Why buy Zeiss lenses for Canon DSLRs?

[zwarte_kat]

Why would one want to buy Zeiss lenses for Canon DSLRs when Canons lenses cost the same or less, and have AF ?

Is it because of the quality? Does anyone have a source that says/shows the quality is better? I am mainly looking for a semi-wide to wide lens for shooting a movie on a crop sensor DSLR (Rebel 550d), and was wondering if a Zeiss might somehow give a better image. Do they have any specific characteristics?

 

[Spyro]

ZE are gourmet lenses for connoisseurs
Seriously, there are differences but it depends what you're comparing. Not all ZE lenses are better than EF, and not better in all respects. Generally the wider you go the crappier Canon gets, so there is a benefit there, but not so much for crop sensors.

Also I dont think you'd have much fun manual focusing through a crop camera's VF.

 

[bobby_novatron]

Good question -- I have wondered the same thing. Also, the Zeiss glass isn't cheap.

I think that certain Zeiss lenses and formulations are legendary (the 50mm F2 and the 28mm F2.8 come to mind), but other models are more controversial.

I did a quick internet search a few days ago, looking for Zeiss lens reviews for Canon mount. The information I found was useful -- not all Zeiss lenses are stellar on Canon EOS mount. If you do your own search, you'll see what I mean.

That being said, I love my Zeiss lenses for my Leica M-mount.

 

[gavinlg]

They're pretty different to Canon EF lenses. As Spyro said, they're not better than canon EF lenses in all respects, but are markedly better in others.

Standout Zeiss ZEs are 21mm f2.8 distagon, 50mm f2 makro-planar and 100mm f2 makro-planar, which are the probably the best lenses you can buy for SLR from any brand, anywhere.

The rest are generally better than nikon/canon lenses at equivalent focal lengths - for instance a zeiss 35mm f2 distagon requires much less sharpening at equiv apertures as a canon 35mm f1.4L. I know because I've owned them both. Photos from the zeiss will be subtly more contrasty, with deeper colors and a more pronounced '3d effect' in some instances. The build quality of the Zeiss's makes Canon L lenses look almost disposable.
This is repeatable with all the zeiss lenses compared to canon equivalents, not including the 50mm f1.4 planar and 85mm f1.4 planar - which are more 'special use' lenses, optimized to be sharp wide open at medium to long distances whilst getting softer as focussing distance gets closer.
On the flipside, manual focussing with DSLRs isn't anywhere near as easy as with old SLRs...

For movie use especially, they're much better. The reason why is that the focusing ring is butter smooth and perfectly weighted, when canon ef AF lenses have about as much feel as moving a stick around in a bag of rice.

It's important to note that to get the most out of them, you need a full frame camera with a manual focus screen like a 5d with EE-S screen. I wouldn't want to use them on a crop camera with the small viewfinder.

 

[dfatty]

here's a simple comparison between a zeiss and canon macro that i found informative:
http://tinyurl.com/455ufmx
between these two lenses, there seems to be a noticeable difference in the images produced (microcontrast). not sure how that would translate to film use, but i remember seeing this comparison and finally getting a sense of why zeiss's are different. i imagine this would also apply to their wider lenses, which seem to be pretty popular among canon folk.

 

[gavinlg]

here's a simple comparison between a zeiss and canon macro that i found informative:
http://tinyurl.com/455ufmx
between these two lenses, there seems to be a noticeable difference in the images produced (microcontrast). not sure how that would translate to film use, but i remember seeing this comparison and finally getting a sense of why zeiss's are different. i imagine this would also apply to their wider lenses, which seem to be pretty popular among canon folk.

That's a good illustrative comparison. The 100L is a very good lens too, just no match for the makro-planar.