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 Planar 50/1.4 - ZE ZF vs CY [OPINION]
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:45 am    Post subject: Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 - ZE ZF vs CY [OPINION] Reply with quote
Ok is it safe to say that if i was looking for a Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 i would just buy the Contax version and attach any CY to EOS Adapter or a Kipon adapter or even maybe a Leitax that from what ive seen you remove the CY Mount and screw in the EF mount from Canon and i will still be under the $725 price tag that this new so called Zeiss Ze lens has considering that i can find a Contax Planar in 99% Mint conditions for around $399.

The reason i bring this subject up is due to the fact that i was navigating through the internet and i came across this article talking about the Zeiss ZF or ZE and this is one of the things i read:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/zeiss/zf50.htm



Quote:
This lens is not made in Germany and it is not made in a Zeiss factory. It is made in Japan by Cosina, the same company that made the cheap FM-10 for Nikon and many other inexpensive lenses and cameras for third-party makers for many decades.





Now if you go on and read the history behind the Contax version this is what you will find:

Quote:
Carl Zeiss officially announced partnership with Yashica of Japan to manufacture its new RTS system

Yashica was a production giant with considerable electronic camera experience.

In 1973 the Contax name was licensed to the Japanese maker Yashica by Carl Zeiss to create a prestigious brand of 35mm cameras and interchangeable Yashica / Contax lenses in cooperation with the German company.

It must be added that not all Carl Zeiss (West) lenses were made in Germany. Since 1970's the "volume" series for the Contax (Japan) SLR including the Planar 1.4/50 were made at Kyocera in Japan with quality assurance by Zeiss. These lenses were engraved "Made in Japan" in opposite to "Made in West-Germany".

Until 1984, Contax cameras were made by Yashica in Japan, with lenses made by Carl Zeiss – some in Germany, some in Japan.

The Carl Zeiss T* lenses, in particular, soon gained a reputation for superb optical quality.






So that being said this raises some questions for me.

1: Why are Zeiss Planar ZE or ZF Lenses more expensive than the Contax ones ?

2: Is one better than the other ?

3: Does the ZE and ZF Lenses cost more just because they already come with new mounts for modern cameras ?


Ive seen the Planar 50/1.4 Contax version converted to a Canon EF Mount going for over $1,700 with its original Box and papers and lens in mint conditions.


Now lets keep in mind that these new ZE and ZF Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina which has a horrible reputation in building cheap low quality lenses.

Now in the other hand the Zeiss Planar's from the 70's were made by Yashica, a company with experience which already had established a well known respected reputation around the globe with their lenses. For example the "Yashinon"

So now that we know all of this, will you still choose a Zeiss Planar ZE over a Contax Zeiss Planar ???

Last edited by Yahvel on Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 - ZE ZF vs CY [OPINION] Reply with quote
Yahvel wrote:

1: Why are Zeiss Planar ZE or ZF Lenses more expensive than the Contax ones ?


Impossible to compare the price of a new lens in production with a used lens discontinued 13 years ago.

Quote:
2: Is one better than the other ?


They are very very similar.

Yahvel wrote:
Does the ZE and ZF Lenses cost more just because they already come with new mounts for modern cameras ?


Again, Z lenses are NEW lenses currently under production and distribution.
You can find a new Contax/Yashica lens if you have the luck to find a new old stock somewhere (it happened to me, but it's more and more rare - for obvious reason...)
Comparing the price of a used lens, that you find in second-hand stores or on Ebay, with the price of a new lens currently distributed in shops, makes zero sense.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
why new car most of them more expensive than used one ? why some used one more expensive than new ones Smile same question, answer is obvious.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 - ZE ZF vs CY [OPINION] Reply with quote
Orio you are right, i did not realize that they are lenses currently under production, and just like you said it is impossible to compare a lens thats currently being manufactured with a lens that was already built 40 years ago.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In Rockwell's tests, the current model of this lens was not impressive (at least not with regard to chromatic aberration).

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/lca.htm

"The Zeiss is dead last. It's the worst and has obvious (at this magnification) first-order (red-blue) problems. Obviously Nikon knows something Zeiss doesn't about making it's digital cameras work well with it's own lenses, even crummy old ones."

But why bother? You can get a nice used 50mm f/1.4 Canon EF for about $300.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That test of the new ZE lens is pretty bad.

You already have the zeiss 1.4/50 CY.
This kind of test is relatively simple to run.
and Please share the results with us.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
That test of the new ZE lens is pretty bad.

You already have the zeiss 1.4/50 CY.
This kind of test is relatively simple to run.
and Please share the results with us.


I would avoid this lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/mechanics.htm


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Faster lenses may not be as fast with digital:

http://www.adorama.com/alc/0012817/article/50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To say that Cosina is famed for it's low build quality is absolutely not true. Just look at the wonderflul Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses they make. Yes, they make cheap lenses also but they sure know how to manufacture with the highest quality as well.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pontus wrote:
To say that Cosina is famed for it's low build quality is absolutely not true. Just look at the wonderflul Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses they make. Yes, they make cheap lenses also but they sure know how to manufacture with the highest quality as well.


It's all a matter of price.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Pontus wrote:
To say that Cosina is famed for it's low build quality is absolutely not true. Just look at the wonderflul Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses they make. Yes, they make cheap lenses also but they sure know how to manufacture with the highest quality as well.


It's all a matter of price.


