# Will Canon step up to Zeiss with a 55mm 1.4L?



## Radiating (Feb 19, 2013)

It seems Zeiss's new 55mm f/1.4 lens which promises to be as sharp as current Canon 50mm lenses are at f/5.6 wide open is making a lot of news (50mm lenses tend to fall far behind other primes for image quality, delivering what 24mm and 85mm primes deliver wide open at f/4.0). In my own quest for a great 50mm prime I've looked at every 50mm prime thats ef compatible or ef adaptable made since 1970 and all deliever this mediocre image quality (though being 55mm is likely key in allowing the iq).

So Zeiss has cracked the high quality normal prime mystery that has eluded all other manufactures for decades.

The question is, now that the cat's out of the bag, will Canon fire back with a 55mm 1.4L?

If you're interested here's a video describing the new lens. It's worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mEj6CqZWMk&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 19, 2013)

I do not think a 55mm prime lens is in Canon's scheme of things.


----------



## Menace (Feb 19, 2013)

Pretty unlikely I'd say too.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2013)

If it's a 50 or 55 I don't care about, but if Canon decided to make a 50mm f1.4 L and it was the size and weight of the 85 1.2 I don't care. I care about them matching the Zeiss f1.4 (which is VERY high up on my list now as I love 50mm) with the AF of the current 50 L.

Canon needs a good 50. Seeing the samples from the Zeiss makes me very excited about it, can I live with MF? Not so sure, I mean, I can shoot a lot with a 50(55) mf, but there's a lot of things I would love to shoot with that IQ, but needing AF.

And to own both the 50 L and the Zeiss 55 f1.4 is an option, but not when I also want a 24-70, since I don't [email protected] money...


----------



## noisejammer (Feb 22, 2013)

Would you be willing to drop $4k on a 55mm Canon lens?
Reading between the lines, that seems to be the expected price for the ZE beauty.

I already own 7 ZE lenses and this is way too rich for my blood.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> Would you be willing to drop $4k on a 55mm Canon lens?
> Reading between the lines, that seems to be the expected price for the ZE beauty.
> 
> I already own 7 ZE lenses and this is way too rich for my blood.



I'd be willing to easily drop 4k on the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 if it had half decent USM autofocus. My style of shooting requires autofocus, and I'd love to complete my prime collection with such a lens. 

All I want is the best f/2.8 zooms and the best f/1.4 primes covering 21mm to 200mm.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 22, 2013)

Canon is not in competition with Zeiss. Zeiss sells very nice manual focus lenses to those with deep pockets. 

Canon is and has always been about mass production of cameras and lenses where they target value for the dollar. By keeping prices down, they are able to turn out high volumes of lenses, and spread the very high cost of tooling and development over many lenses.

Zeiss isn't interested in that market, they know they can't compete at the price Canon charges. They have their niche and do well with it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 22, 2013)

Radiating said:


> All I want is the best f/2.8 zooms and the best f/1.4 primes covering 21mm to 200mm.



you are easy to please


----------



## Viggo (Feb 22, 2013)

Yes, of course i would pay that. I have wanted a great 50 since I bought my 350 D and the current L I find to only work properly with AF on the 1d X and even then.. But the issue I have with it is the iq one AF point off center really isn't fantastic. I had more keepers with the Zeiss 28mm than with any of AF lenses in the 5d2.

I have said many times , why is the 1,5kg only acceptable weight for a 70-200? If I can carry that, I can and would love to, carry a 50 that weighs that if it means extraordinary IQ, and this Zeiss seems to it.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon is not in competition with Zeiss. Zeiss sells very nice manual focus lenses to those with deep pockets.
> 
> Canon is and has always been about mass production of cameras and lenses where they target value for the dollar. By keeping prices down, they are able to turn out high volumes of lenses, and spread the very high cost of tooling and development over many lenses.
> 
> Zeiss isn't interested in that market, they know they can't compete at the price Canon charges. They have their niche and do well with it.



Honestly if Zeiss simply had flawless autofocus I bet that their sales would increase 100 fold.


