires flawless technique and superior optics ... in that respect, this lens does look to be amazing.

However, "Isn't the easiest, but far from impossible" is okay if one has the leisure time to enact the proper technique ... but keep in mind, they didn't invent AF no reason ... and AF is also getting better and better thanks to the new technologies. This newer AF ability really shines when spontaneously working with a fast f/1.4 aperture in lower light.

IMO, (other than rangefinders), there hasn't been a great manual focus 35mm camera since the demise of manual focus film cameras ... arguably the best being the Leica SL2.

Personally, I've always been a fan of Zeiss optics, and adapted many manual focus favorites to modern DSLRs ... great for studio and tripod work, or even more thoughtful, less spontaneous applications ... but in the end it was just a futile effort that went against the wave of what and how I shoot. When Sony went FF and offered a decent line of AF Zeiss lenses, it was the solution for me.

Just because you " ... can't understand the need for it (i.e., AF)", doesn't mean the need doesn't exist.

- Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Mat,
I find it difficult to focus accurately with wide aperture lenses at maximum aperture with modern digital cameras, particularly at close distance when the DOF is very shallow. The focusing screen on my Contax RX does a much better job in this respect, plus it has split screen. I consider installing Katzeye focusing screen with split screen on all my Nikon cameras because of this.
Jorgen, give it a try ... it may work for you. I never had much luck with it on my Nikon DSLRs. I tried them all (Katzeye, Bright Screen, Nikon), and even added a magnifier to the eye-piece. Still missed to many spontaneous shots, especially wide-open even with meticulously calibrated ZF lenses.

Like you, I worked with the Contax cameras and Zeiss optics or Leica R cameras and R optics ... why these cameras seem to be so good compared to manually focusing AF 35mm DSLRs using the same well dampened manual focus lenses remains a mystery to me.



- Marc
 
Top