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

Carl Zeiss 85 mm T* Planar vs. Canon L Series
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:32 pm    Post subject: Carl Zeiss 85 mm T* Planar vs. Canon L Series Reply with quote
Please tell me which lens produces the best IQ, CZ 85 mm T* Planar 1.4 manual focus versus any of the Canon L series lenses..........any of them? also in comparison to any of the Nikon series.

If you can, at all, help post comparison shots if you have the CZ as well as your best Canon L series or Nikkor---for portraiture. I would like to know which would you rather shoot with, if you had the choice.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hi newton

i dont have the canon, but i've used a lot of lenses on my 5d and none are better than the zeiss 85 for portraits especially. i do have the L 17-40 and, at three times the price, i do not think its much, if at all, better than my tamron sp 20-35mm in terms of iq. i'm not at all saying they are not very good lenses, but my feeling is the L lenses are overpriced for the quality they produce. just my opinion.

as for examples, there are many here for the planar, and i think the canon, if you do a search.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I must say that I use the EF 1.2/85 mm L II more for available light shots than for portrait (use here more the EF 2/135mmL).

Although the AF of the 85mm is not the quickest one I prefer this lens because the AF is faster than my manual focus capabilities during such light conditions with my 1.4/85 Planar.

Here few sample. First one with f 3.2 all other wide open.










Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you are more a Nikon shooter I recommend the 1.8/105mm AiS which is a very versatile lens. Very sharp at f 2.8 and more and very nice bokeh and the right DOF for portrait wide open. Price perhaps 30 % of the Planar.

Here few samples too.







Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I use the Planar 1.4/85mm mainly with the RTSIII and film. Like there the colours, sharpness and 3D capabilities. Here few samples with Provia 100F.







Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Question a bit like oh I have Porsche , is Ferrari better or just more expensive ? Take any of them you will won't disappoint with any of them.

Model , light , skill all more important the lens itself.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Question a bit like oh I have Porsche , is Ferrari better or just more expensive ? Take any of them you will won't disappoint with any of them.

Model , light , skill all more important the lens itself.


+10

No point learning to drive in a Porsche, get a Samyang 85mm, learnt to shoot that really well and then get the Zeiss.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no offense to anyone, but a samyang not much less than getting a good deal on the zeiss, and imho, its not in the same league. if you want a cheap good 85mm, get the jupiter for $100usd. i dont see any reason to spend $400 on a samyang when $500 will get you the zeiss if you look around and wait like i did.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Newton, take a look in the gallery section.

Here's some with my Planar...

http://forum.mflenses.com/i-love-my-planar-85-1-4-t40255.html


PostPosted: Thu Jun 16, 2011 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can not speak for L lenses.
About the normal Canon lenses, I did have the EF 2/100 and currently have the 1.8/85
Neither of them can stand the comparison with the Planar.
The 1.8/85 in particular has worse CA (which means something, as CA can be a problem in the Planar also), much worse distortion, weaker coating, and it is much softer wide open - and probably also stopped down in comparison (I did never compare, and neither I want to).
It's not that the EF 1.8/85 is a bad lens - it is actually rather good, for a Canon plastic autofocus. But it's just not on par with the Planar.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If wide open sharpness matters to you the most then the FD or EF is probably the best.

Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both and I love both Smile
I also have Samyang 85/1.4, Jupiter-9 85/2 and Summilux 80/1.4, and I love all of them too Smile Including my beloved Helios 40-2 85/1.5.
Well, Samyang & Canon are the lenses I rarely use because currently I like lenses which have more unique character. I use Samyang if I need super smooth bokeh and sharp object at f/1.4 Smile

As Attila and our friends said above, all lenses are super good lens.
If you need stunning super thin DOF or at low light situation (and autofocus off course), buy 85L II. And its sharp at f/1.2!! I never use this lens other than at f/1.2 Very Happy

The thing that I dont like from 85L II is that it often blows highlight at f/1.2 (too high contrast) in some situation. It must be stopped down to decrease the contrast.
I dont know maybe its because the vignetting confuse the matrix metering mode or maybe its the character of the lens at super wide aperture. You tell me.

Currently I like Zeiss more than Canon because of it's unique rendering while Canon rendering is like all other Canon lens I had before, typical new modern AF lens rendering. Zeiss rendering is something new for me, and I love it Smile

Samyang is no different with other modern AF lens. It just have the smoother bokeh (smoother than Sigma 85/1.4, but Canon EF 85LII is smoother than Samyang) and it's SHARP at f/1.4.

Summilux 80 has very unique rendering. Glow at wide open on bright light, but we could still see the detail. But not too glow as my black Jupiter-9.
But it's very very expensive for manual lens.
I was very super lucky I got it from eBay at 40% the price of the current price due to its condition was poor, but I dont care as long as the optic and IQ is still intact, and it is.

So, just rent both lens, Canon & Zeiss, try and explore them. You will never be satisfied by our input if you never try it .. hahaha Smile

Last edited by nixland on Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:54 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've done some comparison shot test to all my 80-90mm lens but unfortunately there is no single people/portrait shot yet. I hope I could find model to do the test.
By the way I never tried the new Zeiss 85/1.4 ZE yet. Mine is the old Contax Planar version.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:

Summilux 80 has very unique rendering. Glow at wide open on bright light, but we could still see the detail. Not too glow as my black Jupiter-9.
But it's very very expensive for manual lens.


I had the 1,4 80mm Summilux, too. Wide open pretty soft and closed down to f4 pretty unsatisfying, at 5,6 sharp. After some tests, I noticed, that my Summilux suffered from a serious focus shift when closing down. From 5,6 on the increased depth of field covered that weakness.

Klaus


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have had Contax Planar 1.4/85 and I still have got Canon FD 85 f1.2 L

My feeling?

they have both their own character -

Zeiss is Zeiss and Canon is Canon.

tf


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exaklaus wrote:
nixland wrote:

Summilux 80 has very unique rendering. Glow at wide open on bright light, but we could still see the detail. Not too glow as my black Jupiter-9.
But it's very very expensive for manual lens.


I had the 1,4 80mm Summilux, too. Wide open pretty soft and closed down to f4 pretty unsatisfying, at 5,6 sharp. After some tests, I noticed, that my Summilux suffered from a serious focus shift when closing down. From 5,6 on the increased depth of field covered that weakness.

Klaus


I think your lens may have been faulty or some how in need of service. At F4 the Lux is razor sharp, and noticeably sharper than the Canon, but similar to the Contax. I find the sharpness of the Lux to be excellent already at F2.0 and certainly beyond reproach at F2.8. I don't have anything already online to link to and unfortunately I don't have time today to put anything together but I'll have a look later. In my experience the Lux is also sharper than the Contax 85/1.4 and Canon FD and EF at equivalent apertures except wide open where the FD/EF is sharper at F1.4 and 1.2. Sharpness, especially stopped down, is a known strong point of the Lux so if you are having issues with yours then you might need to look into that, if you still have the lens.

Focus shift is a common problem with fast lenses and there is no reason to think the Contax or Canon won't have the same or similar focus shift, which is related to the design of the lens itself. There are few lenses of this speed and design that don't suffer from focus shift, such as one of the Nikons which has a floating element to fix this.

JJ


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:


Focus shift is a common problem with fast lenses and there is no reason to think the Contax or Canon won't have the same or similar focus shift, which is related to the design of the lens itself. There are few lenses of this speed and design that don't suffer from focus shift, such as one of the Nikons which has a floating element to fix this.

JJ


John - are you referring the focusing shift to the lens design without 'floating element'?

If so - the Canon has the 'fix' (floating element) you mentioned with the Nikon's floating element;

The Canon FD 85 f1.2 L has FLOATING SYSTEM (floating element)

FLOATING SYSTEM is actually Canon's copyright - The 'FLOATING SYSTEM' can be used by Canon Inc. only.
- in other words no other company can use 'FLOATING SYSTEM' therefore, all different companies from Canon must use different name for 'floating element'.

New Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 L Telephoto lens
An aspherical surface employed in the second element of this lens makes it the world's first telephoto lens to be so blessed. This lens sets another precedent in being the first telephoto to incorporate Canon's Floating System, insuring good resolution even at the closest focusing distance of 0.9 meter. Perfect for available-light portraiture, this lens is the essence of high performance and provide a high degree of detail even under extremely low light conditions with its aspherical element .

