50mm 1.2 / 85mm 1.2 VS Zeiss 50mm1.4 / Zeiss 85mm 1.4? Which should I buy...

[djgunter]

Hi everyone,

New user here in need of some expert opinions before I spend BIG on primes....

I'm looking to purchase a very wide aperture lens...my current widest lens is the 100mm 2.8 IS L Macro lens.

I want something that will be great for ultimate bokeh and street photography. I had a look at all these lenses today but cant decide which one is best without really getting to use any...I cant rent where I am either.

The Canon 85mm 1.2 is nuts...but the Zeiss lenses, especially the 85mm 1.4 is just beautiful. I have never had a manual only lens so Im worried I wont be happy using it.

Can anyone fill me in? I'm looking for the sharpest lens with the best most bokeh...is there a difference between the 50mm 1.2L and the 85mm 1.2L?

Thanks for your help everyone.

 

[RMC33]

I JUST had all the 50's you mention + the canon 50 1.4.

I honestly would avoid the Canon 1.2 if you plan on shooting stopped down and buy the 1.4 (IQ is the same on both @ F/2 when I used both lenses the majority of the time). The 1.2 focuses faster then the 1.4, but not by much. I think the rumored update of the 50 1.4 could prove to make an amazing lens and that is what I am waiting for. The Canon 1.2 just did not do it for me for the price.

The Zeiss was BY far the sharpest wide open. The Zeiss IQ was amazing at f/2 as well but MF just does not fit into my shooting style. I would have loved to keep and own that lens, but it just was to time consuming for me to MF every shot when I am on a schedule.

 

[shurkas]

I am Zeiss fanboy, and I was shooting with 50 1.2, which I had eventually sold. My Zeiss lenses are 85 1.4 and 50 2.0 macro. What could I say, 50 1.2 is worth shooting 1.2, when stopped down the picture becomes less appealing. But the 1.2 is generally not usable in terms of microstock photography, which I'm trying to focus on completely. Why I have bought 50 2.0 macro over 50 1.4: 1 I thought that I saw sharp lenses before buying this one... but when I did, I realized how wrong I was. It is really THAT SHARP, 2 It have unique rendering of out-of-focus areas, that no other lens can produce, and I really like it.

I asked myself a question - how often I will shoot 1.4 wide open for stock purposes and the answer was "not really often". So I decided to put my money into 2.0 and I really happy with this decision.

And the Zeiss 85 1.4 ... It's just beautiful, for me using it is very similar to sexual pleasure lol, I cannot be more specific, just love it full stop

Now the pitfalls. Manual focusing is the challenge... I remember how frustrated I was over 99% of my first images was out of focus... Live view improves focusing experience dramatically, but still.. Zeisses are not for quick shooting.

So if your main subjects are weddings, journalist-style shooting, buy Canon lenses, If you shoot advertising or microstock, or still life, I would recommend Zeiss.

Any other question - will be happy to help

Cheers,

Sasha

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Very personal taste and shooting style dependent. In my experience comparing the two,
Canon lenses take snapshots, Zeiss lenses take photographs, with all the work and individual
attention in the differentiation. Sharpness, color saturation, and consistency mark most of the
Zeiss offerings. Automation, ease of use and variable quality seem to be Canon hallmarks.
The Zeiss 85mm f1.4 is a pinnacle of design, manufacturing and assembly and a joy to own and use.

 

[djgunter]

So the 50mm 1.2, while wide open isnt sharp? Because I'd like to have a very sharp focus area with lots of depth behind/bokeh.

The 85mm is substantially more in cost, so I'm at a loss of what to.

I plan on upgrading to a 5D Mark 3 within a few months...will this change the performance of the 50mm 1.2?

 

[RMC33]

So the 50mm 1.2, while wide open isnt sharp? Because I'd like to have a very sharp focus area with lots of depth behind/bokeh.

The 85mm is substantially more in cost, so I'm at a loss of what to.

I plan on upgrading to a 5D Mark 3 within a few months...will this change the performance of the 50mm 1.2?

It is sharp, on a very very thin plane. To the point if you nail the eye the nose will be somewhat OOF. Main reason I used it stopped down to F/2. I do the same with my Canon 1.4 as both of them perform great at that aperture. Ill finish cooking dinner and setup a side by side using a 5d3 of the two lenses.

 

[babiesphotos.ca]

So the 50mm 1.2, while wide open isnt sharp? Because I'd like to have a very sharp focus area with lots of depth behind/bokeh.

The 85mm is substantially more in cost, so I'm at a loss of what to.

I plan on upgrading to a 5D Mark 3 within a few months...will this change the performance of the 50mm 1.2?

None of the 1.2 are great for street photography. DOF is so shallow that you rarely want that effect on the street. 1.2 is great for portraits, and for that 50 is sharp enough, and 85 is just plain sharp, BUT I don't think you should be buying any 1.2 until you have 50 1.4, play with it and decide you want more. Easy to buy, easy to sell, not gonna lose much money... similarly 85 1.8 AF is much faster than 85 1.2, you may like it for candids...

 

[RMC33]

50 1.2 Starting @ f/1.2 through F/8 ISO 400 5dmk3 no post. All taken from 2.5 ft.

For some reason the shot @ 1.2 is last. Sorry.

 

[RMC33]

50 1.2 cont.

 

[RMC33]

50 1.4 ISO 400 5dMk3 F/1.4-8

 

[RMC33]

50 1.4 Cont.

 

[Plamen]

The 50L has noticeably more blurred background than than the 50/1.4, both at f/1.4. Are those files labeled correctly? There is no aperture data in the EXIF.

 

[RMC33]

The 50L has noticeably more blurred background than than the 50/1.4, both at f/1.4. Are those files labeled correctly? There is no aperture data in the EXIF.

Yes all labeled proper. I did the wrong export (No exif).

 

[Plamen]

Thank you for posting those.

I have experience with the 50L but never shot with the 50/1.4. If you have the opportunity to compare them in good light outside, with a colorful subject, both at f/1.4, this would be very useful.

 

[djgunter]

Thanks so much for the pictures, they really provided the information I needed on a whole other level. I do want to some serious bokeh，but at the same time dont want to lose all the sharpness，especially in an area the size of ones face，from only a few feet away.

I'm leaning towards the 85mm, although my wallet won't appreciate that......

What I really want is a new prime with fantastic bokeh and image sharpness. I'm sure you can understand my pain..

I have really noticed the difference between primes and zooms after buying my 100mm Is L macro. The quality isn't matched by anything else I have.

Right now I have -

100mm IS L Macro
24-100mm IS L
100-400mm IS L
Sigma 10-20mm wide angle

I feel I'm missing a serious prime, if that makes sense.

 

[djgunter]

I also plan to upgrade to the 5D Mark3 within a few months, if that makes any difference...

 

[RMC33]

Thank you for posting those.

I have experience with the 50L but never shot with the 50/1.4. If you have the opportunity to compare them in good light outside, with a colorful subject, both at f/1.4, this would be very useful.

I may be able to today. Someone hit my car in a parking lot yesterday and I have to deal with that. The colors here in Nevada are pretty drab this time of year sadly, but I think I have something in mind.

 

[sdsr]

Hi everyone,

New user here in need of some expert opinions before I spend BIG on primes....

I'm looking to purchase a very wide aperture lens...my current widest lens is the 100mm 2.8 IS L Macro lens.

I want something that will be great for ultimate bokeh and street photography. I had a look at all these lenses today but cant decide which one is best without really getting to use any...I cant rent where I am either.

The Canon 85mm 1.2 is nuts...but the Zeiss lenses, especially the 85mm 1.4 is just beautiful. I have never had a manual only lens so Im worried I wont be happy using it.

Can anyone fill me in? I'm looking for the sharpest lens with the best most bokeh...is there a difference between the 50mm 1.2L and the 85mm 1.2L?

Thanks for your help everyone.

Does the fact that you mention these lenses mean that you've considered and excluded the 135L and Sigma 85 1.4? If not, I would strongly recommend you consider them, especially since they cost much less than the lenses you've mentioned. They're both sharp (esp. the 135) wide open, mechanically excellent (the 135L is extremely fast-focusing), and create superb bokeh (the 135 is famous for it). If you do a suitable internet search you'll find bokeh (and other) comparisons between the 85mm L and the Sigma; the results may surprise you. (And bear in mind that (1) it's easier to get smoother bokeh with a longer focal length; for one thing, you don't have to get so close to the subject; and (2) as someone else has mentioned, you're not likely to be doing street photography at 1.2, except perhaps in the middle of the night....)

 

[RMC33]

I also plan to upgrade to the 5D Mark3 within a few months, if that makes any difference...

What are you using now?

 

[risc32]

when you say the zeiss is the sharpest wide open do you mean zeiss macro f2 at f2-vs- the L's at f1.2? This reminds me of what Roger at "lensrentals" found during his big 50mm roundup. If you don't care to find that info and read it, i'll give you the short answer. The Zeiss(s) have nothing on the L or the 1.4 or 1.8 for that matter. In fact the Zeiss 1.4 is probably the worst performer i can think of off the top of my head in regards to the commonly tested lens areas. but you don't have to believe me, I've seen it perform poorly at maybe 4-5 of the top lens reviewing sites. search it.
But if you just want a solidly built MF 50mm lens that you can take pics with, at any price, that's certainly the Zeiss. If you get one that is calibrated properly, unlike the 21mm Brian from "thedigitalpicture" had. I know it's hard to believe, but for that much money, and with no AF complications to deal with, and all those "papers" with people signing off on them, they still get stuff wrong.

Oh, and the Zeiss 85mm is also a poor performer in the traditional areas of performance. Easily bettered by the canon 85mm 1.8 and sigma, but it's all metal, and you have to MF, so that's got to be worth something?!