Are Zeiss lenses 'magical'? - UPDATED - now bought one!

philthejuggler

philthejuggler

Messages
7,168
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all - I love it when you get a 3D look to photos.

I know this is to do with lighting, dof and composition.

It also seems to be affected by micro-contrast and the transition from subject to oof background.

From seeing some samples and reading a few reviews I get the impression some Zeiss lenses are especially good at this - particularly looking at the 100mm ZE.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks

Phil
 
Last edited:
They have a nice 'pop' to them I think. The 100mm would be high on my shopping list and maybe the 21mm or 35mm.
 
It's an illusion. Take the badge off and they're nothing unusual or special. Many of them are made by Cosina. Just good primes.
 
Interesting - I read a post on POTN where someone who had lots of Zeiss primes and lots of Canon primes compared their ability to render depth.

Interestingly he claimed the 135L was lacking in depth vs the Zeiss 100mm

Something about 135L seeming to have sharpness an blur but nothing in between reducing the 3D look.

I'd love to try a Zeiss and make my own
mind up. I was aware that they were made under license by Cosina, but I'd also heard they had some better kit than they had in the german manufacturing plants, so this meant the quality was better still.

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
Interesting - I read a post on POTN where someone who had lots of Zeiss primes and lots of Canon primes compared their ability to render depth.

Interestingly he claimed the 135L was lacking in depth vs the Zeiss 100mm

Something about 135L seeming to have sharpness an blur but nothing in between reducing the 3D look.

I'd love to try a Zeiss and make my own
mind up. I was aware that they were made under license by Cosina, but I'd also heard they had some better kit than they had in the german manufacturing plants, so this meant the quality was better still.

Phil
Click to expand...

Physics is physics. There are different ways of designing a lens and in particular primes are generally reckoned to handle spherical aberration better than zooms for example, which is a big component of bokeh. But it's pretty subtle.

To say that Zeiss or Leica know something that Canon or Nikon doesn't, or have better manufacturing technology, is frankly fanciful. You might get some lenses that have a particularly distinctive 'look' about them, but you'd need to examine side by side comparisons extremely carefully, and even then the most you could honestly say would be that they were very slighly different, rather than better.

Seriously, the brand and the legend that goes with it, plays tricks with you. But tricks or not, some people just like to use those lenses, and they deliver the results they want, so they're happy. Maybe these things are hard to quantify, but they're there. For example, would you rather have a Pano LX5 or the Leica equivalent? Well being honest, I'd prefer the Leica, even though I know there's no flippin difference in the end result.*

* And before anyone says the Leica has 'special image processing' that's easily replicated if you really want to.
 
It may well pop, whatever that is (and I'd rather like to know) but that's down to the specification and design, not the brand.

Nobody can seriously claim that a lens like the non-Zeiss Canon 135L 2 doesn't perform spectacularly well in the pop/bokeh/3D/whatever department, as was referenced by the OP.
 
I think that they are lovely lenses, build quality is exceptional, and they produce superb images, with exceptional resolution and detail, they have a high resistance to flare, images do pop ... whether they are 3D is questionable.

The same can be said for a few Nikon and Canon lenses, generally the fast primes with the high price tag.

Their notable ones in the line up would be the 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and 100/2.

I have the 35/2, and would consider the exceptional 21/2.8, personally I would prefer AF on a short telephoto lens.
 
Phil, here is one of my first shots with the 35/2 (me getting used to how the lens performed) no pp done other than re-size for posting, this was shot using 'standard' picture settings and not 'vivid' ... my Nikkor 35/2 would not resolve this level of detail.

Croome_012.jpg


This one was shot wide open at f2, near to minimum focus distance, I wanted to see how sharp it was wide open.

249_043.jpg
 
HoppyUK said:
It may well pop, whatever that is (and I'd rather like to know) but that's down to the specification and design, not the brand.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that brand may value those factors above all else so strive to make them consistent in their range. This happens in other products - hi-fi being a prime example.

When I was looking at getting my 100mm L IS macro (an acknowledged excellent performer - I'm very impressed with mine), I came across the following thread on FredMiranda. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/910856

Take a look at the second post and load up the second test series into 3 tabs and flick between them. That's how I'd define pop - the colours and detail of the Zeiss lenses are definitely better/nicer than the Canon.

I still bought the Canon though ;)
 
Many thanks for all the responses.

I think the bottom line is I won't know until I try. I was considering the 100mm Macro particularly for full length outdoor portraits against a dreamy background.

It's difficult to put my figure on but with the 135L there can be sharp subject, nicely blurred background but no strong feeling of depth. I'll try and illustrate this in a couple of images....

This is on the 135L and I'd have liked to have got more of a sense of 3D from it - perhaps some rim-lighting would have helped here.

p554572988-5.jpg


Not a fair comparison as this is a different focal length - but this one on my 50mm Sigma seems to give more depth - including more background as a wide FL does helps this, as does the rim lighting, but I think there is something else there to do with the transition from subject to background.



p382936279-5.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'd call them 'magical' as such, but they are very high quality optics and the build quality is excellent. I am very happy with my 21mm, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.4.
I simply prefer the results I get from these, but that doesn't mean I think Canon or Nikon, or any other make are trash - just different.
 
arad85 said:
Yes, but that brand may value those factors above all else so strive to make them consistent in their range. This happens in other products - hi-fi being a prime example.

When I was looking at getting my 100mm L IS macro (an acknowledged excellent performer - I'm very impressed with mine), I came across the following thread on FredMiranda. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/910856

Take a look at the second post and load up the second test series into 3 tabs and flick between them. That's how I'd define pop - the colours and detail of the Zeiss lenses are definitely better/nicer than the Canon.

I still bought the Canon though ;)
Click to expand...


I agree that in those test shots the Zeiss is definitely much better - can't say if the tests were totally fair or not, but I much prefer the Zeiss shots and this was the sort of subtle-ish difference I was looking for.

:thinking:
 
Martyn... said:
Phil, here is one of my first shots with the 35/2 (me getting used to how the lens performed) no pp done other than re-size for posting, this was shot using 'standard' picture settings and not 'vivid' ... my Nikkor 35/2 would not resolve this level of detail.

Croome_012.jpg


This one was shot wide open at f2, near to minimum focus distance, I wanted to see how sharp it was wide open.

249_043.jpg
Click to expand...


Looking at these on a larger screen (than my iPhone!) the results do indeed look impressive.
 
philthejuggler said:
Hi all - I love it when you get a 3D look to photos.

I know this is to do with lighting, dog and composition.

It also seems to be affected by micro-contrast and the transition from subject to oof background.

From seeing some samples and reading a few reviews I get the impression some Zeiss lenses are especially good at this - particularly looking at the 100mm ZE.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks

Phil
Click to expand...

no zeiss lenses are not magical and there is no 3D effect either. a couple of zeiss lenses have very impressive MTF values but for say canon equiv focal lengths the canon lenses are better.
 
arad85 said:
Yes, but that brand may value those factors above all else so strive to make them consistent in their range. This happens in other products - hi-fi being a prime example.

When I was looking at getting my 100mm L IS macro (an acknowledged excellent performer - I'm very impressed with mine), I came across the following thread on FredMiranda. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/910856

Take a look at the second post and load up the second test series into 3 tabs and flick between them. That's how I'd define pop - the colours and detail of the Zeiss lenses are definitely better/nicer than the Canon.

I still bought the Canon though ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for that link Andy. The poster ammended the links in post #12 to the correct ones. There is a slight difference, but I'm not sure it proves anything. And neither does the poster claim it does.

Here's a link to another Zeiss lens, which I would have thought should be state of their art - 85mm f/1.4. For a £1200 manual focus lens, I think it is frankly shocking - two samples, both soft, flarey, with focus shift, and field curvature. They're having a laugh. It's here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx

It's beaten by the same-spec Sigma (comparisons on that site) let alone the Canon, which costs two-thirds as much and has AF... :shrug:

Edit: BTW, I had a Contax SLR system and a range of Zeiss lenses. I loved the cameras, but not the lenses - very expensive, some good, some really rather average. Distinct lack of magic though.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Thanks for that link Andy. The poster ammended the links in post #12 to the correct ones. There is a slight difference, but I'm not sure it proves anything. And neither does the poster claim it does.
Click to expand...
Actually the second set which are closer views shows more of a difference IMHO. As with all things like this, the difference in terms of language (big/completely outperforms/minimal difference) is pretty subjective :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Here's a link to another Zeiss lens, which I would have thought should be state of their art - 85mm f/1.4. For a £1200 manual focus lens, I think it is frankly shocking - two samples, both soft, flarey, with focus shift, and field curvature. They're having a laugh. It's here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx
Click to expand...