Focusing with the Canon FD 85 f1.2 L is NOT EASY TO DO thing but that lens is sharp straight from f1.2 and incredibly sharp at f/2 onwards
- well, I understand 'incredibly sharp' equally to 'razor sharp' Smile --

I do not know Sumilux but I have got a lot of samples taken with FD 85 f1.2 L and that lens 'rocks' even at f2 at infinity. it's bloody sharp.

Therefore, the Sumilux must more than razor sharp, if you can confirm this by your samples, it would be nice.

tf


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeiss have superior colors than Canon
it is difficult to prove it, many believe that few photoshop clicks can fix everything
denoir on FM made a interesting experience
denoir wrote:
The Zeiss differentiates between similar shades of red while the Canon tends to just blend them together into one

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1011476/26#9660030


PostPosted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Zeiss have superior colors than Canon
it is difficult to prove it, many believe that few photoshop clicks can fix everything
denoir on FM made a interesting experience
denoir wrote:
The Zeiss differentiates between similar shades of red while the Canon tends to just blend them together into one

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1011476/26#9660030


My Canon lenses tend to have a little bit reddish color, while the Zeiss 85 has more neutral and colder color. Samyang & Sigma has a bit brownish color cast Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:
jjphoto wrote:


Focus shift is a common problem with fast lenses and there is no reason to think the Contax or Canon won't have the same or similar focus shift, which is related to the design of the lens itself. There are few lenses of this speed and design that don't suffer from focus shift, such as one of the Nikons which has a floating element to fix this.

JJ


John - are you referring the focusing shift to the lens design without 'floating element'?

If so - the Canon has the 'fix' (floating element) you mentioned with the Nikon's floating element;

The Canon FD 85 f1.2 L has FLOATING SYSTEM (floating element)

FLOATING SYSTEM is actually Canon's copyright - The 'FLOATING SYSTEM' can be used by Canon Inc. only.
- in other words no other company can use 'FLOATING SYSTEM' therefore, all different companies from Canon must use different name for 'floating element'.

New Canon FD 85mm f/1.2 L Telephoto lens
An aspherical surface employed in the second element of this lens makes it the world's first telephoto lens to be so blessed. This lens sets another precedent in being the first telephoto to incorporate Canon's Floating System, insuring good resolution even at the closest focusing distance of 0.9 meter. Perfect for available-light portraiture, this lens is the essence of high performance and provide a high degree of detail even under extremely low light conditions with its aspherical element .

Focusing with the Canon FD 85 f1.2 L is NOT EASY TO DO thing but that lens is sharp straight from f1.2 and incredibly sharp at f/2 onwards
- well, I understand 'incredibly sharp' equally to 'razor sharp' Smile --

I do not know Sumilux but I have got a lot of samples taken with FD 85 f1.2 L and that lens 'rocks' even at f2 at infinity. it's bloody sharp.

Therefore, the Sumilux must more than razor sharp, if you can confirm this by your samples, it would be nice.

tf


I didn't know the FD has a floating element, regardless of what Canon call it, and unfortunately I never tested for focus shift when I had the Leica/Contax/FD lenses at the same time so I never compared them directly. I believe the FD 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical does not have a floating element (but not certain) and it seems that the FD 85/1.2 L is different in this respect, although I must admit I thought they were the same lens (as the SSC Aspherical).

Floating elements are not unique to Canon lenses but of course the name "Floating System" may well be a trade mark, who knows. The Nikon 85/1.4 from 1982 (not sure which versions or if all of them have) also has a floating element but Nikon calls it CRC (Close Range Correction). Focus shift is fairly common with fast lenses it's just that most people don't go out of their way to test if their lenses have it. My Contax 50/1.4 seems to have focus shift (I haven't properly tested it conclusively) but this isn't a problem in normal use. Focus shift is also only an issue at close range, such as portrait distances.

