# Review: Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 23, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15349"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=15349">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Bryan over at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/" target="_blank">The-Digital-Picture</a> has completed his review of the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE lens. This is an extremely versatile and optically terrific macro lens from Zeiss. I’ve used it a couple of times and I’ve never been disappointed by it!</p>
<p><strong>Says Bryan

</strong><em>“The Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE Lens is a luxury to use and it delivers all-around impressiveness. As I said before, this lens delivers image quality that might leave you feeling uneasy about the image quality that your other lenses are producing.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-50mm-f-2-ZE-Makro-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/666445-REG/Zeiss_1762_851_50mm_f_2_0_Makro_Planar_ZE.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss 50 f/2 Makro at B&H Photo $1283</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## jrista (Dec 23, 2013)

I've always loved Bryan's reviews. Thorough, detailed, with excellent example imagery to accompany the text.

I am a little bummed that the lens only magnifies to 1:2 though. Would have been nice if it was a true 1:1 macro lens. The quality, and the manual nature, are rather appealing for a macro lens, though.


----------



## Viggo (Dec 23, 2013)

God I love that lens, it's simply what I love in a lens, superb in every way wide open, quite fast aperture. I don't use it for macro, although I absolutely love that I can shoot portraits super tight and never worry about mfd or that the IQ is shot to hell up close, like the 50 L.

It's so nice that even an AF junkie like me wants to use it as much as possible.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 23, 2013)

Viggo said:


> God I love that lens, it's simply what I love in a lens, superb in every way wide open, quite fast aperture. I don't use it for macro, although I absolutely love that I can shoot portraits super tight and never worry about mfd or that the IQ is shot to hell up close, like the 50 L.
> 
> It's so nice that even an AF junkie like me wants to use it as much as possible.



+1
Pretty awesome. 

You should also try using it for video even if you are not a video guy. The 50MP is what got me started on even being interested in doing any serious amount of it at all.

Also, I think it was in the article that lloyd wrote about the otus where he said that at f2 in the center, the two are comparable which is amazing.


----------



## vscd (Dec 23, 2013)

>I am a little bummed that the lens only magnifies to 1:2 though. 
>Would have been nice if it was a true 1:1 macro lens.

That's the only downpoint for me. Zeiss lenses claim to be "macrolenses" with 1:2. I know, there is no real definition chiseled into stone, but especially the 100mm 2.8 (which competes with almost every other 100mm macrolense) is at 1:2, too. 

Maybe the optics are less complex to build, I don't know. But I wouldn't call it a macrolense and I would point to it. Otherwise, the brand speaks for itself.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Dec 23, 2013)

I have heard nothing but great things about this lens. 

I have the f1.4 version and use it for everything. Love the image attributes and quality. Though not the sharpest wide open. Which isn't a deal killer for me.

Love that Zeiss is getting some due.


----------



## clicstudio (Dec 25, 2013)

Excuse my ignorance but what is the point of a 2.0 lens for low light situations when you can't have Auto Focus?
Unless you do strictly video, I don't get it… :-\


----------



## vscd (Dec 25, 2013)

>Excuse my ignorance but what is the point of a 2.0 lens for
>low light situations when you can't have Auto Focus?

Bright viewfinder and shallow DOF. Why do you need AF? If you have the right split-screen you can focus very exactly with those lenses. I admit that it's somewhat difficult with "normal" screens, but not with other Canon Splitscreen. Just try one. Another point would be to use the exact distancescale on the lense... just go 2 metres away and set the focus to 2metre. It fit's. Unlike AF equipped examples.


----------



## Arkarch (Dec 26, 2013)

It took me awhile to warm up to 50mm when I had a Zeiss 21 and 100MP in the bag. But its a nice middle and shots I get out of it are edge sharp and have depth. If you have the 100MP, the 50MP is easy since they largely work the same and use the same 67mm filter ring. 

As to no AF - this is not like running a Canon AF in manual mode... in this type of MF you have excellent throw and a hard stop at infinity. I mostly use this in Landscape work where I'll do a tripod/Live View setup. But even when I am doing handheld event work I can quickly dial in the focus and know I am locked in without an AF chasing something else at the critical moment.

My new debate - selling the 50MP and using the proceeds to buy a 55mm Otus.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 26, 2013)

For those who worry about the 1:2 magnification limitation, add Kenko or Canon extension tubes and you´re OK to go a lot closer.


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Dec 26, 2013)

I had posted a question about the hard stop at infinity but haven't gotten any replies yet.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18653.msg348748#msg348748

Anyone here have a thought on this?


----------



## vscd (Dec 27, 2013)

> For those who worry about the 1:2 magnification limitation, add Kenko or Canon extension tubes and you´re OK to go a lot closer.



Then you loose a lot of light. Why do you buy a makro anyway when you can get the same effect with extension tubes? And if it's so easy and without backdraws, then please write Zeiss to get a longer back between bayonett and lense, so the extension is already attached and they can claim real 1:1.

You could work for marketing.


----------



## Artifex (Dec 27, 2013)

vscd said:


> > For those who worry about the 1:2 magnification limitation, add Kenko or Canon extension tubes and you´re OK to go a lot closer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe I understand physic wrong, but I think the lost of light as nothing to do with the extension tubes, but are caused by the magnification. You can use this formula:

Effective F-Stop = F-Stop x (1 + Magnification)

For instance, if you use f/11 at 1:1, you have a effective F-stop of f/22. You lose two stops. 
At f/11 at 2:1, you have f/33. Etc. 

According to this, you won't lose more light using extension tube than a macro lens, as the light lost is caused by the magnification.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 27, 2013)

vscd said:


> > For those who worry about the 1:2 magnification limitation, add Kenko or Canon extension tubes and you´re OK to go a lot closer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hehe, Yes, I can work for marketing and occasionally I do  But in this case I think I can play the role of the engineer.