I would not swap my Nikkor 85/1.4D for the zeiss, however did you read the review of the 21/2.8 on that site.

To be honest the only Zeiss lenses I would consider 'magical' would be the 21/2.8, 35/2 and the 100/2.

Even ardent zeiss fanboys are dismissive of the 18 and 28, and complain of focus shift on the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, so not all all Zeiss lenses are top of the tree, but the ones that are do produce superb images, with stunning resolution, sharpness and colour.

The best advice I would give the OP is to look at real images from the lens, and consider if it is the look he wants from his images, and compare these to similar images from the other manufacturers.
 
happy haggis said:
I don't think I'd call them 'magical' as such, but they are very high quality optics and the build quality is excellent. I am very happy with my 21mm, 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.4.
I simply prefer the results I get from these, but that doesn't mean I think Canon or Nikon, or any other make are trash - just different.
Click to expand...


They do make some very good optics, I have a 50 f2 that produces amazing edge to edge sharpness and seems almost impervious to veiling flare even directly into the sun. But I don't use it often as its manual focus and my nikon glass produces results that would be difficult to discern in most situations at the print sizes I commonly use.
 
Lets say you printed an image at a standard size, say A3 or A4, to hang on your wall that was taken with a zeiss or other high quality, expensive lens, and you also printed the exact same image taken with a much less expensive third party lens of the same focal length - say tamron or cosina.
Would you notice the difference? Could you justify the expense if there was a difference?
The only time you'll really see the difference IMO is viewing the images at 100% in photoshop, or making an extreme crop. That's not to say I wouldn't love one of these lenses, of course I would, they are the pinnacle of optical engineering, they are just hard to justify - unless you're a pro using it every day I suppose. Those images up there are damn sharp though.
 
Last edited:
I love my Carl Zeiss lens - 37-111 (plus converters for 24mm and nearly 300mm!) on my Sony Cyber-Shot P200 - £33 for a mint one!

I do have a 50mm 1.7 I need to get an adapter for my Nikon...
 
Something else Zeiss do well is corner to corner sharpness. I consider these lenses to be pretty special and some of the older ones are also very good like the 35mm f/2.4 Flektogon which can be picked up mint for about £170.
 
I have a couple of older M42 Zeiss lenses that I use with an adapter on my e520...

CJZ Sonnar 135mm...think this one dates from the 1970's?



CJZ Sonnar 85mm...produced in 1949 - 62 years old and still performs beautifully.





Test images straight OOC...much sharper on Flickr...they seem a bit soft on here?

I've also got a 50mm 1.8 Pentacon that I haven't had time to try yet - I've been very lucky with some recent attic finds!

Janet
 
AndyWest said:
Something else Zeiss do well is corner to corner sharpness. I consider these lenses to be pretty special and some of the older ones are also very good like the 35mm f/2.4 Flektogon which can be picked up mint for about £170.
Click to expand...

There seems to be only 1 on ebay Here

If I hadn't just spent a small fortune on blues music/DVDs and blurays, I'd have a pop at that :D
 
Well worth looking out for them, but prices are rising as folks discover just how easy it is to use them with today's modern DSLR's and how good the image quality is...

I was very lucky with my recent finds!

Janet
 
Last edited:
I primarily use Contax Carl Zeiss lenses these days, which are very similar to the new Z line lens.

I'd be very interested to know if those posters claiming that Zeiss lenses are "nothing special" have actually tried them? Because I find that ALL of my Zeiss lenses create "pop" and produce much more exciting images than the dull, flat images produced by modern design Canon lenses.

I'm about to sell my Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS for example. I bought this based on opinions from many posters who said this lens was fantastic. My view is that it produces flat, soft images wide open. I tried a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300/4.5-5.6 and decided to sell the Canon instantly.

I will post some samples later this evening to back up my statements :)
 
manualfocus-g said:
I'd be very interested to know if those posters claiming that Zeiss lenses are "nothing special" have actually tried them? Because I find that ALL of my Zeiss lenses create "pop" and produce much more exciting images than the dull, flat images produced by modern design Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

I suspect a number of them have never tried Zeiss or Leica lenses. Sometimes I think there's a knee-jerk reaction to anything that is claimed to be special.
I have 3 ZE lenses and love 2 of them, the 21 and 35 f2. Not too sure about the 50 f1.4. That may find its way to the classifieds at some stage.
 
manualfocus-g said:
I primarily use Contax Carl Zeiss lenses these days, which are very similar to the new Z line lens.

I'd be very interested to know if those posters claiming that Zeiss lenses are "nothing special" have actually tried them? Because I find that ALL of my Zeiss lenses create "pop" and produce much more exciting images than the dull, flat images produced by modern design Canon lenses.

I'm about to sell my Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS for example. I bought this based on opinions from many posters who said this lens was fantastic. My view is that it produces flat, soft images wide open. I tried a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300/4.5-5.6 and decided to sell the Canon instantly.

I will post some samples later this evening to back up my statements :)
Click to expand...

happy haggis said:
I suspect a number of them have never tried Zeiss or Leica lenses. Sometimes I think there's a knee-jerk reaction to anything that is claimed to be special.
I have 3 ZE lenses and love 2 of them, the 21 and 35 f2. Not too sure about the 50 f1.4. That may find its way to the classifieds at some stage.
Click to expand...

Please don't include me in your list of suspects. As I posted above, I have either owned or used more Zeiss and Leica lenses than you can shake a stick at.

Some of them are very good, especially the Leicas, but absolutely nothing special, or anything that you cannot get from Canikon, usually at much better prices and specs including AF and IS etc.

That isn't why you use those lenses, any more than the reason folks lust after Leica cameras is because they take better pictures. People buy them and love using them because they're buying into a unique and special photographic heritage, that is somehow special in a rather hard to define but nevertheless meaningful way. The pictures come out looking just the same though ;)

I've always loved Porsches and almost bought a 911 last year. Not a new one, but a very nice one. I drove a couple and they were markedly slower than my old Subaru (which was admittedly a bit quicker than standard) and not nearly as nice to drive as the Audi I eventually bought, and that's faster too. And seats four. And is cheaper to run. But it's not a 911, and every now and then I wish it was.
 
Hmm - I'd only buy into a Zeiss 100mm f/2 if there was a tangible improvement over my 135L in IQ.

I think I need to try one to make my own mind up!
 
HoppyUK said:
Some of them are very good, especially the Leicas, but absolutely nothing special, or anything that you cannot get from Canikon, usually at much better prices and specs including AF and IS etc.

That isn't why you use those lenses, any more than the reason folks lust after Leica cameras is because they take better pictures. People buy them and love using them because they're buying into a unique and special photographic heritage, that is somehow special in a rather hard to define but nevertheless meaningful way.
Click to expand...

No, I shoot with Zeiss lenses because the images have more character e.g. more pop, and are better at infinity across than anything else I've tried (Zeiss lenses are generally optimised for infinity). If Canon lenses did this, I'd buy them instead.

HoppyUK said:
The pictures come out looking just the same though ;)
Click to expand...

No, they don't. I own 200+ lenses and can easily tell which shots were taken with Zeiss lenses, actually ;)
 
Well from the images chosen from other forums/sites, etc, I can see that the Ziess lenses look to have a richer look to the image. The trouble is, I don't know if/what processing has been done. I've seen similar from Canon stuff too, but if it's straight from the camera then they've definitely got a seriously nice look to them.

I for one bow to our new (old) overlords.
 
Bluesmachine said:
The trouble is, I don't know if/what processing has been done. I've seen similar from Canon stuff too, but if it's straight from the camera then they've definitely got a seriously nice look to them.
Click to expand...

I think that's the problem with many examples of 'what a lens is capable of.' I know of at least one image on another forum where two shots were blended together. It wasn't mentioned in the post that this was the case, so created a false impression. If you have to factor in editing skills then its a real can of worms. I'd prefer to see 'virgin' (wouldn't we all? :lol:) shots for lens sampling and view processed images in the appropriate section, where they can be appreciated as landscapes, macros, or whatever.
 
Last edited:
If a lens connects you to the gentle art of photography... and if using it brings pleasure, be it in a perfectly damped manual focus mechanism, or blistering AF speed, or instant telephoto zoom... if you find yourself drawn to the images you produce for a reason you can't quite put into words....

.. then it's magical!
 
danbroad said:
If a lens connects you to the gentle art of photography... and if using it brings pleasure, be it in a perfectly damped manual focus mechanism, or blistering AF speed, or instant telephoto zoom... if you find yourself drawn to the images you produce for a reason you can't quite put into words....

.. then it's magical!
Click to expand...

Very well put Dan :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top