Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon

[infared]

What I would love to see:
A real "photographer" shoot with all three lenses for the purpose of showing us the difference in bokeh.
Reviewers are not photographers and many times they shoot inane images that do not show off the specific qualities off a lens so that an experienced photographer can actually get a handle on what is going on.
We need to leave DxO out of this, too (don't get me started on that outfit!!!! LOL~).

 

[sdsr]

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?

It depends entirely on who "you" is and what s/he wants to do with it. If you like that dreamy look, and if you use the lens to take portraits (in which case the chances that anything in a corner would be in focus anyway seem slight, rendering - pun half intended - corner sharpness moot), you may not want such an improved lens at all.

And if you do want better sharpness, including sharp corners, why not get the new Sigma - or do something different altogether and buy, say, a Sony A7r + FE 55 1.8? Do your lenses all have to have "Canon" written on them?" Your complaint looks rather like another manifestation of the fanboy-ism that keeps getting brought up: Does Canon have to make the best of everything according to some notion of "best" that may or may not be widely shared?

(And leaving all that aside, for now if you want a 50 1.2 (or 85 1.2) lens for a ff camera, regardless of brand, are there better alternatives which are also 1.2? There are new similar lenses from Fuji and Panasonic/Leica, both supposedly marvelous, but they're APS-C and M43 respectively, but that's not quite the same thing....)

 

[jrista]

@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism. 50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT!

 

[sdsr]

i did not know that there were lenses that had an adjustment ring to control that effect, i don't really understand how it works but it is a very cool feature, are there any other lenses besides this nikon that have that adjustment? i really want one now.

Minolta used to make at least one:

http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm

Not exactly a current lens, though....

 

[Ruined]

@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism. 50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT!

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the SA adjustment, it was just a dated design in general. It would be nice to see an updated version, although I'd first rather see an Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS update with curved blades/IS. The other thing was, I though the 50L gave a better balance of dreaminess and sharpness than I could find with the 135 softfocus (even at variable midpoints settings etc).

If you are a fan of the dreamy look of softfocus, the 50mm f/1.2L is a great combination of sharpness and dreamy effect. It makes more of a tradeoff in sharpness than the 85L II does, but if you like that effect you might actually like the 50L better than the 85L.

 

[jrista]

@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism. 50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT!

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the SA adjustment, it was just a dated design in general. It would be nice to see an updated version, although I'd first rather see an Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS update with curved blades/IS. The other thing was, I though the 50L gave a better balance of dreaminess and sharpness than I could find with the 135 softfocus (even at variable midpoints settings etc).

If you are a fan of the dreamy look of softfocus, the 50mm f/1.2L is a great combination of sharpness and dreamy effect. It makes more of a tradeoff in sharpness than the 85L II does, but if you like that effect you might actually like the 50L better than the 85L.

I'm a big fan of both the 50L and 85L. I am not good at portraiture myself, but I really love the quality and aesthetic of the portraits I have seen taken with those lenses. Both of them are excellent. The 50 definitely has a softer, dreamier look, but the perspective with the 85L is just to die for.

 

[sanj]

So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?

It depends entirely on who "you" is and what s/he wants to do with it. If you like that dreamy look, and if you use the lens to take portraits (in which case the chances that anything in a corner would be in focus anyway seem slight, rendering - pun half intended - corner sharpness moot), you may not want such an improved lens at all.

And if you do want better sharpness, including sharp corners, why not get the new Sigma - or do something different altogether and buy, say, a Sony A7r + FE 55 1.8? Do your lenses all have to have "Canon" written on them?" Your complaint looks rather like another manifestation of the fanboy-ism that keeps getting brought up: Does Canon have to make the best of everything according to some notion of "best" that may or may not be widely shared?

(And leaving all that aside, for now if you want a 50 1.2 (or 85 1.2) lens for a ff camera, regardless of brand, are there better alternatives which are also 1.2? There are new similar lenses from Fuji and Panasonic/Leica, both supposedly marvelous, but they're APS-C and M43 respectively, but that's not quite the same thing....)

I realize that is where my problem lies.

 

[CarlTN]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

What with this Canon??

As I see it in this comparison, the Otus puts the new Sigma to shame until f/5.6, where the borders are about even (Sigma may even have a slight edge on the Otus in the corner here at f/5.6)...however even at f/5.6 the Otus is still barely ahead in the more critical center. Clearly the Otus is superior optically, regarding resolution, contrast, color, etc. Not surprising. I guess all the Otus owners can sleep better now, lol.

 

[sanj]

Thank you all for your thoughts on this topic. It opened up my eyes to the fact that lenses are not only made for sharpness but other qualities as well.

I still feel that if Canon has the 1.2 for 'dreamy' look, then it should also provide another lens for the people seeking the 'sharp' look.