Is the Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 really so good?

[ted_smith]

Some years ago (2011) I had all of my Nikon gear stolen. I took the plunge and instead moved to medium format Hasselblad and a few Carl Zeiss lenses (not cheap, are they!!?). But I still have a remaining Nikon F5 (fortunately, one that I paid £250 to have serviced about 3 years ago) and I have hardly used the 50mm 1.8D lens - probably taken about 400 shots with it.

I'm thinking about replacing it with the 1.4G version (trade it in for £40 say and then spend that and an extra ~£170 for the 1.8G), or, perhaps even the Carl Zeiss 50mm which, according to reports, is simply outstanding (allbeit entirely manual focus).

But I've never used one, or even seen one in real life. I'm curious to know if anyone owns the CZ 50mm 1.4 and if they can tell me anything about it. Is it worth the money? Are the pictures it produces really so much colourful than the Nikons? Also, how close can you focus if you want to get really close to the subject?

UPDATE: Just watched a few YouTube reviews, and this one seems to suggest the 50mm CZ is really not that good? Confused...https://youtu.be/qk3tVNuWIOA

 

[Sirius Glass]

You cannot go wrong on Zeiss lenses. 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras are normal lenses and one can get a lot of use out of it. The question is will you use it enough to make the purchase worthwhile?

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

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

 

[Hatchetman]

Does that CZ lens have the front focus issue at f1.4? I find that a real PITA.

 

[film_man]

I had a CZ 50/1.4 ZF2 which I used with a F100, FM2n and a D7000. I also had the 50/1.8G in parallel. I also owned in the past the 50/1.8D and 50/1.4D.

First, I'll say that I really don't get the fascination with the 1.8 lenses. The 1.8D was just junk, yes it is sharp but it is low contrast and muddy till 2.8. The 1.8G was not much better. The 1.4 was a much nicer lens.

On the other hand the Zeiss...that is a brilliant lens if (and that is a big if) you understand what it is. In the f/2.8-8 range it is just outstandingly sharp and has superb micro contrast. This really is an amazing lens at these apertures and you get a very similar look to what a Hasselblad would get you (considering the format difference).

In the f/1.4-2 range it can be many things to many people. For me f/1.4 would normally be slightly hazy and dull but where it excelled was wide open, close distance and with some side lighting. That made some amazing portraits. f/2 was half way between the 1.4 glowy look and the 2.8 super sharp look. I can't really say I had any issues with focus shift although I don't usually shoot it at min distance (which is where you'd notice it most).

By the way, the Zeiss focuses just as close as the Nikon 50/1.8 and 1.4.

Overall I think the Zeiss 50/1.4 is a very special lens, not for pixel peeps and sharpness freaks but for people who are after a look. If you value the Hasselblad look then the Zeiss will give you just that with your Nikon at f/2.8 and will give you an excellent portrait lens wide open close-up with the right lighting.

As for comparing it to a 50/1.8G or whatever...well you bought a Hasselblad and not a Bronica so you know what I mean. Some of my best photos ever were a trip to France with a Hasselblad, the FM2n and the CZ 50. I got a matching look across formats and amazing contrast.

As a closing remark, when it comes to 35mm kit the Zeiss 50/1.4 and the Leica 50 Summicron-R are the two lenses I am most in awe (in the standard range and I have yet to use Leica M glass). I have sold the lot since moving to Canon AF but I think I'll be getting the Zeiss soon. I actually prefer the Summicron look but I just cannot be bothered with stop down metering and adapters. If you ever get a Zeiss 35/2 then that is just another superb lens to pair it with.

 

[film_man]

Does that CZ lens have the front focus issue at f1.4? I find that a real PITA.

Do you find that a real PITA because you are using it or because you read about it? The ZF 50/1.4 will have focus shift in theory at f/2-2.8 (it couldn't possibly have it at f/1.4 as that is what you're looking at when focusing) but personally I never really noticed it. Unless you're shooting near the min distance at f/2 all the time I doubt anyone would actually get any real practical issues. On the other hand testers shooting brick walls, rulers and test charts, well I'm sure they have lots of issues with this lens...

 

[Hatchetman]

I have a f1.5 Sonnar from the 50s. Amazingly sharp, but the lens must have been adjusted at some point. At minimum distance focus is on at f1.5 but back focuses at f2-2.8. I wish it had not been messed with as I don't care to shoot at f1.5 but DO care to shoot at f2.

 

[Fixcinater]

I have the older Contax 50/1.4. It's significantly better wide open than the Canon EF 50/1.4 and f/1.8 and has a bit more "interesting" bikes than the super smooth Late model Sigma 50/1.4.

