new ziess 55mm, redefining?

[risc32]

http://thedigitalpicture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Zeiss-News


"A must-see attraction is a high-performance, full-format SLR camera lens with manual focus. With a focal length of 55 mm and aperture of f/1.4, this lens is the first model of a new product family designed for demanding users. Thanks to a newly developed optical design, this lens is superior to conventional full-frame lenses, and it achieves with powerful full-frame, full-format cameras an image performance that until now has only been seen with medium-format systems."

real deal of fluff? cost estimates? Am i reading the lens correctly? 82mm filter on a 55mm 1.4?

 

[Axilrod]

Wow that looks like it's going to be pretty amazing. I love my Zeiss glass and have never been disappointed with anything I've tried from them, so I'm sure if they're hyping it that much it'll be awesome. And yes 82mm doesn't seem unreasonable, their new 15mm takes 95mm filters. It looks different from your traditional ZE/ZF.2's, it says it's a prototype but if the final product ends up looking like that it's going to be really expensive. It says "a new product family," so I'm guessing this is going to be higher end.

"Designed for demanding users" = expensive as hell

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

As I recall, their existing 50mm f/1.4 does not gather very good reviews on a FF body, so its time to make something thats better.

Photozone gives it 2-1/2 stars for optical quality, while the much less expensive Canon 50mm f/1.4 gets 3 stars, and it has autofocus as well.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/537-zeiss50f14eosff?start=1
"Some years ago we analyzed the Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 on an APS-C DSLR and the results were truly impressive there. However, on a full format DSLR the performance leaves a bit to be desired actually. The lens is capable of delivering great results at medium aperture settings - no doubts - but it disappoints at f/1.4 and f/2 with a rather poor border/corner performance and generally reduced contrast. Depending on the use-case this may or may not be overly relevant (e.g. portraits) of course. The light falloff is on the high side here but that's a rather normal characteristic for such lenses. Lateral CAs are well controlled and not overly field relevant. The quality of the bokeh is pretty good although the weak contrast may spoil the game at f/1.4.
Just like the rest of its family the Zeiss lens is built to the highest standards. Some users may complain about the lack of AF but this isn't really a significant flaw for a wide-angle lens. The focus confirmation is available in the viewfinder (ZE version) and in very critical (close focus) scenes Live-View can give you the needed guidance. That said, it remains a bit of an anachronism these days. The price level is quite steep so you really have to have a itch for such classic lenses."

 

[dr croubie]

I had to do a double-take on that.

It's a Distagon?
Distagons (and Flektogons) are Retrofocus, wide-angle lenses, with focal lengths less than their flange distance.
ie, 21mm and 35mm Distagons on SLRs with ~45mm flange distance.
or 35/40/50mm distagons/flektogons on Medium Format with ~80mm flange distance.

So what are they doing here? Creating a Retrofocus Distagon with a longer focal length and flange distance and possibly bigger image circle, adding in a bit of space to the mount (effectively they're just making an MF lens on an SLR via adapter).
That would explain the 82mm filter (my 50mm 6x6 Flektogon takes 86mm filters), creating a larger image circle and then projecting only to 35mm FF would give better border performance (IQ/vignetting) too.

It's a very good idea, a lot of people get very good images using 35/40/50mm Distagons adapted from hasselblad/contax 645.
But damn, that's going to be huge and expensive if that's really what they're doing...

 

[drjlo]

What has always perplexed me about Zeiss is thier inability(unwillingness?) to come up with Canon AF lenses. Zeiss makes AF lenses for Sony and announced they will make AF lenses for Micro 4/3rds, so why not for Canon?? I mean, if Sigma and Tamron can do it without Canon approval..

 

[qwerty0]

FWIW, this isn't the first 55mm they've made. I seem to recall the last one was something special as well (f1.2).
I always felt this line, except for the 100mm makro planar, were rehashes of old old zeiss designs - not even the last round of
contax lenses. So, nice to see them stepping up.

