Thinking of purchasing 2 Zeiss primes for my 7D, and then the Canon "L" 24-70mm f2.8 to be used as well for photos. As for the primes looking at a 50mm, and a 25mm. What do you all think? Good range or is this just a waste of money? I love the smooth focus barrel and long focus distance on the ZF glass. I will most likely buy Nikon version with the adjustable Iris ring and then use a Canon to Nikon adapter. Wish I had enough for the real CP.2 lenses that just came out but those things cost as much as a car!
Is Zeiss glass worth the money?
- Thread starter Jon Chema
- Start date
thekreative
Veteran
It might be that I am selling some but the new ones seem like a lot for manual lenses compared to C/Y mount ones second hand. I like to have autofocus sometimes as well so I have C/Y and a couple of Canon primes.
I apologize if this is a stupid question but what does "C/Y" stand for? I just ordered a Zeiss Planar ZF 50mm f1.4 lens and LOVE the build quality. Going to be using it with a canon to nikon adapter for my Canon 7D
Jon
I would research it. www.photozone.de reviewed a number of Zeiss lenses. Some had great IQ, other not so great.
The mechanics are top notch though.
From the reviews I read, it seems that you buy Zeiss and other luxury brands like Leica more for the mechanics. The IQ on many Canon lenses are just as good if not better, but for a fraction of the price.
The mechanics are top notch though.
From the reviews I read, it seems that you buy Zeiss and other luxury brands like Leica more for the mechanics. The IQ on many Canon lenses are just as good if not better, but for a fraction of the price.
Last edited:
PastePotPete
Member
C/Y = Contax/Yashica.
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Contax_%28Yashica/Kyocera%29
You can pick up second-hand lenses of this brand for ridiculously cheap on ebay. Over the course of a month I managed to pick up a 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.9, and 135mm 2.8 for under $100 total by haunting ebay. Very nice glass. A $20 fotodiox adapter for each and they're ready to go.
Last edited:
I think it depends on the focal length. For example, the Canon EF 20mm is a beautiful lens, but the Zeiss 21mm and Leica 19mm are sharper from edge to edge. For a 7D, it doesn't matter as much, because you're shooting through the center of the lens, but on my old 5D, the edges are softer with the Canon, and tack sharp with the Leica (don't have the Zeiss).
Of course, sharpness is only one part of it... there's also contrast and color. Some people prefer Canon, others Zeiss.
Of course, sharpness is only one part of it... there's also contrast and color. Some people prefer Canon, others Zeiss.
Crimson_Fluid
Active member
If your looking at the 25mm I've been reading that the 28mm and 35mm are a little bit better than the 25mm but not by much.
My Zeiss collection currently includes: a C/Y 21/2.8 Distagon, a ZF 28/2.0 Distagon, a C/Y 35-70/3.4 Makro Planar and a ZF 100/2.0 Makro Planar. The question is, "Are they worth the money?" Compared to what? They are photo lenses (and I do use them for still photography as well on my D700, 5D2 and 7D where applicable) that now see "double duty" as video lenses. They weren't designed as video lenses, but they will certainly function quite nicely as video lenses (with the understanding that they were never designed for that purpose and they have functional limitations that proper cine lenses do not have). You may want to cruise over to the Cinevate site and look at some of the video tests that they shot with several Zeiss ZF's. The even have a split screen comparison with a Nikon AIS lens, if memory serves. It is informative. There are all sorts of "alternative lenses" that can be used. Different price ranges, different quality, different characteristics. You might also want to check the alternative lens forum over at Fred Miranda, for more in depth discussions of various lenses. Heck, if you really want to get exotic, I have even seen Cooke and Angenieux cine lenses with Nikon F mounts that can be used!