Not sure exactly how that Contax relates to the newer models.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I also have the older Zeiss 50/1.4 (C/Y mount) and like it enough better than any of my Nikkor normals to be considering putting an F mount on it. I probably won't ever get around to it just because of all the practical issues, but definitely prefer it. My Nikkors are older, but I generally prefer those anyway so newer is probably not something that would change my opinion.

But, I strongly prefer manual focus. If you prefer autofocus I just don't see it being worth the trouble; all these lenses are fine. The Nikkor 50's are my least favorite, but still good lenses that I enjoy using and get good pictures with.

 

[j-dogg]

Get the Nikon 1.4

If you're going to take the plunge for the CZ lens you can swing the 50 1.2 which comprehensively annihilates the Zeiss at 1.4 to 2

The CZ is a stellar performer no doubt, but the Nikon offering is as good for less money

 

[blockend]

I have a f1.5 Sonnar from the 50s. Amazingly sharp, but the lens must have been adjusted at some point. At minimum distance focus is on at f1.5 but back focuses at f2-2.8. I wish it had not been messed with as I don't care to shoot at f1.5 but DO care to shoot at f2.

That is typical behaviour for a wide aperture 50mm lens. Spot on wide open, rear focusing at f2.8 to f4, cleaning up its act by 5.6.

I have a 50mm 1.4 Canon FDn that's mainly used on mirrorless digital cameras for that reason. The work around is to focus stopped down, which isn't easy in low light.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I would rather base the decision in whether you need an AF or MF lens. Can make a bigger difference than optics...

 

[pentaxpete]

That is interesting about 'back focus' as i have discovered my 50mm f1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar T* which came with my 'gift' Contax RTS II Quartz suffers from 'back-focus' at f1.4 -- I thought it was the camera body as it has had a 'bang' on the corner near the frame counter at one time and frame counter no longer counts. BUT I put lens onto my Yashica FR-1 and strangely got sharper results.

here the bricks in walls BEHIND are sharper



Here detail inside the store is sharper than the man coming out -- I focussed on the wire baskets in front

 

[film_man]

I have a f1.5 Sonnar from the 50s. Amazingly sharp, but the lens must have been adjusted at some point. At minimum distance focus is on at f1.5 but back focuses at f2-2.8. I wish it had not been messed with as I don't care to shoot at f1.5 but DO care to shoot at f2.

Would that be a rangefinder lens? If so, that's a different lens altogether and the equivalent would be the M-mount ZM 50/1.5.

 

[Paul Howell]

The reviews I have seen rate the new Sigma 50mm 1.2 as sharper than the Ziess and it is AF.

 

[Hatchetman]

Would that be a rangefinder lens? If so, that's a different lens altogether and the equivalent would be the M-mount ZM 50/1.5.

Yes, I first thought you were moving to an entirely different system.

 

[Taslim Abdani]

My favorite lens is my CZ 50mm 1.4 C/Y mount lens that I keep on my Contax RX. This lens is pure magic. I love it.

 

[Xmas]

I normally use a series E 5cm/1.8...
Buy a FG with one in a charity shop.

If you need the longer throw helicoid it is an AI or the Ja AIs.

 

[ic-racer]

Can you rent the lens and try it? Otherwise you will have to buy it to try it.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I always went with the'all name-brand lenses are good' theory and it worked out for me.admitedly. I only bought Nikon,Mamiya and Hasselblad.So, no surprise there;I probably spend enough money to fund my veryown research department, but I assume,they all work with the same lens development equations anyway.We are lucky these days to be able to chose from so many good enses.

 

[Nodda Duma]

I actually use the 50 / 1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar T with NIR coatings as a field standard evaluation objective lens for new imagers we are evaluating. I also use it for on-the-spot field comparisons for first light testing of new design. And I shoot with it on my Nikons.

In all honesty the Nikon 50 /1.4 or /1.8 is just as good.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I only use Leica, Cooke, Goerz, Kodak, LOMO and Zeiss. I am not rich for japanese optics from brick mortar factories.

 

[Mackinaw]

......... I am not rich for japanese optics from brick mortar factories.

I have no idea what this means.

Jim B.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

So my Nikkor 50 f1.4 AiS is as good as a Zeiss?

 

[Xmas]

I only use Leica, Cooke, Goerz, Kodak, LOMO and Zeiss. I am not rich for japanese optics from brick mortar factories.

Hi Umut

My series E Nikon 5cm /1.8 was on a FG in a charity shop, the kit was cheap, the camera body looked battered but the lens was perfect.

Noel