 

[@!ex]

Can someone give me a good reason why Zeiss has never adopted AF? Always wondered.

 

[Axilrod]

As I recall, their existing 50mm f/1.4 does not gather very good reviews on a FF body, so its time to make something thats better.

Photozone gives it 2-1/2 stars for optical quality, while the much less expensive Canon 50mm f/1.4 gets 3 stars, and it has autofocus as well.
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/537-zeiss50f14eosff?start=1
"Some years ago we analyzed the Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 on an APS-C DSLR and the results were truly impressive there. However, on a full format DSLR the performance leaves a bit to be desired actually. The lens is capable of delivering great results at medium aperture settings - no doubts - but it disappoints at f/1.4 and f/2 with a rather poor border/corner performance and generally reduced contrast. Depending on the use-case this may or may not be overly relevant (e.g. portraits) of course. The light falloff is on the high side here but that's a rather normal characteristic for such lenses. Lateral CAs are well controlled and not overly field relevant. The quality of the bokeh is pretty good although the weak contrast may spoil the game at f/1.4.
Just like the rest of its family the Zeiss lens is built to the highest standards. Some users may complain about the lack of AF but this isn't really a significant flaw for a wide-angle lens. The focus confirmation is available in the viewfinder (ZE version) and in very critical (close focus) scenes Live-View can give you the needed guidance. That said, it remains a bit of an anachronism these days. The price level is quite steep so you really have to have a itch for such classic lenses."

I've seen some mediocre reviews of the 50mm f/1.4, and I rented it a few times just out of curiosity before I bought any ZE glass and it was much, much better than I expected. It's damn sharp and I was very pleased with the image, just not wide open, but heck my 50L isn't that great wide open. I still ended up opting for the 50 f/2 which is sharp as a tack at just about every aperture, no complaints on that one.

 

[Imagination_landB]

I'm sure it will be a great piece of glass, but will likely be around 2500 and more

 

[jaclarkaus]

As I recall, their existing 50mm f/1.4 does not gather very good reviews on a FF body, so its time to make something thats better.

That design is a Planar, which is not very good at 50mm (and I think has focus shift) but I have one and quite like the colour.

The 50mm Makro-Planar is by all reports very good indeed, but more expensive, larger and slower.

The new design is a Distagon, which are physically larger than the Planar (and more expensive) and the range includes the legendary 21mm so should be very good.

 

[Viggo]

I used to own a 28mm f2 and it was less than perfect wide open, with brutal vignetting, but it was also the lens i have ever tried that improved the most one stop downå crazy difference! I reallyreally liked it. However 28 f2.8 is a lot easier to mf than 55 f1.4. Especially since Canon decided to drop my favorite focusing screen for the 1d x..

 

[optikus]

Re: new Zeiss 55mm, redefining?

Good morning,

I think the new Zeiss Distagon 1:1,4/55mm is a derivate from the former Hasselblad Distagon 1:2,8/50mm - which has it's own logik to use a good medium-format design for 35mm-use as done before with the lens-elements in the Hartblei-Superrotators. The dimensions of such a lens is the other side of the medal - it has medium-format-size, explaining the 82mm-diameter of the filter. The weight will be the next point - nearly 1000g I estimate.

The use of only the center area of a theoretical 60x60mm-area helps to eliminate disturbing effects from the outer regions and uses only the best performing zone of the lens. The reduction of vignetting is a further advantage, so that the caim for superior performance with 35mm-dslr is to believe ...

My own experiences with Hasselblad Planer 1:2,0/110mm, Sonnar 1:2,8/150mm and Tele-Tessat 1:4,0/250mm on various film and digital EOS-bodies let me expect superior performance - but also superior pricing ...

I'll be there at Cologne - we will see ... - together with the other announced new products a very interesting photokina, as it seems.

