Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Advice needed: C/Y ZEISS 85mm f1.4 or Summicron 90
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Doubt that you will go wrong with either lens. Buy it, use it and sell it if you don't find it you like the photos produced by the lens. Highly unlikely you will loose much money if you choose to resell the lens if you decide it does not suit your taste.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
But the EF 85mm f1.2 mkI and MkII are completely different lenses to the two manual focus FD version's, both optically and mechanically,


I would say that this statement is largely exaggerated. The FD and EF versions mostly differ in two things: the position of the aspherical surface, moved from the second to the third (smaller) element in the EF version with the obvious intent of reducing the production cost, and the first group (3rd-4th elements) of the FD which gets air-separated in the EF version,similarly to what already happened with the Contax Planar 1.2/85.
Aside from these two differences, both lenses share the type, number and position of the elements, they both have a floating last element, in other words the optical structures are quite much the same, as very similar is also the structure of the Contax Planar 1.2/85, as Marco Cavina explains in his admirable comparative article of the FD, EF, and Contax Planar lenses:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/TEST_85mm_f_1,2/00_pag.htm

because:
Marco Cavina wrote:
the limits imposed by the useable diameter of the bayonet and by the retrofocal distance of the reflex system have taken to three optical schemes of very similar structuring


but I agree that the FD looks much sexier Wink


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
DSG wrote:
But the EF 85mm f1.2 mkI and MkII are completely different lenses to the two manual focus FD version's, both optically and mechanically,


I would say that this statement is largely exaggerated. The FD and EF versions mostly differ in two things: the position of the aspherical surface, moved from the second to the third (smaller) element in the EF version with the obvious intent of reducing the production cost, and the first group (3rd-4th elements) of the FD which gets air-separated in the EF version,similarly to what already happened with the Contax Planar 1.2/85.
Aside from these two differences, both lenses share the type, number and position of the elements, they both have a floating last element, in other words the optical structures are quite much the same, as very similar is also the structure of the Contax Planar 1.2/85, as Marco Cavina explains in his admirable comparative article of the FD, EF, and Contax Planar lenses:

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/TEST_85mm_f_1,2/00_pag.htm

because:
Marco Cavina wrote:
the limits imposed by the useable diameter of the bayonet and by the retrofocal distance of the reflex system have taken to three optical schemes of very similar structuring


but I agree that the FD looks much sexier Wink


No arguement there, but actually they are like chalk an cheese optically, as I my diagram clearly shows.
The "marcocavina dot com" article you posted above clearly shows the FD version is a better lens than the EF version in most cases and in some cases its even better than the Zeiss...Thanks for posting it.
The difference is the price...The Zeiss is extremely rare and stratospherically expensive. The EF mkII certainly is'nt cheap either but the FD is so cheap I managed to pick up two of them for under £300!
You also forgot to mention that the rear element groups are completely different...The rear element of the EF versions is at least 45mm in diameter (perhaps as large as 48mm in diameter?), whereas the rear element of the FD versions is much smaller...Around 38mm in diameter. Their different refraction indices aside, this makes it virtually impossible to convert the EF versions to other mounts, which invariably have smaller mount bores than the comparatively huge EF mount, and so the FD versions are the only two that can be converted to other mounts, with the only restriction being that of registration distance (FD mount lenses have a 42mm reg distance). I converted my FD L to Sigma SA mount, which has a reg distance of 44mm, same as EF.
Although EF-SA conversions are usually quite easy, it would be impossible to convert either of the EF versions to SA mount due to their huge rear element.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:

No arguement there, but actually they are like chalk an cheese optically, as I my diagram clearly shows.


Are you able to explain technically why they would be so different?
I mean, something more optically meaningful than stating the difference in diameter of the rear element (a fact which aside from mount conversion issues has no other relevance).
Until you do, I stay with Marco Cavina's statement that the optical structures are "very similar". Why? Because he knows what he writes about.
Just to mention a circumstance of his expertise: he's about to publish a book about the Contarex system.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To me this is a no-brainer. I have both lenses and they are very different. The Summicron sharp and a good solid worker, the Zeiss 85/1.4 AE for CY (Made in Germany) a breathtaking wizard if you shoot open. But stopped down it loses its magic touch. Sure, it’s not that sharp, but in portraits it caresses the person with light giving them a very special aura. Atmosphere – that’s its biggest strength beyond plain sharpness. Among my 41 lenses it’s definitely my favourite one on the 5D.

