The bokeh is classic Zeiss style, that's what people appreciate and buy this lens for. Comparing to corner sharpness of a scene shot at f1.4 is ridiculous because you wouldn't shoot a scene/landscape at at that aperture. f1.4 is for portraits so the soft corner sharpness is by design. It is supposed to melt away.

MADNESS - I just purchased this lens and it's bloody lovely to use and the pics are fabulous. It goes to show that it's all relative with photography!

@TheJudge064

5 жыл бұрын

This goes to show people are really partial to shit they've already bought

@arashi9469

5 жыл бұрын

@@TheJudge064 Nah, I have a 1.7/50 Zeiss Planar and the lens is actually awesome Great micro-contrast, really characteristic bokeh and lovely flare. Sharpness is not everything. I have a lot of 50mm lenses, and the Planar is indeed my favourite

@marckydasaint8730

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheJudge064 Lol

@JamesClark1991

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheJudge064 Hahahahahaha. So true!

@jeromeThailande

3 жыл бұрын

In the beginning you can see there is something black huge in the lense 1/4 of the lense is blocked

For years I skipped this lens based on this review as I think you're the most helpful reviewer on KZread. However, man, I was wrong. I came across a second-hand unit a couple of days ago I had to test it myself. Wow, just wow, this lens is full of character. Sure it's a very picky lens and tricky to use wide open, but I haven't seen anything like it before. If you love photography and your'e bored of technically perfect lenses, this lens is for you. I think this lens delivers, especially from 1.4 to 2 it produces dreamy images. From F2 and up it's razor sharp but still images are organic and lively, and its bokeh has the more traditional look. Sure, it's a keeper. It makes your pictures stand out and it's fantastic for video too.

@esspeez

3 жыл бұрын

Imagine how many other people missed out on this lens just because of this one persons opinion on it. Baffling

@jeromeThailande

3 жыл бұрын

In the beginning you can see there is something in the lense blocking the light

@fullstack9507

3 жыл бұрын

AGREEEEDDD. Rent and returners paper shooters at best

@bijosn

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

@jojo11254

6 ай бұрын

I think anyone who's been watching this channel regularly should know by now that he prefers clinical objective qualities in lenses. He judges them on a very linear scale with little to no room for artistic merits(which is rather strange for a channel based on artistic tools). I still watch him cause of the sheer amount of products he reviews and it does give me some idea of what the product/lens is like, but I dont take too seriously his recommendations.

Bought this lens second hand a couple of months ago, I'm shooting raw videos using magic lantern and I am very happy with the results! On the photography side, I appreciate the colours and nice drawing of this lens. Each to their own.

When shooting portraits, I don't care for sharpness, so I really love what I get out of this lens!!

So I’m a hobbyist and am no pro or anything so I can’t argue with the technical aspects, but this lens ended up getting me some clients! I made $5,000 in a week just because someone loved the bokeh in my pictures the first month I bought it lol. A lot of these reviews come from professionals who’s primary source of income is probably photography, so I understand being super technical and objective. But I do think there’s an untapped market for more unique looking photography. The most times I get questioned on photos is when I use this lens and my Helio 44! Which I bought for about $50 I think lol but the bokeh they produce is DIFFERENT. My tack sharp Sony 55mm 1.8 can’t be beat in terms of the technical aspects, but more people are drawn to pictures taken from this lens. I wonder why that is? Maybe because there is something almost film-like about the way this lens processes color. It’s not quite film or vintage, but it’s just slightly different. I don’t care about softness really. I have never made a single penny off of shooting tack sharp images because it’s not for print. I’ve only made money for digital purposes (mostly social media and e-commerce) so that’s why it being soft doesn’t matter to me. Plus, I just personally find it kind of beautiful at 1.4. But that being said, you do not need it to be that wide open. F2 is SHARP and plenty shallow. I will agree it is overpriced though for a manual lens.

Excellent review. Thanks for saving me testing time and money.

is it better to get this or the original 70s version for quality?

I like your lens reviews due to your steady and very good sample images it gives one a very good basis for comparison.

I love how you always include the bun into your videos!!