In order for a camera lens to focus progressively closer, which is rather essential for a macro lens, the lens apparatus has to move further from the camera's sensor (called "extension"). For low magnifications, the extension is tiny, so the lens is always at the expected distance of roughly one focal length away from the sensor. However, once one approaches 0.25-0.5X or greater magnifications, the lens becomes so far from the sensor that it actually behaves as if it had a longer focal length. At 1:1 magnification, the lens moves all the way out to twice the focal length from the camera's sensor.

So in principle you can say that an extension tube increases your effective f-stop with loss of light as a consequence. But that is because of the increased magnification, not the extension tube per se.

There are lots of stuff on the internet on the subject.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

vscd said:


> >I am a little bummed that the lens only magnifies to 1:2 though.
> >Would have been nice if it was a true 1:1 macro lens.
> 
> That's the only downpoint for me. Zeiss lenses claim to be "macrolenses" with 1:2. I know, there is no real definition chiseled into stone, but especially the 100mm 2.8 (which competes with almost every other 100mm macrolense) is at 1:2, too.
> ...


I always wonder if Nikon "micro" shooters get confused by the Zeiss and other brands "macro" lenses . I agree on the Zeiss lenses being 1:2 versus 1:1, but then again, the Germans always do things differently. The gas gauge in my Porsche says 0, 2/4, and 4/4; my old BMW said 0, 1/2, and 1/1; and my new BMW says 0, 1/2, and 1...


----------



## Viggo (Dec 27, 2013)

I suspect a lot of people doesn't buy it simply to shoot ants and butterflies, but like me to occasionally go super tight for portraits or other things close up, but never really need the full 1:1 macro. I consider the 1:2 a big bonus of my already great nifty.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Dec 28, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I suspect a lot of people doesn't buy it simply to shoot ants and butterflies, but like me to occasionally go super tight for portraits or other things close up, but never really need the full 1:1 macro. I consider the 1:2 a big bonus of my already great nifty.



Exactly. My primary use for the 50 MP these days are tight portraits and video. I have other 50s for everything else.

If I need a 1:1, I reach for the 100L. Otherwise, actual macro work is not what I bought the 50 MP for. 

Depending on how serious you are about your macro work, there are also better options like the 65 and 180. I suspect though that most people around here use macro dubbed lenses for various things other than macro applications alone.


----------



## vscd (Dec 28, 2013)

> According to this, you won't lose more light using extension tube than a macro lens, as the light lost is caused by the magnification.



I'm no expert, but not even convinced. If you go into a long tunnel with a light at the end, the light is getting lower with every step into the tunnel. An Extension Tube is nothing different, except of beeing not soooooooo long.


----------



## Eldar (Dec 28, 2013)

vscd said:


> > According to this, you won't lose more light using extension tube than a macro lens, as the light lost is caused by the magnification.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm no expert, but not even convinced. If you go into a long tunnel with a light at the end, the light is getting lower with every step into the tunnel. An Extension Tube is nothing different, except of beeing not soooooooo long.


Then I suggest you try a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:1, without an extension tube and compare the reading on your camera with that you get from a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2, with the addition of an extension tube. Seeing is believing I guess ...


----------



## vscd (Dec 29, 2013)

> Then I suggest you try a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:1, without an extension tube and compare the reading on your camera with that you get from a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2, with the addition of an extension tube. Seeing is believing I guess ...



I really would like to try that if I had something uselessfull like a 50mm Makro 1:2. *BUT*. Both lenses would be focused to the closest point to get to their maximum magnification. Both would be set to an equal f-stop (and focal length of course) and both would be handled with the same sensor-sensitivity. So I doubt any difference between the shuttertimes. Doesn't sound to compelling to me. Maybe I'll find an old 100mm Macro with anything like 1:2 and compare it to the 100L with 1:1.

Maybe.


----------



## Artifex (Dec 31, 2013)

vscd said:


> > Then I suggest you try a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:1, without an extension tube and compare the reading on your camera with that you get from a 50mm macro lens that focuses to 1:2, with the addition of an extension tube. Seeing is believing I guess ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I saved you the trouble and did the test. Maybe it will help you.


----------



## inge bruland (Dec 31, 2013)

In the German ColorFoto this lens is rated around average and do not even get the mark Digital Empfohlen, that most tested lenses get. It is especially due to low contrast in corners. Who want an average lens, very expensive and With no autofocus?

inge


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 31, 2013)

inge bruland said:


> In the German ColorFoto this lens is rated around average and do not even get the mark Digital Empfohlen, that most tested lenses get. It is especially due to low contrast in corners. Who want an average lens, very expensive and With no autofocus?
> 
> inge


Inge, do you have a link to that test? The search on their website doesn't seem to work


----------



## Artifex (Jan 1, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> inge bruland said:
> 
> 
> > In the German ColorFoto this lens is rated around average and do not even get the mark Digital Empfohlen, that most tested lenses get. It is especially due to low contrast in corners. Who want an average lens, very expensive and With no autofocus?
> ...



I would also like to see that, since it was review as outstanding by my favorite websites. Lenstip, for instance, seems to praise this lens, like The Digital Picture and Photozone.

http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=363

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-50mm-f-2-ZE-Makro-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/535-zeiss50f2eosff?start=1


----------



## Mr_Canuck (Jan 13, 2014)

I wonder how this compares to the Canon 50mm f/2.5 compact macro, which is really sharp with negligible distortion, and has AF if needed. Oh, and goes for $250-300. I picked one up used for $200.


----------