Lichtstrom


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lichtstrom wrote:
To me this is a no-brainer. I have both lenses and they are very different. The Summicron sharp and a good solid worker, the Zeiss 85/1.4 AE for CY (Made in Germany) a breathtaking wizard if you shoot open. But stopped down it loses its magic touch. Sure, it’s not that sharp, but in portraits it caresses the person with light giving them a very special aura. Atmosphere – that’s its biggest strength beyond plain sharpness. Among my 41 lenses it’s definitely my favourite one on the 5D.

Lichtstrom


I sold my Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar T* MM when I got my Canon FD L...The Canon is so much better WO its comical!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I haven't tried the FD L, but for Canon EOS the Contax is much easier to adapt. My AE copy is stunning wide open:



PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
DSG wrote:

No arguement there, but actually they are like chalk an cheese optically, as I my diagram clearly shows.


Are you able to explain technically why they would be so different?


Well, if you cant see the difference in their optical makeup from my diagram then I'm very supprised:



Of course they are superficially similar optically but then so are all double gauss lens designs Wink
Its only when you look at the at the optics in more detail that it becomes very clear they are completely different lenses.
The review you posted shows this too...I translated it in English with Google Toolbar here is a quote:

"In fact, closing from f1.2 to f2.0, the axis of the Zeiss sees a shift of focus of 2 microns, the Canon FD-L, 4 microns and the Canon EF -L, 10 microns; just going to f2.8, the axis of the Zeiss is out of focus of 16 microns, the Canon EF-L of 34 microns and the Canon FD-L is only about 6 microns,"

In other words, the FD-L has the least focus shift when stopping down from f1.2 to f2.8...Then its the Zeiss and the EF L comes a resounding last...The difference in optical designs between the FD and the EF, however subtle you think it may be, obviously does make a huge difference.

Another quote from the review:

"but in any case, for f2.0, the FD-L is the star of the group (at least
limited to the specific samples tested) to leave a little 'surprised pretty obvious that trims the gap to well
more modern EF recalculated after 13 years."

Glowing praise indeed!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
I haven't tried the FD L, but for Canon EOS the Contax is much easier to adapt.


You know it!...In fact I'd have to say converting my MM to SA mount was easily the easiest mount conversion I've ever done...The FD-L was'nt as easy but it was'nt the hardest conversion i've done either.

ManualFocus-G wrote:


My AE copy is stunning wide open:



Nice, but until you've tried the FD L you really wont know what your missing. These are all at f1.2...










PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, that's some performance for wide open Shocked Any pp? What camera do you shoot with?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Wow, that's some performance for wide open Shocked Any pp? What camera do you shoot with?


They were RAW files taken with the Sigma SD14...I processed them with SPP. I usually leave the sharpening at zero, add some contrast and saturation, reduce the highlights and use the fill light tool to taste.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Wow, that's some performance for wide open Shocked Any pp? What camera do you shoot with?


They were RAW files taken with the Sigma SD14...I processed them with SPP. I usually leave the sharpening at zero, add some contrast and saturation, reduce the highlights and use the fill light tool to taste.


Thankyou Smile I'm really impressed but not sure I want the hassle of sorting a lens conversion Sad


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I am also still searching for the FD 85/1.2, especially the older aspherical version, though I already have the EF L II.
Still unlucky so far, always outbid at the last seconds at ebay auction. While the Buy Now price is too high for my limit.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:

Well, if you cant see the difference in their optical makeup from my diagram then I'm very supprised:


I have asked you to explain where is the difference, this is not a reply.
You made a technical statement, I am expecting a technical explanation to support it.
"Your" diagram shows that the schemes of the two Canon lenses are very much similar. Same number of elements,
same type of elements, same order in the flow, same floating element, there are only two differences, again I have to repeat
1) the aspherical surface, placed on the third element in the EF lens and on the second in the FD, and
2) the 3rd and 4th elements which are grouped in the FD and separated in the EF.
That's too little to say that they are "completely different" and "like chalk and cheese".

We are not in a football pub here, where people makes "boom" statements because he knows that the other people will reply
with even bigger exaggerations and the most powerful exaggeration will win the dispute until the next beer.
Here if you make a precise statement, there are users like me who try to take the matter seriously and expect that you can prove what you assess.

Quote:
Of course they are superficially similar optically


Where superficially? Can you tell us where and what are the deep differences that you imply?
Can you explain us what are these deep differences, optically, with a technical reasoning?
Repeating slogans does not answer.

Why people pretend to be optical experts when obviously they are not? I can not understand that.
Is there any point in trying to impress other people with a knowledge that you obviously do not have?

Quote:
Its only when you look at the at the optics in more detail that it becomes very clear they are completely different lenses.


Ok, talk me about the details then.
I'm ready to listen. Enlighten us with the optical details that are so clear to you and hidden to me.

Marco is able to explain what function each of the glass elements performs in the optical scheme.
I assume that you are able to do the same, since you are able to "look at the optics in more detail".
So please explain to us what type of glass and the function performed by the single elements of the lens.

Quote:
The review you posted shows this too...


No, the review I posted shows only that the two lenses perform differently somewhere. But a different performance does not mean that the optical constructions are completely different.
Even two completely identical lenses can perform differently if there are copy variation issues. Marco states clearly as a premise that the three lenses feature optical schemes that are very similar.
Now you are trying to twist his words into a demostration that they are completely different. That is not correct. If you accept Marco's conclusions, you also must accept his premises.

DSG wrote:
I translated it in English with Google Toolbar here is a quote:
"In fact, closing from f1.2 to f2.0, the axis of the Zeiss sees a shift of focus of 2 microns, the Canon FD-L, 4 microns and the Canon EF -L, 10 microns; just going to f2.8, the axis of the Zeiss is out of focus of 16 microns, the Canon EF-L of 34 microns and the Canon FD-L is only about 6 microns,"
In other words, the FD-L has the least focus shift when stopping down from f1.2 to f2.8...Then its the Zeiss and the EF L comes a resounding last...The difference in optical designs between the FD and the EF, however subtle you think it may be, obviously does make a huge difference.
Another quote from the review:
"but in any case, for f2.0, the FD-L is the star of the group (at least
limited to the specific samples tested) to leave a little 'surprised pretty obvious that trims the gap to well
more modern EF recalculated after 13 years."
Glowing praise indeed!


So what's your point? To show that the Canon FD is a great lens? There was no need, it is known.
Is it a matter of a "mine is bigger than yours" thing? And for what use?

Aside from the fact that it's also not very correct to quote only some of the conclusions, omitting others, nothing in the results of Marco's tests demonstrates a complete difference of the structure of the optics.
Otherwise it would have been stupid of Marco to state that the structures are very similar. And Marco is all but a stupid.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:
I am also still searching for the FD 85/1.2, especially the older aspherical version, though I already have the EF L II.
Still unlucky so far, always outbid at the last seconds at ebay auction. While the Buy Now price is too high for my limit.


The older S.S.C. Asperical version is virtually the same optically to the FD-L, so performance is virtually the same too but they differ quite a bit mechanically...The main difference is the FD-L weighs less and has one less Iris blade.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
DSG wrote:

Well, if you cant see the difference in their optical makeup from my diagram then I'm very supprised:


I have asked you to explain where is the difference, this is not a reply.
You made a technical statement, I am expecting a technical explanation to support it.
"Your" diagram shows that the schemes of the two Canon lenses are very much similar. Same number of elements,
same type of elements, same order in the flow, same floating element, there are only two differences, again I have to repeat
1) the aspherical surface, placed on the third element in the EF lens and on the second in the FD, and
2) the 3rd and 4th elements which are grouped in the FD and separated in the EF.
That's too little to say that they are "completely different" and "like chalk and cheese".
We are not in a football pub here, where people makes "boom" statements because he knows that the other people will reply
with even bigger exaggerations and the most powerful exaggeration will win the dispute until the next beer.
Here if you make a precise statement, there are users like me who try to take the matter seriously and expect that you can prove what you assess.


DSG wrote:
Of course they are superficially similar optically


Orio wrote:
Where superficially?


From a distance! Very Happy

Orio wrote:
Can you tell us where and what are the deep differences that you imply?


Well how about the properties of air spaced optics vs cemented optics...Or did you fail to see this difference from
my very clear optical diagrams?

Orio wrote:
Can you explain us what are these deep differences, optically, with a technical reasoning?
Repeating slogans does not answer.


My diagram makes the optical differences very clear...Its not my problem if you cant understand them.


Orio wrote:
Why people pretend to be optical experts when obviously they are not? I can not understand that.
Is there any point in trying to impress other people with a knowledge that you obviously do not have?


I never claimed to be an optical expert, but then I dont really need to be either...My diagrams make the differences quite obvious, even to those without a Doctorate in optical physics, like myself for instance!
Besides, I really dont see why are you being so defensive?...Your the one that posted Marcos review and I cant help it if it supports my case.
Or are you just jealous because I have an FD-L and you do not? Rolling Eyes

DSG wrote:
Its only when you look at the at the optics in more detail that it becomes very clear they are completely different lenses.


Orio wrote:
Ok, talk me about the details then.
I'm ready to listen. Enlighten us with the optical details that are so clear to you and hidden to me.


