What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Zeiss 85/1.4 - Is it hard to focus?

> "what are some of the problems and experiences people have had?"

I use the 85/1.4 routinely, and have no problem getting critical focus wide open...if I'm paying close attention to my technique. I move my body forward and backwards to get critical focus, and try to brace not only the camera, but my body, in such a way that I am stable as to not effect focus as best I can. In some shots, I don't get what I wanted, but in most I do. I also have the 100/2, and don't find it any more difficult to focus, but I prefer the 85/1.4.

There are basically two Contax lenses I use the most, the 85/1.4 and the 35/1.4. If I had to pick only two to have, those two would be them, unquestionably.

Regards,

Austin
 
The 85 and poor light is a tough combination, it's not the sharpest lens wide open even if you hit the focus perfectly. I've pretty much given up using the split image, microprism "focus aids". The matte area just off center works better for me, your milage may vary.....
The softness can really work to your advantage though, it evens out skin tones, makes for a more pleasant picture. The 85 has the nicest bokeh, soft focus whatever you want to call it of any lens I've used. Critical areas such as the eyes, lips, and hair can be selectively sharpened in any competent editing program. Facial pores really need little sharpening ; )

Joe W
 
Joe,

I also find the ground-glass matte to be ideal for softer subjects like portraits. In fact, I'm thinking about switching the screen on my Aria: when you don't want the split-image rangefinder, it really gets in the way.
 
Yeah, I'll second those comments about the ground glass. When I replaced my sadly-demised RTS body with an RTS II, the new camera came with a matte grid screen. I was planning to change it to a diagonal split, which is what I had on the old camera, but after a few shooting sessions I decided not to bother. The matte area is great for focusing the fast lenses and the grid is a surprisingly big help during composition.
 
Hi Joe,

> The 85 and poor light is a tough combination, it's not the sharpest > lens wide open even if you hit the focus perfectly.

That is pretty much opposite of my experience. I find because this is an SLR, and the max aperture of the lense is what dictates how dim the viewfinder is, the 85/1.4 is far easier to focus in low light situations than most any other lense for this camera, but I have no experience with the 1.2. I also find it quite sharp at 1.4...and the MTF charts for this lense seem to confirm my experience, and show it's actually better than the 50/1.4 is wide open. BTW, the 85/1.4 is one of the highest rated lenses by photodo...with a "grade" of 4.6.

> I've pretty much > given up using the split image, microprism "focus aids".

As you said, your mileage may vary...and I find the split image with a microprism collar works great for me!

Regards,

Austin
 
Austin is right that the lens does have one of the best overall scores on Photodo, and it holds its own at f/1.4 compared to other fast lenses, but you still have to be reaslistic about the level of sharpness you expect wide open.

I recently posted some ex&le images to Photo.net that illustrate the level of softness this lens can produce at full whack. Have a look at the following page (search for the words "glowing reports" and you'll get straight to the images):

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005xik

The crops are reduced to 25% from the original scan and still the softness is very evident. The aggregate Photodo score for the 85 at f/1.4 is 0.63, which is to say roughly 60% contrast remains on average at that aperture. Compare that with the approx 85% contrast available between f/2.8 and f/8, and you can see that this lens is far from its best wide open. However, the wide aperture does make it a doddle to focus accurately when you're stopping down a bit, as Austin says.

If I'm plan to shoot at full aperture and I want sharpness, I actually prefer to use my Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. Although it's not quite as fast as the Contax, it's considerably more punchy. Alternatively I'd use the Canon 135 f/2 which is _really_ punchy at f/2. I've heard great things about the equivalent Contax lens, so that might be a good alternative for those who don't use Canon gear, although I don't know anything about its wide-open performance specifically.

HTH

-= mike =-

PS. The first message in that Photo.net thread contains another ex&le image from the 85, showing how shallow the DOF is at full aperture at head-and-shoulders portrait range.
 
Hi Mike,

> If I'm plan to shoot at full aperture and I want sharpness, I actually > prefer to use my Canon EF 85mm f/1.8. Although it's not quite as fast > as the Contax, it's considerably more punchy.

How does it compare to the Contax 85/1.4 at 1.8?

> Alternatively I'd use > the Canon 135 f/2 which is _really_ punchy at f/2. I've heard great > things about the equivalent Contax lens, so that might be a good > alternative for those who don't use Canon gear, although I don't know > anything about its wide-open performance specifically.

I have both the Canon 135/2 and the Contax 135/2. Though the Canon is a fantastic lense, the Contax 135/2 is the best of the best. It is a superb lense at 2, and equally as superb anwhere else. There is a reason it is one of the most expensive Zeiss Contax lenses out there...

Regards,

Austin
 
>>Alternatively I'd use the Canon 135 f/2 which is _really_ punchy at f/2. I've heard great things about the equivalent Contax lens, so that might be a good alternative for those who don't use Canon gear, although I don't know anything about its wide-open performance specifically. <<

Though I respect Austin's opinion and love the 135 myself, I'm not crazy about it at f2...it really does much better at f4 and shines exceptionally beyond f5.6.

I don't know that I've encountered any Zeiss lenses that I find worth shooting wide open --though I'm speaking mainly of handheld shooting and lenses longer than 50mm, which are what I mainly shoot with. In general, the type of shooting I do with 35mm makes it too much bother to open up beyond f2.8 or so...the paper thin depth of field is a big issue without a tripod and with my subjects moving...for concerts and evening portraits/candids, blowing the focus is much more likely for me than the lack of sharpness wide open.

The "punchiest" lenses I've had a chance to use at f2 or wider are the Contax 85mm 1.2 (very sharp at f2, decent at f1.4) and a Nikon 105mm f2 DC...but again, acknowledging it may be my technique or bad eyesight, I find it a bit of a tightrope act trying to nail focus with my subjects at such wide apertures.

I do prize these lenses when shooting events outdoors as daylight turns into evening, as their speed does allow for reasonable shutter speeds to be maintained, and they provide better color and contrast relative to other lenses I have, even if the sharpness or focus is slightly off as the light grows rapidly dimmer.

Besides sharpness, there are very nice selective focus and blurred background effects that can be gained shooting at wider apertures, of course. But when I want that type of look (and I have some control over how much my subjects move!) I'm much more likely to use medium or large format.
 
Hi, thanks for all the input! To clarify a little bit more. I intend to do three things with the 85/1,4. Shoot candid portraits, indoor low-light concerts, meetings, etc, and astrophotography. The 1.4 is only critical for smaller DOF for portraits, higher shutter speeds for indoor, and a larger useable aperture for astro stuff (like 2.8). My question is, is the 85/2.8 better served for these purposes, or is the 1.4 really worth the stretch?

For ex&le, is a 1.4 DOF really much, much more than 2.8 at 3-5m subjects?

Does the softness at 1.4 detract from images? Or is camera shake more of an issue? (Say 1/60 @ 1.4, and 1/15 @ 2.8.

Is the image of the 1.4 at 2.8 really better then 2.8 in terms of sharpness, coma, chromatic aberrations and the other seidel aberrations?

Thanks so much!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top