Sharpness Test: Zeiss Planar vs. Fuji 55mm vs. Yashica 50mm
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- In this video, I do a quick sharpness test between the following three prime lenses:
1) Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4
2) Fujinon 55m f1.8
3) Yashica 50mm f1.9
To keep the conditions as close as possible, all footage was shot on Canon 6D from a distance of exactly 4.5 feet from Elmo.
Shutter speeds were kept the same for each aperture setting.
My apologies to the photo of Fujinon 55mm at f1.8. I had to redo the photo at a slightly later time due to a faulty SD card which caused more shadow to show up on the background. But the idea is still the same.
Fujinon M42 to EF adapter: fotodioxpro.co...
Yashica CY to EF adapter: fotodioxpro.co...
Yev Zakharov
You hit the nail on the head with this test regarding the use of lenses wide open. But I really didn't expect the the planar still couldn't hold up at f1.8. They often say the best 1.8 lens is a 1.4, well the fujinon blew it away. I have quite an arsenal of legacy lenses and will def get my hands on the fujinon and yashica, thank you for this test!
I have the yash 50 1.9 and is sure sharp with a swirly bokeh like the helios 44
Your review is one of the better side by side lens analysis I've seen. You have focused on "sharpness" which is what the video is about. However lens character is very important. I can give up 'razor sharpness' for character for 70 percent of my photography. If I need it I would probably say get the Zeiss and one of the Yashica or Fuji lenses for that situation where sharpness is an important part of the photograph. Thanks for posting!
This is confirmation of what I knew back in the 80's actually with film photography. Japanese equipment ruled in quality and price. In all electronics really.
Great comparison that don't steals your time. Love the next to each other visualization.
Thanks!
Nice comparison between the three lenses, really helped having the side by side images as well
Would be interesting to compare the Zeiss Planar to the C\Y mount Contax branded Zeiss lenses.
In the '70's I remember reading a "serious - not just hawking equipment" article about the differences between Japanese and German lenses. The article came down to the fact that German lenses were more "contrasty" than the Japanese and in a side by side test Nikon lenses were sharper than Zeiss...
I've found that my Yashica 50 1.9 is one of my sharpest vintage lens. Superb in feel and image quality
The ML is a fantastic lens and in my opinion easily rivals the Zeiss glass.....especially those nice early radioactive gold ML lenses.
@@Caylus1578 do you think the yashica ML is better than CZ contax lenses?
@@davidvalens3337 Have to admit, that I would part with my CZ before I would part with my ML.....the build quality of the ML is far superior to that of the CZ. My ML is one of the early bayonet versions and my CZ was overhauled and serviced a few years back so both are in excellent condition. Always amuses me when comparissons are made using lenses that have not be internally cleaned in 30/40 years. Both of mine are ace condition.
@@Caylus1578 so you think that an ml lenses if cleaned and services is still superior to cz lenses cleaned and serviced?
I found many vintage older lens that have aperture around F1.4 is always softer compared to F1.8/1.9 ones on wide open... mine also Fujinon 55 F1.8 EBC, soft on wide (especially if the focus off just a bit) but still retain sharpness very well, at F4, it's become super sharp, that so sharp that even 26MP body still able resolve so much detail.
Great video! It would have been nice to see differences in flare control, which would likely be a big deciding factor for most folks.
I have a 55mm f/1.4 Sears Auto lens which was made by Tomioka for Sears Roebuck. It is an exquisite lens with great sharpness and a lovely rendering...
The's same PLANAR formula.
I had that one too at one time but it couldnt stop down or get to infinity in my canon 600d. But i had fun with it at wide open.
You just made my day...I just bought a Contax RTS lll with a Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.4 T* in perfect dust free condition for $70.00.
How did you manage to get that great of a deal!?
Funny you should mention that the color-contrast scheme between the Zeiss and Yashica are so similar. They have a strong connection via the CONTAX line of lenses (that's the C in the C/Y mount). Zeiss and Yashica made lenses for each other. The ML line of Yashica lenses are said to be very close in IQ to the Contax/Zeiss T line of lenses.