OK, If you insist Rolling Eyes
...the FD-L has a completely air spaced second element, the EF-L has a semi air spaced second element. Fully air spaced optics perform differently to cemented elements and and semi airspaced elements.
The Asperical elements are in different positions so whilst they have the same overall design purpose they perform differently.
The FD-L has cemented third and forth elements whilst the EF-L has semi airspaced third and forth elements, so they perform differently.
The FD-L also has a thicker third element than the EF-L, so again they will perform differently.
The concave sides of the forth and fifth elements of the FD-L have a deeper concave shape...So they perform differently to the EF-L with its forth and fifth elements with a shallower concave shape.
The seventh element of the FD-L is fully airspaced from the sixth element and semi airspaced from the eighth wherease the seventh element of the EF-L is fully airspaced from the eighth element and semi airspaced from the sixth element...So they perform differently.
The seventh element of the EF-L is much thicker than the seventh element in the FD-L so they perform differently.
The seventh and eighth elements of the FD-L are much smaller in diameter than those in the EF-L, so they perform differently.
This all adds up to them being very different lenses...The only thing they really share is their fast f1.2 aperture, but thats about it.

Orio wrote:
Marco is able to explain what function each of the glass elements performs in the optical scheme.


Really?...Does he do that in the review you posted?...And if so, where?

Orio wrote:
I assume that you are able to do the same, since you are able to "look at the optics in more detail".
So please explain to us what type of glass and the function performed by the single elements of the lens.


Well, each element is there in an attempt to refract the different colours of the light entering the lens, which have different wavelengths and therefore different refractive indices, to the exact same focal point at the rear of the lens, therefore minimising spherical and lateral chromatic abberation at the same time...The elements refract light differently depending on their shape, thickness and whether they are air spaced or cemented and depending on the optical properties of the type of glass used...Try to keep up! Rolling Eyes

DSG wrote:
The review you posted shows this too...


Orio wrote:
No, the review I posted shows only that the two lenses perform differently somewhere. But a different performance does not mean that the optical constructions are completely different.


Actually, thats exactly what is shows! We all know that a Sonnar lens design can be just as sharp as a Planar lens design, so superficially they may produce very similar images...However, obviously you know that a Sonnar design is very different to a Planar design so optically they must perform differently...And indeed they do! You can find that difference by simply looking at the quality of the bokeh they produce. Wink

Orio wrote:
Even two completely identical lenses can perform differently if there are copy variation issues.


True, but if they identical optical designs the variations will be minor and not effect the overall properties of the lens design.

Orio wrote:
Marco states clearly as a premise that the three lenses feature optical schemes that are very similar.
Now you are trying to twist his words into a demostration that they are completely different. That is not correct. If you accept Marco's conclusions, you also must accept his premises.


Well to be honest, he obviously does'nt speak English as a first language and I have had to translate it with Google Toolbar so the translation has'nt exactly made all of his permises 100% clear. Wink

DSG wrote:
I translated it in English with Google Toolbar here is a quote:
"In fact, closing from f1.2 to f2.0, the axis of the Zeiss sees a shift of focus of 2 microns, the Canon FD-L, 4 microns and the Canon EF -L, 10 microns; just going to f2.8, the axis of the Zeiss is out of focus of 16 microns, the Canon EF-L of 34 microns and the Canon FD-L is only about 6 microns,"
In other words, the FD-L has the least focus shift when stopping down from f1.2 to f2.8...Then its the Zeiss and the EF L comes a resounding last...The difference in optical designs between the FD and the EF, however subtle you think it may be, obviously does make a huge difference.
Another quote from the review:
"but in any case, for f2.0, the FD-L is the star of the group (at least
limited to the specific samples tested) to leave a little 'surprised pretty obvious that trims the gap to well
more modern EF recalculated after 13 years."
Glowing praise indeed!


Orio wrote:
So what's your point? To show that the Canon FD is a great lens? There was no need, it is known.
Is it a matter of a "mine is bigger than yours" thing? And for what use?


No, I'm simply demostrating that the FD-L is not exactly the same lens as the EF-L, MkI or MkII...They are in fact very different lenses and they perform differently as a result...And whether you like it or not, Marcos review clearly shows that the older FD-L design is actually a better lens than the later EF design.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey guys, backup a little bit.
I need to read optic physics to understand your statements fully, but life is too short to read those.
Just get both and play with them for a while...


PostPosted: Fri Dec 02, 2011 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Hey guys, backup a little bit.
I need to read optic physics to understand your statements fully, but life is too short to read those.
Just get both and play with them for a while...


Very Happy Well I have to rely on logic for this one i.e. if two lenses are not identical, there must be a difference in the end result even if you can't see it.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2