Jörg

http://thedigitalpicture.com/News/Default.aspx?Cat=Zeiss-News


"A must-see attraction is a high-performance, full-format SLR camera lens with manual focus. With a focal length of 55 mm and aperture of f/1.4, this lens is the first model of a new product family designed for demanding users. Thanks to a newly developed optical design, this lens is superior to conventional full-frame lenses, and it achieves with powerful full-frame, full-format cameras an image performance that until now has only been seen with medium-format systems."

real deal of fluff? cost estimates? Am i reading the lens correctly? 82mm filter on a 55mm 1.4?

 

[risc32]

Can someone give me a good reason why Zeiss has never adopted AF? Always wondered.

I've never heard anything definitive about that either. I just assumed that Sony won't allow them to do it. MF fine, AF no.

 

[preppyak]

Can someone give me a good reason why Zeiss has never adopted AF? Always wondered.

Because when you try to make a lens design timeless, and you don't have the Canon AF contacts direct from them, its difficult to complete that mission. We've already seen issues with certain third-party lenses and extenders on the new Canon bodies, and some of those lenses are <10yrs old. The reason is you have to lie to the camera and tell it that its an L lens, not a Zeiss lens. Then when Canon rolls out a new feature (lens profile corrections, for example) it can cause major issues.

Besides, most 3rd party lenses are known for being slower to AF, or having tons of focus issues (focus shift, front/back focus), so why even bother going down that road if you don't have to

 

[risc32]

it's my understanding that Ziess worked with Canon for it's EOS mount lenses. That is Canon offerred support. Maybe Canon is unwilling to offer aid if Ziess starts rolling out AF lenses. I don't believe the other 3rd party guys had this sort of deal with Canon. They just reverse engineer things until it works out. I don't really put them at the same level.

 

[RLPhoto]

If zeiss made their lenses with USM AF, I'd never buy a canon lens, Ever.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

If zeiss made their lenses with USM AF, I'd never buy a canon lens, Ever.

Here you go

Zeiss Contax N AF lenses can be converted to AF with Canon. Zeiss knows very well how to make their lenses AF with Canon, they just have chosen not do do so.
http://conurus.com/index.php

 

[RLPhoto]

If zeiss made their lenses with USM AF, I'd never buy a canon lens, Ever.

Here you go

Zeiss Contax N AF lenses can be converted to AF with Canon. Zeiss knows very well how to make their lenses AF with Canon, they just have chosen not do do so.
http://conurus.com/index.php

LKASJJ! They want a Grand to convert a Contax 85mm 1.4?!

Thats not quite what Meant, I meant just manufactuing EOS mount lenses with AF.

 

[Axilrod]

I used to own a 28mm f2 and it was less than perfect wide open, with brutal vignetting, but it was also the lens i have ever tried that improved the most one stop downå crazy difference! I reallyreally liked it. However 28 f2.8 is a lot easier to mf than 55 f1.4. Especially since Canon decided to drop my favorite focusing screen for the 1d x..

I think the 28mm f/2 is the least impressive of the entire ZE lineup honestly, all of the other ones are pretty awesome though, I love the 50mm Makro and 21mm in particular.

 

[Axilrod]

Can someone give me a good reason why Zeiss has never adopted AF? Always wondered.

I was told by the Zeiss rep that the ZE's were designed with "photography purists" in mind, so I guess in their mind that means no AF. He also said that had they known how popular they would be for video they probably would have marketed them as lower-end cinema lenses and charged much more than they do.

It's possible that they didn't do AF because there was no way you could add the AF motor while keeping the lenses reasonably priced. I mean the 21mm f/2.8 for instance is around $1850, how much would it be if it had AF? I would think $2500 at least.

But honestly the lack of AF is much less of a big deal than I thought it would be, the throw on the focus ring is much longer and has good resistance so it makes it a lot easier to pull focus. Also the AF confirmation works, very, very well and seems to be spot on.