Thank you for the clear lens flaring description :)

The 50mm f/1.4 Planar basically was a holder over from previous designs. It certainly is using the same design from Contax, but I would also bet it predates even that system. Other lenses in the "Classic" range like the 15mm, 21mm, and notably the 135mm f/2 APO were light years more modern. The 135mm was the last to be made for the set, and it was basically so good they didn't bother to change it at all for the Milvus line (which is the next in line as basically the same set but updated). The 50mm Milvus however finally updated the Planar's very outdated design. If you're a Classic user like me (using it for video primarily and not stills), then basically you ignore anything below f/2.8 on the 50mm Planar. As if you don't stop it down to at least f/2.8 it looks radically different from the rest of the lineup. It has severe spherochromaticism especially on bright objects (if you don't know what that is, the laymens term is "bloom" - it's just that "bloom" could mean any number of different problems) and the CA is very pronounced and purple. At f/2.8 it looks "normal" like it should and for the most part those problems disappear - and for the most part the rest of the Zeiss character comes out, such as the micro-contrast, saturation, cool tones, etc and even as noted in the video, nice boke. Unfortunately, if you need a good "regular" lens on the Zeiss Classic set, then you're more or less forced to use the 35mm f/1.4/20 or 28mm f/2.0 Hollywood (which is fine with me since 28mm is a favorite focal length) or the f/1.4 35mm Distagon. Or again, the 50mm but stopped down to at least f/2.8 to avoid the "vintage" characteristics. Honestly that's not a hardship either as for video it's rare to be shooting faster than f/2.8. Most films (as in what you see in Hollywood or TV) is all shot between f/2.8 and f/4.0 anyway. Super shallow depth of field is reserved for "effect" shots and not what f-stops are at most of the time. Other options are the 50mm f/2 Makro, but the major issue with that lens for video is that the front telescopes a lot for focusing. The Planar only does so slightly. Otherwise mixing and matching sets, and simply buy the Milvus 50mm, which is much more modernized and will likely fit is nicely with the other Zeiss Classic lenses that are more modern. Or just shoot all Milvus or Milvus/Otus for the most extremely high performing lenses.

Hi Chris. I follow your great reviews with interest. Thank you for your video on this Carl Zeiss manual focus lens. Everything you said about this lens is important and makes sense. However, I have a feeling this lens shouldn’t be rated with the same parameters as the AF lenses. Manual focus lenses are synonymous with film cameras. Images produced by those setups are something that some photographers wish their DSLRs or MILCs produced. It’s not very sharp, lacks extreme clarity but contains a smooth and cool feeling that pleases the eyes. Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 ZE T* produces those creamy images on my Canon 5D Classic and 5DII. Many of senior citizens and photographers love this feel. Following my recent purchase of this great lens, some of them are already on the lookout for one on ebay and other similar sources. Bottomline: Granted, this lens doesn’t match the performances of modern lenses. However, it inserts a nice retro feel in images that is loved by some.

I bought this one for two reasons, for my Canon body. First, my Canon 50/1.4 is not dependable and has been serviced a few times. This one is well built and probably will last a century. Second, its character colour rendition of giving a dreamy look unseen in other lenses. My Canon 50/1.4 is fine in that regard but as I said, it's not working properly all the time. If I can put in a third, it would be its undefinable character for giving soft look in portraits.

@JeremiahBostwick

2 жыл бұрын

My response is probably way too late to be relevant (heck you may have switched systems by now), but the Canon 50mm f/1.2L is a legend. It's not the sharpest lens ever made, but it produces fantastic images. That combined with the 85mm f/1.4L basically completely covers you for portraits on a Canon EF system. Unless you're a 35mm guy, and then it's all about the 35mm f/1.4L II or the 35mm f/2 IS.

Most useful review for this lens on KZread

christopher, i think that if you use this lens over a period of time, you'll buy one and use it often. i agree that in testing, it might not have the best results, but after using it for five years, it won't be disposed of. color, contrast and sharpness are all excellent. i rarely use f1.4, but also rarely stop down beyond f4. i notice very good bokeh as well. someone looked at a recent portrait and noted that the subject looked "like they are right here in the room". quite a surprising comment from a non-photographer. it's the intangible character that counts. today, all 50mm are really "acceptably sharp", but not all have character. with the otus and milvus lines firmly in place, the "classic" 50mm f1.4 might be available at palatable cost.

