Will Canon step up to Zeiss with a 55mm 1.4L?

[Radiating]

It seems Zeiss's new 55mm f/1.4 lens which promises to be as sharp as current Canon 50mm lenses are at f/5.6 wide open is making a lot of news (50mm lenses tend to fall far behind other primes for image quality, delivering what 24mm and 85mm primes deliver wide open at f/4.0). In my own quest for a great 50mm prime I've looked at every 50mm prime thats ef compatible or ef adaptable made since 1970 and all deliever this mediocre image quality (though being 55mm is likely key in allowing the iq).

So Zeiss has cracked the high quality normal prime mystery that has eluded all other manufactures for decades.

The question is, now that the cat's out of the bag, will Canon fire back with a 55mm 1.4L?

If you're interested here's a video describing the new lens. It's worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mEj6CqZWMk&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I do not think a 55mm prime lens is in Canon's scheme of things.

 

[Menace]

Pretty unlikely I'd say too.

 

[Viggo]

If it's a 50 or 55 I don't care about, but if Canon decided to make a 50mm f1.4 L and it was the size and weight of the 85 1.2 I don't care. I care about them matching the Zeiss f1.4 (which is VERY high up on my list now as I love 50mm) with the AF of the current 50 L.

Canon needs a good 50. Seeing the samples from the Zeiss makes me very excited about it, can I live with MF? Not so sure, I mean, I can shoot a lot with a 50(55) mf, but there's a lot of things I would love to shoot with that IQ, but needing AF.

And to own both the 50 L and the Zeiss 55 f1.4 is an option, but not when I also want a 24-70, since I don't cr@p money...

 

[noisejammer]

Would you be willing to drop $4k on a 55mm Canon lens?
Reading between the lines, that seems to be the expected price for the ZE beauty.

I already own 7 ZE lenses and this is way too rich for my blood.

 

[Radiating]

Would you be willing to drop $4k on a 55mm Canon lens?
Reading between the lines, that seems to be the expected price for the ZE beauty.

I already own 7 ZE lenses and this is way too rich for my blood.

I'd be willing to easily drop 4k on the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 if it had half decent USM autofocus. My style of shooting requires autofocus, and I'd love to complete my prime collection with such a lens.

All I want is the best f/2.8 zooms and the best f/1.4 primes covering 21mm to 200mm.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon is not in competition with Zeiss. Zeiss sells very nice manual focus lenses to those with deep pockets.

Canon is and has always been about mass production of cameras and lenses where they target value for the dollar. By keeping prices down, they are able to turn out high volumes of lenses, and spread the very high cost of tooling and development over many lenses.

Zeiss isn't interested in that market, they know they can't compete at the price Canon charges. They have their niche and do well with it.

 

[wickidwombat]

All I want is the best f/2.8 zooms and the best f/1.4 primes covering 21mm to 200mm.

you are easy to please

 

[Viggo]

Yes, of course i would pay that. I have wanted a great 50 since I bought my 350 D and the current L I find to only work properly with AF on the 1d X and even then.. But the issue I have with it is the iq one AF point off center really isn't fantastic. I had more keepers with the Zeiss 28mm than with any of AF lenses in the 5d2.

I have said many times , why is the 1,5kg only acceptable weight for a 70-200? If I can carry that, I can and would love to, carry a 50 that weighs that if it means extraordinary IQ, and this Zeiss seems to it.

 

[Radiating]

Canon is not in competition with Zeiss. Zeiss sells very nice manual focus lenses to those with deep pockets.

Canon is and has always been about mass production of cameras and lenses where they target value for the dollar. By keeping prices down, they are able to turn out high volumes of lenses, and spread the very high cost of tooling and development over many lenses.

Zeiss isn't interested in that market, they know they can't compete at the price Canon charges. They have their niche and do well with it.

Honestly if Zeiss simply had flawless autofocus I bet that their sales would increase 100 fold.

 

[RMC33]

Canon is not in competition with Zeiss. Zeiss sells very nice manual focus lenses to those with deep pockets.

Canon is and has always been about mass production of cameras and lenses where they target value for the dollar. By keeping prices down, they are able to turn out high volumes of lenses, and spread the very high cost of tooling and development over many lenses.

Zeiss isn't interested in that market, they know they can't compete at the price Canon charges. They have their niche and do well with it.

+1

I tried a 50 1.4 Zeiss, canon 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2. In my opinion the Zeiss was BY FAR the sharpest wide open and had the best IQ overall. It failed to perform in an event setting, which this lens is not for. I honestly found the Canon 1.4 to be better then the 1.2 in almost every aspect. It was only marginally sharper at f/2.0 and focused a bit faster. I did not experience much focus shift but it was there. The value of the 1.4 is FAR greater and the return on investment much quicker then the 1.2 for me. It makes me feel bad because I reaaaaaaaly wanted the 1.2 to be that much better. All my testing was done on a 5d3.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Honestly if Zeiss simply had flawless autofocus I bet that their sales would increase 100 fold.

So basically Zeiss has NOT "cracked the high quality normal prime mystery"

 

[RLPhoto]

No need, 50L is king. 8)

 

[Viggo]

No need, 50L is king. 8)

I can agree with that, I love it for sure, but only on the 1d X, never found any other camera that could tame the AF precision and the only camera I really felt i I got it 100% with calibration. Do I like the trade-off of sharpness for the creay bokeh, of course, I don't shoot test charts. And coupled with the 1dx it really shines. Tracking my kids at f1.8 results in some great captures at 12 fps. It's small light, built like a tank and sealed. What more could you want?

I would keep it even if I bought the Zeiss 55...

 

[Daniel Flather]

What more could you want?

Cut the price a little?

 

[Daniel Flather]

I'd like to know what conventional lens they used in the video.

 

[Ewinter]

I'd like to know what conventional lens they used in the video.

probably the Nikon 50 1.4. I hear it's not so good.

I'm looking forward to Sigma's next salvo in the Art series. If they remake their 50 and 85 like they did the 35, I think Zeiss, Sony, Nikon and Canon should be worried about their prime sales

 

[Zlatko]

I tried a 50 1.4 Zeiss, canon 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2. In my opinion the Zeiss was BY FAR the sharpest wide open and had the best IQ overall.

I presume the lens you tried was the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE (as the new 55/1.4 isn't yet available). I'm surprised to hear it is by far the sharpest because it looks less than sharp in the ISO12233 chart at The Digital Picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=709&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[RMC33]

I tried a 50 1.4 Zeiss, canon 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2. In my opinion the Zeiss was BY FAR the sharpest wide open and had the best IQ overall.

I presume the lens you tried was the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE (as the new 55/1.4 isn't yet available). I'm surprised to hear it is by far the sharpest because it looks less than sharp in the ISO12233 chart at The Digital Picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=709&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Yup. Thats what I saw from a week of shooting all 3 on the street. Charts are good for arguments and AFMA... thats about it.

 

[Viggo]

What more could you want?

Cut the price a little?

Yeah, well, but good stuff has to cost a little ;D If it was cheaper it wouldn't be what it is. But because of the bad reputation it has, buying it used is a great deal...