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 24, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon is not in competition with Zeiss. Zeiss sells very nice manual focus lenses to those with deep pockets.
> 
> Canon is and has always been about mass production of cameras and lenses where they target value for the dollar. By keeping prices down, they are able to turn out high volumes of lenses, and spread the very high cost of tooling and development over many lenses.
> 
> Zeiss isn't interested in that market, they know they can't compete at the price Canon charges. They have their niche and do well with it.



+1

I tried a 50 1.4 Zeiss, canon 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2. In my opinion the Zeiss was BY FAR the sharpest wide open and had the best IQ overall. It failed to perform in an event setting, which this lens is not for. I honestly found the Canon 1.4 to be better then the 1.2 in almost every aspect. It was only marginally sharper at f/2.0 and focused a bit faster. I did not experience much focus shift but it was there. The value of the 1.4 is FAR greater and the return on investment much quicker then the 1.2 for me. It makes me feel bad because I reaaaaaaaly wanted the 1.2 to be that much better. All my testing was done on a 5d3.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 26, 2013)

Radiating said:


> Honestly if Zeiss simply had flawless autofocus I bet that their sales would increase 100 fold.


So basically Zeiss has NOT "cracked the high quality normal prime mystery"


----------



## RLPhoto (Feb 26, 2013)

No need, 50L is king. 8)


----------



## Viggo (Feb 26, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> No need, 50L is king. 8)



I can agree with that, I love it for sure, but only on the 1d X, never found any other camera that could tame the AF precision and the only camera I really felt i I got it 100% with calibration. Do I like the trade-off of sharpness for the creay bokeh, of course, I don't shoot test charts. And coupled with the 1dx it really shines. Tracking my kids at f1.8 results in some great captures at 12 fps. It's small light, built like a tank and sealed. What more could you want?

I would keep it even if I bought the Zeiss 55...


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 26, 2013)

Viggo said:


> What more could you want?



Cut the price a little?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Feb 26, 2013)

I'd like to know what _conventional lens_ they used in the video.


----------



## Ewinter (Feb 26, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> I'd like to know what _conventional lens_ they used in the video.


probably the Nikon 50 1.4. I hear it's not so good.

I'm looking forward to Sigma's next salvo in the Art series. If they remake their 50 and 85 like they did the 35, I think Zeiss, Sony, Nikon and Canon should be worried about their prime sales


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 26, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> I tried a 50 1.4 Zeiss, canon 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2. In my opinion the Zeiss was BY FAR the sharpest wide open and had the best IQ overall.


I presume the lens you tried was the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 Planar T* ZE (as the new 55/1.4 isn't yet available). I'm surprised to hear it is by far the sharpest because it looks less than sharp in the ISO12233 chart at The Digital Picture:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=709&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## RMC33 (Feb 26, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > I tried a 50 1.4 Zeiss, canon 1.4 and Canon 50 1.2. In my opinion the Zeiss was BY FAR the sharpest wide open and had the best IQ overall.
> ...



Yup. Thats what I saw from a week of shooting all 3 on the street. Charts are good for arguments and AFMA... thats about it.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 26, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > What more could you want?
> ...



Yeah, well, but good stuff has to cost a little ;D If it was cheaper it wouldn't be what it is. But because of the bad reputation it has, buying it used is a great deal...


----------



## Zlatko (Feb 26, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> Yup. Thats what I saw from a week of shooting all 3 on the street. Charts are good for arguments and AFMA... thats about it.


Wow, that is surprising ... and good to hear. I would like to try the 50/1.4 ZE. Some of the customer reviews at the B&H web site really rave about it. The new 55/1.4 is going to be too pricey (and big!). The 50/1.4 ZE has a nicer price and size.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 26, 2013)

.
That's a lens you rent when the circumstances both allow and demand it.

I look forward to renting it one day. Interested to see what the LensRental price will be.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 27, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> I'd like to know what _conventional lens_ they used in the video.


