Zeiss 85mm 1.4

[haagen_dazs]

Anyone has any experience with this lens?
I know i can alot of info in other forums.
Wanted some feedback from users here..
let me know.
thanks!

[tonylim]

Tried this lens on Canon 10D. Very soft at f1.4. The sharpness improve a lot at f2 (still not very sharp). But if you stop down to f5.6 it is very sharp. At wider aperture, it has CA issue but improve a lot when stop down.

[trucatus]

This lens is sharp from 2.8 onwards with my 20D. Killer lens and 3D tone. 1.4 got glowing cast.

[Splutter]

Fantastic lens. Rather soft wide open, so I usually shoot at 2.8. For portraits, you dun really want to go so wide anyway since it's pretty easy for either eye to be oof. Colours are out of the world and bokeh is really smooth. Manual focusing is a real b!tch though.

[smallaperture]

Originally Posted by Splutter Fantastic lens. Colours are out of the world and bokeh is really smooth. Manual focusing is a real b!tch though.

Got any example to show the true meaning of "colours are out of the world."

Just wonder what is it that makes those CZ lenses so special, the glass, the lens formula, the coatings or just the name CZ?

[ricohflex]

You obviously have not seen a Velvia slide taken with a CZ lens.
The diff people mention are colour, tonal graduation and "3 dimension" look to portraits.

Sharpness -- a sigma, cosina, mitakon, chinon, ozunon, tamron, mamiya, kiron, tokina lens can give you.

[smallaperture]

Originally Posted by ricohflex You obviously have not seen a Velvia slide taken with a CZ lens. The diff people mention are colour, tonal graduation and "3 dimension" look to portraits. Sharpness -- a sigma, cosina, mitakon, chinon, ozunon, tamron, mamiya, kiron, tokina lens can give you.

OK, hope I can see for myself one of these days and maybe, even get a piece of the legend myself when the CZ lens is available in the NAF mount.

Well, I have yet to see it to believe it. Dunno if it's a myth or it's such a legend. Wonder if there is any objective comparison around to see the diff between say a good Nikon or Canon lens and this crazy little thing called CZ lens. Meanwhile, I am pretty happy to use the mainstream lenses, mostly zooms and AF.

And one more thing, I think KRW did mentioned something about it.

Lastly, I hope there is some comparison around to show the diff.

And you forgot to mention Pentax SMC, Vivitar, Koboron, Soligor, Makinon, Angienieux and so forth.....

[Jack Chen]

Hi
may be u can look at this site:
http://forum.contax-club.org/index.p...4ba24d79ef2e16


Rgds

[ricohflex]

Quote: And you forgot to mention Pentax SMC, Vivitar, Koboron, Soligor, Makinon, Angienieux and so forth..

Ha.. Ha... you are right.

Actually I find Pentax lenses pretty good.

And oddly, Angienieux lenses somewhat over rated. I may be wrong.

Leica and Rollei lenses deserve their high reputation.

[smallaperture]

I guess we are all talking about SLR lenses here.

What about those tiny lenses in Sony's digicams. Has anyone done any objective comparison between similar digicams from Sony, Canon or Nikon. Sony using Carl Zeiss lens means that it should be a notch better than Canon, Nikon or Casio? Or how about the Leica lens used by Panasonic?

Still trying to figure out what is it that makes those lenses so special. Well, seeing is believing la.

[smallaperture]

Got a bit of time this afternoon, so went to look up dpreviews and looked at the Sony W7. Based on the review, the W7 was compared with a similar Canon camera. A Carl Zeiss lens against a Canon lens, and using the same sensor.

The conclusion is that there is no practical difference. Whatever small diffferences are attributed to the software that does some sharpening, NR and other adjustments.

But then, for SLR lenses, it might be different.