Lens tests - stock vs. new Zeiss ZF 35mm vs. 30-year-old Zeiss Jena 35mm

[tflak]

Me either. I love the new lenses, they're faster, way better for stills, and the construction quality and focus slickness is just heavenly as compared to the stock or older lenses. And, I may use them in the future on cameras that may very well be able to take advantage of the additional sharpness that they offer.

But a GH1, a 7D, or a 5D are not those cameras. So what I'm saying here is -- if you want the best lenses and you can afford them, go right ahead and get them. But if you're a no-budget type of guy, which is probably why you're shooting with an SLR in the first place, and you can't afford to drop a few grand on great glass -- don't worry about it! As long as the stock lens can give you the f-stop you're looking for, it really isn't going to do much for your image to go buying the more-expensive glass!

And that's heretical, I know. But it's what the tests show, and I'll take real-world test results over "common knowledge" any day.

Better lenses are better for many reasons. But sharper glass doesn't really do anything for an SLR's HD video mode.

If you're looking for more f-stop, a 30-year-old SLR lens might deliver all the performance you need, and the expensive premium glass isn't necessarily going to get you a sharper image when you're working with SLR video.

My ZF's look night and day different through the VF/10x magnifier on the GH1 and the 7D. But you're looking at a 14- to 18-megapixel image there. When you go to the HD mode, it's gonna be a 2-megapixel image. About 85% of what you were looking at through the viewfinder is gonna get thrown away in the video image.

Build quality and contrast are issues you should be looking at, moreso than ultimate resolved detail, if you're looking for cheap glass that can still perform well with DSLR video.

But if you also want to shoot great stills, don't skimp on the glass, it makes a huge difference on stills performance.

Great synopsis. And thanks again for not only these tests, but all the others you've done.

 

[Essami]

Do you find "A" to be worth $40 more than the others?
Do you find "A" to be worth $836 more than the others?

That's really the question I'm hoping to address here, as to whether SLR users should feel like they need additional lenses for their video, or whether they'll really see any improvement at all(!) And if not, maybe our lower-budget folks can be content with the stock lens, if they don't really see the improvement from the better glass.

I will say that I definitely think the ZF is worth it, from the stills improvement and the construction quality and the soon-to-be cinema-zation of it and the three extra stops of sensitivity. I'm not knocking it or saying it's overpriced at all. I'm just raising the question of -- if your primary aim is 1080/24p from a DSLR, is it really going to give you any more sharpness? Really? Not from "common sense" or "conventional wisdom" but from actual on-the-ground testing...

If A is the most expensive and C is the least expensive lens I would go for C definately.

 

[Barry_Green]

If A is the most expensive and C is the least expensive lens I would go for C definately.

Your guess is right.

"A" is the Zeiss ZF 35mm/f2, a gorgeous lens with simply exquisite construction, and I'm very happy with it, and for stills performance it excels.

"B" is the stock lens. And I think not even the most fervent pixel-peeper is going to find much difference between the stock zoom lens, and the top-of-the-line Zeiss lens, on that still-life frame grab. The similarity is incredible.

"C" is the $40 ebay Zeiss Jena. And the only real difference I see here is flatter contrast, which is perhaps caused by a touch of flare from the overhead lights maybe? I should try reshooting with a big ol' lens hood, because the chart performance between the Jena and the ZF was practically indistinguishable at f/5.6.

 

[Barry_Green]

Cheers Barry. Very heartening for me, as you know my ZF's are destined for another camera in time. The 7D is a short term prospect for personal use.

Same here. When I first ran this test I was like "aw, hell... I already have all these Zeiss Jena lenses, don't tell me I just torched four grand and didn't get any better!"

But -- the build quality is exquisite. The still performance is better. The f-stops open deeper. The Duclos mod is going to make the iris sweet beyond belief. And when they get put on the Scarlet or XLH2 or whatever comes next, I think they're going to sing.

But in the meantime, seriously, for budget-challenged folks, those old Zeiss Jenas are probably plenty good enough for anything a DSLR can throw at it, and you could buy an entire set for less than what I paid for just the 50mm.

Just watch the ZFs wide open, they do get bloomy and some chroma aberration, although the 35mm is way more solid in that respect than the 50mm/1.4. I'm thinking about trading in my 50/1.4 for the 50mm Macro, but ... man, that one's twice the cost... I just don't know if it's worth it.

 

[Barry_Green]

Do you think the results would be the same on the 7D?

I know that the results are identical on the 7D, because that's where I ran the first test, and where I saw something I found nearly impossible to believe. I already knew from prior testing on other cameras that the ZF 50mm/1.4 turns to (relatively) absolute crap when wide-open, it adds a lot of blooming and the contrast just falls to pot -- but -- it still delivers enough to resolve as good as the 7D can possibly handle. With a little contrast adjustment in post, you can make it look as good at 1.4 as it does at 5.6. And I think it actually might look more accurate and better, because there's less aliasing -- the softer image is cutting out some of the aliasing frequencies, but still passing all the true detail the camera can resolve.

So yes, exactly the same on the 7D.*

*Frankly I chose to do this test on the GH1 specifically because it seems like every time I do anything with the 7D, a chorus of whining opens up, like I'm "picking on" the 7D. Gets tedious. Doesn't change the results, regardless of how loud they complain, but -- well, truth is truth no matter who disagrees with it.

 

[Barry_Green]

I've been trying my Nikon primes on the GH1, and I would say it's virtually unuseable HH for video, without the OIS and shooting with anything remotely telephoto the Jello is dreadful.

Excellent point -- the OIS does help overcome some of the jello effect. And handheld with a DSLR (especially a tiny one like the GH1) can really exaggerate the jitter because it holds differently than a video camera does, and the wrist rotation effect is much more prevalent on the SLR. So you get more jitter, and a different kind of jitter, with handheld SLR. And the OIS does help minimize some of that.

I'm happy with the kit lens for video for all but the darkest environments.

Which is probably the best news out of all of this -- if you can possibly get the f-stop you need, you're probably going to get just as good results out of the kit lens (and maybe even better, considering the benefits of OIS) as you would out of thousand-dollar primes. At least, on the "bang for the buck" terms. You'll never focus as smoothly, and your still performance won't compare, but for a budget digi-cine rig, I think lower-budget folks should be comforted that their kit lens is really delivering all the camera can handle, so don't sweat it and don't worry about it.

But for lower-light scenarios, a cheap prime lens can come in handy, and I'm not even all that worried about the lens anymore. Choose something that has good color and contrast characteristics, such as the SMC Takumar or the Zeiss Jena, and get it from ebay for $40 and don't worry about spending a grand.

For those who have bigger plans, or who need the best glass for stills performance, yes buy the better lenses, of course. Just don't lull yourself into thinking they're going to give you that much better HD performance, because (shockingly) they don't!

 

[Ozpeter]

Well, that's a comfort indeed. When I first attached the stock lens, I looked across the table at my wife, noted the look on her face, and said to myself "that's the last time I shall ever see the naked sensor on this camera - the stock lens is going to have to suffice!". My only gripe about it months on now is the varying stiffness of the zoom ring.