How would this copy compare to the Contax Zeiss version?

Hi Chris, it would be better if u mention with what camera fx or dx is the picture taken when you review the sample images as it confuses the dx audience whether same image quality can be achieved by their dx camera??

@christopherfrost

9 жыл бұрын

Akash J The rule of thumb is that, if I'm testing a full-frame lens, the sample pictures and videos I show are shot on a full-frame camera :-)

Great review Chris. Thank you.

@bird271828

9 жыл бұрын

and I had been thinking of buying this lens for a long time. I am glad I saw this review. Chris, do you think there is copy to copy variation among Zeiss lenses? That is, perhaps another copy would be better?

@christopherfrost

9 жыл бұрын

bird271828 No, I'm afraid not. Other reviews of this lens that I've seen seem to bear out my findings :-(

Does this lens change aperture when you scroll camera dial or always open aperture and close it to f number only when you take a shot?

@christopherfrost

4 жыл бұрын

It changes as you adjust the aperture dial

Great video, but I would disagree about the conclusion. The "busy" bokeh is the selling point of this lens. The concept that "good" bokeh has to be smooth is contemporary mainstream thinking influenced by corporate safe commercial projects. Alternatively(and in the past) what is also considered good bokeh is if it looks like an impressionist painting with interesting artistic pattern. So "busy" bokeh like swirly bokeh, or bubble bokeh like this Zeiss is the reason to buy this Zeiss in the first place. One might say, its not boring compared to the vast sea of butter-smooth bokeh lenses that look very sterile and interchangeable. Of course Art is all subjective, but I think there is a good reason why Art photographers and filmmakers that can afford very expensive clinical lenses use Vintage lenses for projects instead.

Are there intermediate aperture stops available for Canon version? It'll be helpful for purchase decision. The local store doesn't have the ZE version. Thanks in advance.

@n578md2

9 ай бұрын

Yes, there are.

Thanks for the great video! Shall look at the Zeiss Makro-Planar 50mm f/2.

I love watching you review.....m confused just being using Canon 70D serching for a new lens i have 50mm f1.8 stm n 18-135 but need an upgrade is there a best lens under $450??

@christopherfrost

9 жыл бұрын

Akash J Depends what you want to do. Perhaps you'd like to try some ultra wide-angle photography? The Canon 10-18 STM is fun. Or a fisheye lens, like the Samyang 8mm.

really great review thanks.....

Thanks man. Although this is a pretty old video. But this review saved me for getting this super hyped lens !

I wonder if these Zeiss lenses work better with film and were never optimized for sensors.

@joshhyyym

6 жыл бұрын

Yes. They were designed to give a nice punchy image when printed at normal printing sizes. Closely examining the lens at 1:1 magnification isn't very useful and the results don't have much of an impact on how well the lens renders scenes

@chesslover8829

Жыл бұрын

The lens is optimized for film. I have a forty year old copy that I bought new. It performed well on Kodak black and white film.

nice video sorry what do u think,which one is sharpest amd the best one between 50 classic f1.4 yours and 50 milvus new series f1.4? what is the difference for these lenses? i still confuse for buy the new lenses between nikon nano series or zeiss milvus or classic for mix with my nikon dx body,could u please to help me give some info sir? thank u very much

@christopherfrost

7 жыл бұрын

I haven't tried the new Milvus one, but it should be much, much better

At this point in history (2018) this lens cannot keep up technically with the best of the modern 50s. That said it is full of character. Knowing how and when to use it (if at all) is a function of the photographer's skill. I have a bunch of 50s including the Canon L, The Loxia, and the Zony 55/1.8. I enjoy this as much as the rest.

HOw it compare with the zeiss 55 1.8 FE? I do have techartpro +a7iii and checking on this lens to adapt, thank you.

@christopherfrost

6 жыл бұрын

The FE lens should be worlds better than this one

That was close, I was considering the Zeiss 50mm until this review. Thanks for the honesty.

@RedBagMods

4 ай бұрын

Did you buy the Samyang as per his recommendation :)

+Christopher Frost Photography can you revirw the new Zeiss milvius lenses?

Great review Chris. The F 2.0 Macro version of this 50mm ZE is much sharper and only slightly more in price.

i gonna get 60d for my frst dslr which quite cheaper around 350$ full set with no lens and SC below 10k from my local store . do you think its a good move ?

@MrKdr500

9 жыл бұрын

***** yes, good choice!

@selzerhexor

9 жыл бұрын

MrKdr500 okayyy , thank you !

Hi nice review, what do you think about Sigma 50mm Art ? what do you think is better?

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+Guido Signore The Sigma is around 11,000 times better. Check out my 50mm lens comparison video

2:01 I'm probably 3 years too late but the wobbling hood is desired. I once asked Zeiss, because the lens hood of my 28 mm Distagon and the 18 mm Distagon are wobbling too. They said, it is because at hot temperature the metal expands so the lens hoods fits and you can release the hood at hot temperature again. Otherwise it would bind on the lens.

@christopherfrost

5 жыл бұрын

Sounds to me like they simply 'hood'-winked you there hehe

@ministerstein

5 жыл бұрын

@@christopherfrost I don't know what you mean with 'hood'-winked, but it sounds negative 😁🤷🏼‍♂️

If you shoot portraits of people, especially women, you'll really appreciate the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 ZE of ZF. It really smooths out skin at the wide apertures, making face look creamy, and yet retains enough detail to look "sharp". Bokeh is very subjective, and anyone who shoots with the Rokinon 50mm F1.4 cine DS or photo knows how odd the bokeh looks on highlights - with strange hard onion ring like artifacts, so to say that bokeh rendition on the Rokinon is superb, and bokeh rendition on this Zeiss is bad is a strange opinion. I enjoy Christopher's reviews, just have to take any review with a grain of salt, as lens rendition is extremely subjective. Why do we love Pancro lenses, an ancient lens design, and this Zeiss 50mm, also a very old lens design? It's in how they render faces.

Hey chris, just curious, what is your favorite lens or lenses after all of your reviews?

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+Cyrex I'll have to think about that...I'm enjoying using the Samyang 135mm f/2 at the moment and the Samyang 50mm f/1.4, but I was also a big fan of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 'ART' :-)

@Xizmoify

8 жыл бұрын

+Christopher Frost Photography okay cool, ill have a look at those lenses :)

I would like to know what you thought about the Zeiss Milvus series

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+RAY RILEY One day or another I'll try them out

These lenses are awesome have owned a few of them.

Would be great to see a comparison of the Zeiss and your beloved Samyang showing the same image next to each other

Got this lens on canon apsc, and from 2.5/2.8 to f8( and maybe more, i didn't test) it is crazy sharp with an amazing wonderfull 3D rendering.

I bought the Zeiss 21 2.8 ZE and sure its expensive. But the image quality beats everything I tried before, and im a professional photographer. Can u do a review on that lens for fun? I want your input. Cheers

Thanks for the nice review, Can you compare it to the canon 1.4?

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+Joseph Fouad I'm working on a big video comparing many different 50mm lenses.

In the APS-C section of the comparison it still says Full-Frame :)

Oh, this lens should really shine in nude photography!!!

Pretty surprising. I own a Sony A7R with two Zeiss lenses and both are very impressive, better than anything I' ve ever seen before actually.

Maybe the unit you have is fake ? Did you get it straight from the distributor ( official store ) or from ebay ?

@MrKdr500

9 жыл бұрын

Navi Retlav Yeah! it's fake....it's pretending to be a good lens. :p

Nice review, telling it like you found it. If you are prepared to put up with manual focussing then a vintage 50mm is perhaps a good option. I have a wee Olympus Zuiko f1.8 that does a great job for about £20 on my Canon 600D.

@christopherfrost

9 жыл бұрын

periurban I'm testing out the Helios 55-2 f/2 at the moment...a very interesting lens indeed! :-)

@periurban

9 жыл бұрын

Christopher Frost Photography I had that one for a while. My copy was pretty soft with lots of chromatic fringing, but I still managed one or two good shots.

@vv977

9 жыл бұрын

Christopher Frost Photography it would be very interesting to see your review of that lens :)

A reviewer wrote of this lens, "There are (back in 2014) 165 user reviews on B&H Photo for the 50mm f/1.4. The average rating? 5 out of 5 stars." He further writes, "..Some lenses have a unique combination of color, contrast, and “drawing” that makes them special. This lens is one of them." Sure, it may not have met the regular benchmarks but I have seen some good pics from this lens with that X factor pleasing awesomeness. I think they are all optimised differently by its maker to balance out many things.

@christopherfrost

4 жыл бұрын

It's down to 4 1/2 stars now, and even that's not very impressive considering the majority of lenses on b&h seem to be rated 5 stars

@melodychest9020

2 жыл бұрын

@@christopherfrost Coming back to this lens and watching your review again, I feel this is probably more of a cine lens that a photgraphic lens. Has a long focus pull that cine people like I think. In 2021 still selling for a high price on Amazon and you are right about Samyang!

This is my favourite fast fifty and by a long shot. Great focus Feel and amazing colour and bokeh.

Great review! Wow, what a lackluster performance. I guess if you want an expensive but nice 50mm f1.4, just get the Sigma Art lens.

@ykscjv

9 жыл бұрын

***** Do not blame Zeiss. They have several product lines. The ZE is on market for the ones that like that old-style bokeh, most of the time filmmakers. They're not intended to have amazing technical performance. However, the Otus line has the best optical performance, best bokeh and amazing contrast. Search on KZread and also check DxOMark. If I'm not mistaken, the Otus 55mm f/1.4 is about US$3,500.00 (they also have a 85mm and probably the 35mm is coming).

@smaakjeks

9 жыл бұрын

Victor Jucosky That's way too much money compared to what you get, IMO. I'd rather spend that money on a trip to somewhere cool than on a *manual focus* lens that maybe performs slightly better than the Sigma, if you crop at 100% (which almost nobody does).

@ykscjv

9 жыл бұрын

***** Totally agree with you, but, as you said, if you want an expensive 50mm f/1.4, where price isn't a concern, I'd pick the Otus...

@smaakjeks

9 жыл бұрын

Victor Jucosky Oh, okay. Yeah, if someone gave me a 50mm, I'd rather they give me the Otus. Then I would sell it and buy the Sigma or Canon. :P Manual focus on f1.4? You kidding me?

@smaakjeks

9 жыл бұрын

***** Sigma and Tamron manage to retro-engineer the focus motors to be compatible with Canon and Nikon gear, as I understand it. But yeah, it is annoying. I agree with everything you write herein. :-)

you should look at the voigtlander lenses

Chris, can you find and review really great Zeiss lenses? 25mm F2 (and less quality F2.8), Zonnar 135/2.8 (one of the best in the world)... And even 21/2.8 and others? This 50mm was worse of that line, but good from F2 and up...

My personal experience is that nice color is the only positive point.

Had it, sold it. Bokeh is jittery at close focus wide open. Bought a 50 makro planar and 50L. sold the 50L and bought a milvus 50 1.4.. I just wish one them had AF

Again one more very nice reviews of yours, Christopher. Thanks. Zeiss... expensive, but this one seems like a failure. I guess they cannot produce a good lens cheaper than 2K $. It seems that Zeiss has a problematic R&D and production line which renders Zeiss lenses always expensive. They need to consult to Samyang, Tamron and Sigma! :) :) :)

The characteristics of Planar optics are very soft at full open , if you step down to 2.8 or 4.0, they will become very sharp. But at full open, it is very soft and very hard for focusing.

Lol xP kinda hard to forget this lens ever happened since most 50mm nowadays are based on this design. The optics are an old design so you're meant to get a different experience xP there're definitely limitations tho.

@TheJudge064

5 жыл бұрын

Exactly, a lens released in 2008 is way to old to be relevant now isn't it? The base might be the old planar, but you can add other elements got further correction too. This is a totally fair comparison.

Good review, thank you. My Helios 44m old copy seem to be better almost in every possible aspect, costs around 40 Euros on Ebay.

@christopherfrost

9 жыл бұрын

Dani Timo The Helios will be sharper than this lens in the middle of its images, but softer in the corners (those Helios corners are crazy soft)

Dude, can you please review Zeiss Milvus lenses?

@christopherfrost

6 жыл бұрын

Maybe one day....I'm getting way too busy these days

Here's a guy who tested thousands of lenses but has no idea of why people love this lens and what makes it great. It's also a reflection of the super sharp, dull and boring sterile look that photography has evolved into. Now lens manufacturers all aim for this, because there's demand. The era of lenses as unique tools, just like brushes for a painter, is gone. Almost all lenses provide the same aesthetic, super complex designs, over corrected, completely sterile and boring.

@sheldonmurphy6031

3 ай бұрын

Sounds just as delusional as christianity. You are probably both, and the kind of person who believes your that your sky daddy can beat up everyone elses sky daddies! 😂

IMHO very similar performance to SMC Pentax M 50 1.4. It costs less than hundred bucks. In Pentax also present some CA even stopped down but it not affected by flare. Just some contrast loss on direct light and barely visible flare. But bokeh also same as Zeiss. Cause Pentax used Planar scheme. And I like it.

@gitithadani

7 жыл бұрын

the pentax smc that I have is very sharp and I prefer it to the zeiss

@vmv911

7 жыл бұрын

The super takumar i had the one that is radioactive - is pure garbage. It is nothing to compare to zeiss. This is also stupid to compare this type of lens to the modern plastic ones that sell for 100 bucks. The new plastic ones are sharp as razor - but they look too unnatural, they render image as being dead. These zeiss lenses are a gem. The people who really appreciates them are those looking for an alive image with character. Not the plastic feel of the modern lens

@cladiax1

6 жыл бұрын

vmv911 the super Takumar is garbage, you should have gotten the SMC Takumar, or the SMC p-A or p-A, they all use a similar optical formula

please check the 35mm zeiss f2

When you focus at door at 1.4 then don't look at the far corners of the frame. Apparently, they will be out of focus. 1.4 is the very very small depth of field like 5-6 eyelashes! not even just a human eye. I use a cheap Nikon 1.8d lens and it gives a similar result. Zeiss is 8 times costly and delivers just 2 times better results.

I saw some sample photos where the bokeh was much nicer. Maybe the examples are not well taken and the editing is not good.

People need to stop getting caught up in Bokeh and sharpness. Us serious photographers don't give a shit about it. What matters is character of a lens. If you got the talent then you will know how to work around weaknesses in your equipment. No matter what lens you get it will have weaknesses no matter how much money you spend. I never understood why anyone would want to ever shoot wide open, especially at f1.4.

I like that kind of bokeh, sometimes. If it would be possible to change the bokeh of my 85 1.4 samyang to this hard edgy stuff (save and reversible) i would use it sometimes. depends on the ocassion. But i dislike just everything else except the design and built. Your review made me actually think, watching Z-Nation : "oh, thats the bad zeiss they are using!!! jellyfish-flare!!!!". Then i thought..... i went full geek...

This lens looks great on film, mostly because film renders a much softer image while keeping a nice contrast in your images. On digital it looks awful ! I might by it just too shoot it on a film body.

@christopherfrost

5 жыл бұрын

I'll take your word for it

Need the otus 85 review

@TheEquinoxeHD

9 жыл бұрын

Ashley Nadin O yeah. I need to know why is it so expensive and is it really worth so much

@Topbuzzr

9 жыл бұрын

Because Its the best

@JoeJacksonJr

9 жыл бұрын

Ashley Nadin The word is that Sigma is working on a 85mm Art. Pretty sure it will not out perform the Otus. But can't wait to see how it will compare.

Good job getting that close to a swarm of angry bees.

So thumbs down then. Lol. Great review as always, Chris.

You all care about sharpness too much. I own this lens and I love it. The photos it takes are beautiful. Also, the build quality is higher than anything I have ever used, and I do own a few L lenses. Plus, the focus ring is the nicest I have ever used. It is a joy to use.

@redtails

9 жыл бұрын

XShoman the bokeh looked weird on it

@shobrotv

9 жыл бұрын

+redtails It's more of a unique touch. I have shot some portraits and I actually love the bokeh. It can be a little odd when shooting complicated backgrounds.

@redtails

9 жыл бұрын

XShoman I'm sceptical. When I'm doing portraits I want the background to disappear into a sea of colours, I don't want edges in it. To each their own

@shobrotv

9 жыл бұрын

+redtails I totally understand. I guess I just like a little difference. It's mainly just personal preference. =)

@christopherfrost

9 жыл бұрын

XShoman To each their own :-)

There seems to be quite a few zeiss fanboys annoyed about you disliking the bokeh of this lens. Reminds me of the people who have managed to convince themself that the bokeh of the canon 50mm f1.0 looks good while it's clear that the bokeh of the 1.2 looks far better.

Great Review as usual! Might want to fix the 60D, "Full Frame", 18 Megapixel.

@christopherfrost

9 жыл бұрын

Eric Benitez Hmm yes! That's obviously just there to test how eagle-eyed my subscribers are *ahem*

@Oroc54321

9 жыл бұрын

Lol, and thats how it should be!

This is an OK lens...but the name definitely plays into the price.

LOLLL radioactive jellyfish

I think it's not fair to say Zeiss 50 1.4 is totally crap, since most shooter may only consider this Len for its unique colour. If u want to test Zeiss' optical tech, u should test its flagship lens, 55 1.4, instead of this cost-down one.

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+Terry Cheng I'm being completely fair. In terms of colour rendition this lens is no different from any good quality 50mm lens. And £500-£600 is not 'cost-down'.

you have to make sure that it is not a fake one made in China. Yes, you heard me. You can get a very cheap one which costs less than $100 from second handed market in China.

Christopther Frost, really I like your videos. But this review leave me scratching my head. The reason being, this lens has been reviewed thousand of times and you are giving your own sauce to it. This lens has been around for a decade or so. You pointed out all weaknesses and flaws this lens has to offer. However these limitations make images look beautiful with when the lens is being used right. (eg portraits and still live) Most lenses need to be stopped down by a stop or two to ensure that the subject stays in focus while shooting handheld. Stopping down is nothing to worry about. Don't be fooled by the Zeiss Milvus 50, Sigma FART 50 or any high-element count lenses. Yes they are sharper from wide open are but the same time they lose details in the light. Also they are more expensive too.

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+Oliver Lison I know what you're saying - that ultimately the look and character of a lens is subjective, and I agree with you about that - I know that some people really like this lens. But at the end of the day, if you buy an f/1.4 lens it ought to provide good image quality at f/1.4. If someone doesn't need an f/1.4 lens then they could simply get an f/2 or f/2.8 lens instead

@oliverlison7642

8 жыл бұрын

+Christopher Frost Photography I can understand you as well from the technical point of view. It is sold as f1.4, it is soft and for many people simply put disappointing wide open. We also need to understand that there is no lens that is perfect and seek the advantages of the product we choose to work with. You know that better than I do because a lot lenses have gone through your hands. Zeiss ZF.2 50mm 1.4 soft wide open but allows time to think about the images when they are created. It isn't shoot 'n pray and hoping one image will turn out satisfactory. Metal-built Canon / Nikon 50mm 1.4 / 1.8 plastic fantastic, feels cheap, is cheap, but IQ is decent for that price. If you break it, get a new one. Sigma Art 50mm 1.4 optically maybe the best lens out of the pack above. But AF accuracy is not the best as reported across the internet. Price-wise the lens might break the bank.

@gitithadani

7 жыл бұрын

I agree - also there are several old manual lenses that would out perform and also have more character (takumar). Personally prefer the zeiss jena pancolar 50mm/1.8 to the above and for bokeh the helios 44-2

@sternschnupper

7 жыл бұрын

i totally understand the reasons to prefer the pancolar, which is a great lens, and has very smooth bokeh. and it all comes down to taste, myself by far preferring the planar 50 1.4 (old contax version) exaclty for it's difficult but more interesting bokeh (and the punchier colors). extra love also for the helios 44-2: incredible subtle micro contrast, for it's price simply everybody shouid own one!

wow the vignetting is really high

I had a copy and sold it within weeks of owning it, I really didn't like the bokeh and the transitions from soft to sharp areas of the frame, just not smooth. The older Contax Carl Zeiss is the opposite of this lens.

The sigma 50 1.4 is way better very surprising.

thank you! you just saved me 500$ Excellent review as always

mann that shi***** shapness.. that is why that lens so cheap.. nice review :)

Thanks for the review, but the Bokeh of this Zeiss Lens is amazing and it have a special character.

1.4 for use with 5.6 and low!

this lens is more of a VIDEO lens and not really purchased for photography. In the Cine-World this lens is #1.

@christopherfrost

6 жыл бұрын

I'm not sure many people would agree with that!

radioactive jellyfish lens

good lens and lots character for this lens. Zeiss lenses make for Art not tech savvy.

In the beginning you can see there is something black huge in the lense 1/4 of the lense is blocked

The lens says "planar" but the bokeh screams "sonnar"!

Well CF i can only tell you that this 50mm 1.4 is a much bigger STAR then you my friend lol its been used in many professional bags, it's been used on and in many professional applications maybe not youtube lol but the pictures and videos i've seen with this lens has a far differant creative and much warmer yet natural look then the Samyang lol yes it's a much newer lens so Hello! most newer lens are sharper today but sharp will never be a substitute for true character Chris smh sharp imagery can actually hinder the distinctive character of a lens my friend. I would have thought you knew this by now lol. Stay blessed

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+Michael Mystro Pierce I love your "Stay blessed" at the end, like that warm wish somehow counteracts all your bitterness and rudeness in the rest of the comment! Well when it comes to lenses, each to their own - if this lens makes you happy then great.

@town3

8 жыл бұрын

Christopher Frost Photography lol Ok Chris you kinda got me on the end comment lol but for the record lol bitterness isn't a good word to use either, i would say i just disagree with your overall conclusion and made it clear thats all. again have a blessed day and i really mean it Chris.

@christopherfrost

8 жыл бұрын

+Michael Mystro Pierce I don't use the word 'bitterness' to try and insult you - your bitterness and rudeness is just clear from what you write! Anyway, I'm glad you've found a lens that works for you. All the best to you

@town3

8 жыл бұрын

lol ok Chris i didn't say you used it in that manner but hey cool, have a great one

@EchelonDelta9

8 жыл бұрын

+Michael Mystro Pierce lol feedback lol, constructive lol - sarcasm lol

As far as I know, this "Zeiss" lens is not made by any german Zeiss company, instead it's made by Cosina, a japanese company, the same which many years ago made the Nikon FM-10... If you want really "Made in Germany" Zeiss lenses, you have to look carefully for them.... Nothing against japanese manufacturers, it's just this lens isn't made in Germany and I would say it doesn't perform as we could wish.... I hope this can be helpful.

Vewy Vewy intewesting..

This is the single video I unsubscribed from this guy.

wow, just wow... I am VERY DISAPPOINTED.... You are right, lets forget that this lens ever happened. Looks like Sigma 50mm is sharper at 1.4 than this lens at 5.6... I'm shocked...

@arashi9469

4 жыл бұрын

"Let's forget that this lens ever happened"? Are you kidding? This is one of the most legendary lenses since the 70s, everyone tried to copy it's design, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, have you even used one?

@chesslover8829

Жыл бұрын

@@arashi9469 I have. My copy is 41 years old. I used it with film only, namely Kodak Kodachrome 25 and Plus-X. The Zeiss 50mm f1.4 out performed the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 of that time period in terms of sharpness, color saturation and temperature (warm), contrast, and detail. The only lens better was Leica's Summilux and Summicron. Nowadays, lenses are made using computer-aided design and manufacturing. So the Zeiss Planar might be a little dated but it won't produce clinically boring images.

This guy didn't know about old lens

This guy really did't know about old lens, shame

This performance is very disappointing for the price they are asking.