+1
My thoughts exactly, when I heard him say that ... the word "conventional" sounds dubious, maybe he was talking about 50 f/1.8 ;D


----------



## sandymandy (Feb 27, 2013)

Viggo said:


> . Tracking my kids at f1.8 results in some great captures at 12 fps. It's small light, built like a tank and sealed. What more could you want?



Well this topic is about wide open aperture. Why buy a 1.2 lens if not using it at 1.2..... ?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 27, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > . Tracking my kids at f1.8 results in some great captures at 12 fps. It's small light, built like a tank and sealed. What more could you want?
> ...



Because it's MUCH better at 1.8, a tad more dof to help the hitrate and I had enough light ? And just because I don't shoot EVERY picture all year around @1.2 doesn't mean it was a waste. And if your're thinking, well just get the 1.4 then, I'm not even gonna comment on that 

The topic is about wide open aperture, yes, and exactly why I want the Zeiss 55, then I could use it f1.4 instead of stopping down and have the IQ at 1.4 I would have to go to 2.8 with the 50 L to get. BEsides, I dont't need help to nail tracking with an MF lens, I would use it for other stuff.

Using the 50 L at f1.8 isn't the same thing as never leaving first gear of an Enzo or swear in church or whatever, it's simply stopping down to f1.8.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Feb 28, 2013)

Radiating said:


> So Zeiss has cracked the high quality normal prime mystery that has eluded all other manufactures for decades.
> 
> The question is, now that the cat's out of the bag, will Canon fire back with a 55mm 1.4L?



One thing you may not be aware of is that 55mm and 58mm lenses used to be quite common. Why? On an SLR, they were the shortest focal length that could be built without going to a retrofocus design. That's a big part of why the Zeiss performs so well: it's a relatively easy lens to design and build.

But photographers hated them. A "normal" on 35mm should be 45mm, not 55mm. 50mm became acceptable enough, and they sold much better than the 55's.

Another thing to keep in mind is that most of the 50's are older designs.


----------



## jrista (Feb 28, 2013)

Radiating said:


> It seems Zeiss's new 55mm f/1.4 lens which promises to be as sharp as current Canon 50mm lenses are at f/5.6 wide open is making a lot of news (50mm lenses tend to fall far behind other primes for image quality, delivering what 24mm and 85mm primes deliver wide open at f/4.0). In my own quest for a great 50mm prime I've looked at every 50mm prime thats ef compatible or ef adaptable made since 1970 and all deliever this mediocre image quality (though being 55mm is likely key in allowing the iq).
> 
> So Zeiss has cracked the high quality normal prime mystery that has eluded all other manufactures for decades.



Well, I'm not sure it is as astounding as it may sound. A diffraction-limited lens at f/5.6 pumps out 123lp/mm of spatial resolution at the sensor. Theoretically, a diffraction-limited f/1.4 lens could pump out 494lp/mm of spatial resolution at the sensor! That is a monster difference, and indicates that even Zeiss' 55mm f/1.4 lens is extremely aberration-limited wide open.

There is also the difference in goals. Canon's 50mm primes, particularly the EF 50mm f/1.2 L, are designed to produce softer focus. The 50/1.2 is explicitly designed to retain a certain amount of spherical aberration as it produces very nice boke blur circles and a soft glow around OOF elements near the plane of focus when the lens is used wide open. People who are looking for a lens like that buy the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 explicitly for that purpose...pixel-level sharpness isn't a concern in such a context.

If you want extreme sharpness, you would probably be better served stopping any one of these lenses, Canon or Zeiss, down to f/2.8, where spatial resolution should be approaching it's highest, and DOF will still be fairly thin (and more manageable, allowing you to get your whole subject in focus and nicely sharp...which is kind of the antithesis of why you would use an ultra-fast lens in the first place). If you stop down like that, you might as well look into the new EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II, and use it at 50/2.8. It sports an MTF that neither the EF 50/1.2 nor the Distagon T 55/1.4 can touch, and would pound out far better sharpness wide open than you would know what to do with. ;D


----------

