Is the Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 really so good?

Sean Mac · Nov 26, 2015

Mackinaw said:
I have no idea what this means.

Jim B.

I doubt anyone does. Machine translation is a long way from good as I suspect this illustrates.

Mustafa seems to be someone who cares about what this forum is concerned with.

Idiomatic English has taken me through 48 years of learning so far. My first year of life was a bit more basic.

I don't own a 50mm but I do have a "made in Germany" 85F1.4 Zeiss planar.

I would agree with Nodda Duma. A comparable Nikkor is so close that there is no point in wasting energy worrying.

Time spent thinking about what the lens is pointed at is likely a better use of someones time.

Sirius Glass · Nov 26, 2015

Mustafa Umut Sarac said:
................................ . I am not rich for japanese optics from brick mortar factories.

Mackinaw said:
I have no idea what this means.

Jim B.

Sean Mac said:
I doubt anyone does.

You are right. Not even the author does not understands himself.

Slixtiesix · Nov 27, 2015

I think what he meant was that he is rich and therefore has no need or interest to buy lenses that were "cheaply" mass produced in Japanese/Chinese factories, as opposed to hand-crafted and -assembled German lenses. At least that´s what Mustafa is usually up to.

Alan Gales · Nov 27, 2015

I shot a Contax for many years and I owned the 50mm f/1.7 lens. It was a little slower than the 1.4 but everyone said it was a little sharper.

You are really splitting hairs here. I had friends who shot Nikon. Back in the day I preferred the Zeiss lenses and felt they were a little more contrasty than the Nikkors. My friends preferred their Nikkors. I don't know. You really can't go wrong with either brand and unless you are going to test one against the other you won't know either. Of course lens samples may play a part in any testing. I do know that the camera stores use to play up Zeiss. They may have made more profit on them?

kobaltus · Nov 27, 2015

I do not have zeiss 50 1,4, but I have tried many nikkor and other brand 50mm lenses. My keeper is nikkor 50mm 1,4 SC.
Very sharp lens, it also has character. Built like a tank, the lens construction is based on old Taylor Hobson patent from 1932.
This patent was used by zeiss, leica and nikon.
So, sometimes the lenses from different continents have the same roots.
Soory, Mustafa.

georg16nik · Nov 27, 2015

kobaltus said:
I do not have zeiss 50 1,4, but I have tried many nikkor and other brand 50mm lenses. My keeper is nikkor 50mm 1,4 SC.
Very sharp lens, it also has character. Built like a tank, the lens construction is based on old Taylor Hobson patent from 1932.
This patent was used by zeiss, leica and nikon.
So, sometimes the lenses from different continents have the same roots.
Soory, Mustafa.

Most likely they are all made under the same roof, hence collectors tend not to pick stuff past WWII, except Zunow, Komura and few other boutique and pretty clever pieces.
The Taylor, Taylor & Hobson design is brilliant and most mfg. nuances are negligible with most B&W films.

tom43 · Nov 27, 2015

If you really want improve over the 1.8D go for the new Milvus from Zeiss or the Sigma Art..

ted_smith · Nov 29, 2015

Thanks all. Many useful comments. I think Michal summed it up rather well, and I'm probably just being snobby when I can't afford to be. I can't afford a CZ 50mm really, but I do own the 1.8D for Nikon. I thought the 1.4 might be superbly better, and then I thought the CZ would be better still. And whilst the answers suggest that for build quality that is true, it seems perhaps that image quality is not all that different. So I'll probably just stick with the 1.8D (I have many lovely shots with it so I have no issues with it at all) and instead maybe look at a few more Lee filters. I only have 3 grads and polarizer but am thinking of full size stoppers for really bright days. Money better spent there, perhaps.

James Page · Nov 29, 2015

Ricardo Miranda said:
Not worth it.
You already have one of the best 50mm lens.
Spend the money on film and developing.

I second this. The nikkor 50 1.8 is an exceptional lens, an absolute steal for the money. The only thing you'll gain with the zeiss is 3/4ths of a stop, not really enough to justify the huge price differential IMO.

Sirius Glass · Nov 29, 2015

ted_smith said:
Thanks all. Many useful comments. I think Michal summed it up rather well, and I'm probably just being snobby when I can't afford to be. I can't afford a CZ 50mm really, but I do own the 1.8D for Nikon. I thought the 1.4 might be superbly better, and then I thought the CZ would be better still. And whilst the answers suggest that for build quality that is true, it seems perhaps that image quality is not all that different. So I'll probably just stick with the 1.8D (I have many lovely shots with it so I have no issues with it at all) and instead maybe look at a few more Lee filters. I only have 3 grads and polarizer but am thinking of full size stoppers for really bright days. Money better spent there, perhaps.

Come on man, it is half an f/stop more and you know that you really want it!

Is the Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 really so good?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency