Sure, the FoV on the 50mm is going to be narrower, but, I generally would not shoot them the same way, so this is really a bit irrelevent, just like one lens being 1/3 of a stop faster than the other. Personally, I don't believe the two lenses can be compared directly one is a "normal" lens and the other is a moderate wide angle, so two totally different photographic roles. the Zeiss branded Sony lenses need to be excluded from this discussion). both key reasons why people buy Zeiss (n.b. It will have the impeccable mechanical construction and almost surgical crispness.
Ptgui pro vs regular manual#
Zeiss contracted out the small lens production a number of years ago but It is a low production volume product and being manual focus, with a high price, means limited demand. The f/1.4 35mm Zeiss is actually built by Cosina in Japan for Zeiss (to a Zeiss design and to Zeiss specs). I would expect the less expensive lenses to have better performance throughout the slower apertures for this reason. A f/1.2 lens, with it's large light gathering capabilities is going to have to bend the light at its edges quite accutely, and that will require a complex design to minimize aberations, and my guess is that shooting wide open would have drive a lot of the associated design decisions. The f/1.2 Canon is a low light lens, (1/3 stop faster than a f/1.4) so we need to realize that this is primarily a low light / shallow depth of field lens and was quite frankly designed to be shot wide open (otherwise, one could opt for the far less expensive f/1.4 or f/1.8 versions). It all goes to prove that photography is both a science (which is measurable) and an art (which cannot be measured).
However, that might be enjoyable to other photographers. although I skipped the Canon EOS film cameras and remained with the manual focus Canon A-1 and its FD lenses until I switched over to digital, I would not want to revert back to manual focus. However, I suspect that every photographer would not agree with my assessment of that lens. I really like the way my 12-24mm Tokina f/4 Mk-1 renders an image. I suspect though, that liking or disliking the "way" the lens renders an image is up to some subjective decision making and may not be considered the same in the opinion of all photographers. Why not also look at the 55mm f1.4 OTUS?Doubtless, some lenses have a "way" of rendering an image that cannot be covered by tests and is only noticeable in "real life" shooting. Zeiss glass has a 'look' to it and only you can decide if its worth the money. Test can mean very little these days and can't define the way a lens renders an image. Is there a buying decision in the works, or is this simply a thought experiment?
One need not be forced to choose between the two. There's a reason basically everyone has both 50mm and 35mm focal length equivalents in their kit. Or the 50 was more expensive, and you couldn't afford it. Or perhaps the wider lens separates the subject from the background that little bit more. A 35 gets you the necessary field of view when a 50 is just a bit too long. 50mm comparison, that's as old as photography. Getting the "look" without painstaking post work.Īs far as the 35mm vs.
As you said, sharpness is probably too close to be distinguished in the real world.Īs I see it, there are a few reasons (in no particular order) one might choose the Zeiss. Zeiss lenses do have a "look" that quite a few people admire, but I strongly suspect one could approximate it fairly well with careful color adjustment. On the other hand, the Zeiss's full-time manual focus is also impractical in many cases. One needs a static or very slow-moving subject. So is there any reason to buy the more expensive Zeiss?Shooting a two-shot panorama is frequently impractical. Additionally, you could take two shots side by side with the 50mm and stitch them together using a panorama program, such as the very reasonably priced PTGUI or Adobe Photoshop, and obtain a wider FOV than using the 35mm alone.