An odd thing about some Canon lenses (and many of the Nikons I've had too) is that they tend to have a 'high contrast/low resolution quality' about them which effectively gives them a 'high accutance' or sharpness. Leica (and maybe Contax) tend to be 'low(er) contrast/high resolution' by comparison. I find the resolution of the Canon glass, such as the FD/EF 85's is lower (compared to Contax or Leica) in the F5.6-8 range where their resolution is highest. This is also evident in the tonal gradation you see when comparing Canon and Leica glass particularly with fine grained film, such as Velvia. I've never really seen this tonal gradation difference in digital, and I've never seen or heard any explaination for it either, but it's quite noticeabale with fine grained film and with the appropriate subject (not shooting newspapers or brick walls). I shoot cars for a living and tonal gradation is what makes cars look good when shot at sunset/sunrise for example. It's the smooth change in tone from light to dark that is reflected in panels or simply the tone of the sky. It's also the reason that cars were typically shot on medium or large format because this has much better tonal gradation than 35mm, regardless of sharpness/resolution. This gradation was starkly different with Canon glass when I directly compared Canon and Leica lenses shooting the exact same cars/images although sharpness is certainly similar. I think it's an effect of this high contrast/low resolution quality of the lenses, I don't really know what else it could be, which does give you a good punchy image (high sharpness or accutance) but at a price.

I'll scrape up some Lux images later but I'm not sure what value they might be without direct comparisons with the lenses being discussed. I had these lenses at the same time and tested/compared them before digital so I don't have comparisons that I can post.

trifox wrote:

Therefore, the Sumilux must more than razor sharp, if you can confirm this by your samples, it would be nice.

tf


Yes, it's sharper the the FD/EF when stopped down.

JJ

Last edited by jjphoto on Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:23 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
trifox wrote:

The Canon FD 85 f1.2 L has FLOATING SYSTEM (floating element)
FLOATING SYSTEM is actually Canon's copyright - The 'FLOATING SYSTEM' can be used by Canon Inc. only.


but it was invented by Erhard Glatzel of Zeiss Wink

poilu wrote:
Zeiss have superior colors than Canon
it is difficult to prove it, many believe that few photoshop clicks can fix everything
denoir on FM made a interesting experience
denoir wrote:
The Zeiss differentiates between similar shades of red while the Canon tends to just blend them together into one

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1011476/26#9660030


very interesting link, thanks poilu.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
this is a good test...

Zeiss ZF 85mm f1.4 vs. Canon 85mm f1.2 L (Mark I)

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/zeiss_85mm/

Orio wrote:
trifox wrote:

The Canon FD 85 f1.2 L has FLOATING SYSTEM (floating element)
FLOATING SYSTEM is actually Canon's copyright - The 'FLOATING SYSTEM' can be used by Canon Inc. only.


but it was invented by Erhard Glatzel of Zeiss Wink


Hi Orio - what about this one? - Nikon must have stolen Zeiss' property then



full article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lens

tf


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:
exaklaus wrote:
nixland wrote:

Summilux 80 has very unique rendering. Glow at wide open on bright light, but we could still see the detail. Not too glow as my black Jupiter-9.
But it's very very expensive for manual lens.


I had the 1,4 80mm Summilux, too. Wide open pretty soft and closed down to f4 pretty unsatisfying, at 5,6 sharp. After some tests, I noticed, that my Summilux suffered from a serious focus shift when closing down. From 5,6 on the increased depth of field covered that weakness.

Klaus


I think your lens may have been faulty or some how in need of service. At F4 the Lux is razor sharp, and noticeably sharper than the Canon, but similar to the Contax. I find the sharpness of the Lux to be excellent already at F2.0 and certainly beyond reproach at F2.8. I don't have anything already online to link to and unfortunately I don't have time today to put anything together but I'll have a look later. In my experience the Lux is also sharper than the Contax 85/1.4 and Canon FD and EF at equivalent apertures except wide open where the FD/EF is sharper at F1.4 and 1.2. Sharpness, especially stopped down, is a known strong point of the Lux so if you are having issues with yours then you might need to look into that, if you still have the lens.

Focus shift is a common problem with fast lenses and there is no reason to think the Contax or Canon won't have the same or similar focus shift, which is related to the design of the lens itself. There are few lenses of this speed and design that don't suffer from focus shift, such as one of the Nikons which has a floating element to fix this.

JJ


It might have been a lemon, maybe. Cosmetically it looked good, no dings or dents and obviously no signs from tinkering. It was better than my S`cron, compared both at f2. So I sold my S`cron, shortly after I had aquired the Lux.

Focus shift was the main reason for reselling the Lux. Another reason was found when doing comparing shots at f2 with the 645 Mamiya Sekor C 1,9/80 and the Zuiko MC Auto-T 2/85. Both clearly sharper.

Klaus


PostPosted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rolf that first shot is awesome!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1