+1 and was true even in past I have Cosina branded stunning performance lenses and crap both.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Pontus wrote:
To say that Cosina is famed for it's low build quality is absolutely not true. Just look at the wonderflul Voigtlander and Zeiss lenses they make. Yes, they make cheap lenses also but they sure know how to manufacture with the highest quality as well.


It's all a matter of price.


+1 and was true even in past I have Cosina branded stunning performance lenses and crap both.


But it is clear that you can do better than this one of you want a manual focussing lens for your Nikon.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That is an unfair mech comparison.

Half click is as good if not better. Color coding? Who cares?
What about focus throw?

Oreste wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
That test of the new ZE lens is pretty bad.

You already have the zeiss 1.4/50 CY.
This kind of test is relatively simple to run.
and Please share the results with us.


I would avoid this lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/mechanics.htm


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
That is an unfair mech comparison.

Half click is as good if not better. Color coding? Who cares?
What about focus throw?

Oreste wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
That test of the new ZE lens is pretty bad.

You already have the zeiss 1.4/50 CY.
This kind of test is relatively simple to run.
and Please share the results with us.


I would avoid this lens:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-comparison/mechanics.htm


Optically, it is not that good. Yes, I prefer half-stop clicks.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
Yes, I prefer half-stop clicks

ah, you are a half-stop photographer
I don't like it because I have to count twice
from 1.4 to 5.6, I should count 8 clicks instead of 4
and I can always stop between 2 stops if it is really needed
but I never needed it until now
can you show some samples were the half stop is required


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Yes, I prefer half-stop clicks

ah, you are a half-stop photographer
I don't like it because I have to count twice
from 1.4 to 5.6, I should count 8 clicks instead of 4
and I can always stop between 2 stops if it is really needed
but I never needed it until now
can you show some samples were the half stop is required


On my lenses I can tell full from half-stop clicks.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Yes, I prefer half-stop clicks

ah, you are a half-stop photographer
I don't like it because I have to count twice
from 1.4 to 5.6, I should count 8 clicks instead of 4
and I can always stop between 2 stops if it is really needed
but I never needed it until now
can you show some samples were the half stop is required


Slide photography I think subject of half stop.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
poilu wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Yes, I prefer half-stop clicks

ah, you are a half-stop photographer
I don't like it because I have to count twice
from 1.4 to 5.6, I should count 8 clicks instead of 4
and I can always stop between 2 stops if it is really needed
but I never needed it until now
can you show some samples were the half stop is required


Slide photography I think subject of half stop.


Yes, with narrow-latitude films it is required to be able to repeat exposures accurately.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
why new car most of them more expensive than used one ? why some used one more expensive than new ones Smile same question, answer is obvious.



Your are 100% correct.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I may be weird, but if a lens has 1/3 even better.
I use to balance between half stop as well, especially from wide open to slightly stopped down, and remove 80% of the glow.
May be this zeiss is not the case, but few others. Example is the petri 28/2.8 m42, wide open is glowing as a soft focus lens, but razor sharp at half click. Due to this property, i still keep this lens, as it completed with the tamron sp soft 75-150/2.8.

poilu wrote:
Oreste wrote:
Yes, I prefer half-stop clicks

ah, you are a half-stop photographer
I don't like it because I have to count twice
from 1.4 to 5.6, I should count 8 clicks instead of 4
and I can always stop between 2 stops if it is really needed
but I never needed it until now
can you show some samples were the half stop is required


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 - ZE ZF vs CY [OPINION] Reply with quote
Yahvel wrote:

Now lets keep in mind that these new ZE and ZF Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina which has a horrible reputation in building cheap low quality lenses.

Cosina produces for Zeiss but with Zeiss specifications and quality control etc..
I don't know these particular lenses but the builds of made-in-Japan-Zeiss lenses should be at least decent.

Bye the way Cosina builds don't have to be bad, for example all the modern Cosina Voigtländer lenses for Leica M/M39 mount have a nice build quality.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:44 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anyone who believes all Ken Rockwell says deserves to end up with a boring, modern AF lens with flat colours and boring rendering Wink

How about this for a quote:

Quote:
This lens can't autofocus and makes no sense to use on for any digital or AF Nikon.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Anyone who believes all Ken Rockwell says deserves to end up with a boring, modern AF lens with flat colours and boring rendering Wink

How about this for a quote:

Quote:
This lens can't autofocus and makes no sense to use on for any digital or AF Nikon.


Well I am no fan of Rockwell (cough, cough) but in this case I have seen the lenses myself. We are not impressed. The chromatic aberration is rather severe, and Ken can't make that up.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 - ZE ZF vs CY [OPINION] Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
[Again, Z lenses are NEW lenses currently under production and distribution.
You can find a new Contax/Yashica lens if you have the luck to find a new old stock somewhere (it happened to me, but it's more and more rare - for obvious reason...)
Comparing the price of a used lens, that you find in second-hand stores or on Ebay, with the price of a new lens currently distributed in shops, makes zero sense.



Orio, you are correct in everything you just said, and nobody can take that away from you, but my main question is this:

Will you choose a (Cosina) Zeiss ZE or ZF 50/1.4 over a (Contax Yashica) Zeiss 50/1.4 Lens ???

Last edited by Yahvel on Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:23 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Will anyone here choose a (Cosina) Zeiss Planar ZE or ZF 50/1.4 Lens over a (Contax Yashica) Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 ???

Last edited by Yahvel on Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2