That's interesting! I never knew that Yashica and Zeiss worked together. It makes a lot of sense though. Both lenses are great. I use an old 135mm f/2.8 prime Yashica sometimes and it produces amazing results.
It should be no surprise that the Zeiss & Yashica lenses share similarities. Back in the late 1970's Carl Zeiss ( a lens manufacturer) had the rights to the old "Contax" name - a pre WWII German camera company. Zeiss contracted with Yashica to build a "new" modern and quite exquisite camera body under the Contax name. The camera would provide a mount that both Zeiss AND Yashica lenses of the 1980's era would share. The top of the line was the Contax RTS, with two less expensive bodies also available - the 139 & 159. Beautifully designed, great ergonomics, and state of the art electronics. I'm sure there was also lens technology shared between the two companies, which would certainly explain any similarities.
During this time frame, I invested into the Contax system, buying both the 139's and 159's along with Zeiss and Yashica ML lenses. If I didn't take notes while shooting I could not tell the difference in prints between the two brands.
It has always baffled me why Yashica was never able to attract US buyers like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta of the day. I owned a few Yashica's early in my career, and they were every bit as functional, sturdy & well-built as the other Japanese greats.
One last insert here - Among my purchases at the time were the Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon and 85/1.4 Sonnar lenses. Exactly what you would expect from Zeiss, BUT...as you indicated, at f1.4 each lens was noticeably unsharp, quite unusable. But stopped down to 2.8, they truly shined.
I was just checking the first full pictures again, but it looks like you mist focus on de zeiss lens. If you look at the place Elmo is sitting on, you can definitly see that you focused a bit closer on de zeiss lens (so not on his face/eyes) as the other 2 lenses. Pretty important with a small depth of field 1.4 i geuss. I was watching the footage to see if my old Yashica 50mm 1.7 is worth using again, and it looks like i will buy an adapter soon :D. Thanks for the video.
Right. This experiment was carried out with an error!
Sharpness is note everything. There are sooo many cheap sharp 50mm lenses out there, but so few of them have great colors, microcontrast, neutral native white balance and the 3D pop is unique to Zeiss. If you want sharpness - the choice is vast, but if you want everything else in the package too - only few lenses can provide it. A lens is always a set of compromises. Try MC Pentacon 50/1.8 - you'll be surprised how sharp it is! In certain situations it beats all the other 50mm lenses out there. But it has many disadvantages of its own.
I usually say "You get what you get; You pay what you pay" (and I don't agree with the common "You get what you pay for"! I really like the way you think, and I just subscribed.
Good informative video Yev, thanks for taking the time to do this. I am a big fan of cheaper old lenses and think they can outdo quite a lot of the more expensive overhyped ones. Not always but often enough to make me use them. :)
Paul Snaith thanks for your comment! I catch myself going back to these old lenses, time and time again! Especially when doing video clips; their focus throw is very smooth and long.
You're welcome. The way I look at it is this too. If you save all that money buying a cheap but great old lens, that saved money can go towards other things like.....photography excursions :)
Fujinon was my favorite here
It's not a Zeiss, it's a Cosina. The ZE line of classic lenses were made by Cosina.
Woow, I notice , suddenly there is a craze for vintage lenses for the mirrorless , indeed
it happened to be the case when M43 introduced to the world, like some what more than a decade ago?
Nice video thanks. This illustrates a good point ... it is easier to make high quality lens at smaller aperture, here in case 50ish mm f1.4 vs f2. The camera manufacturers market the sh**t out of the large aperture lenses and charge a disproportionately high price for the little quality of gain if any (I bet they did this during the vintage era as well). True, large aperture lens, like for like, can give "bigger, blurrier" bokeh, but that is only from the fact that they are more out of focus at the larger aperture at any given background distance from the subject. An experience photographer can easily make up for "that bokeh" by extending the distance of the subject from the background. In the process, they may actually see that the smaller aperture lens can generate a "nicer" bokeh. Oh yeah, and let us not forget, there are many occasions when you would want the background to be "not so blurry".
Thank you for the video. I liked the comparison pics thank you. Very informative. Thanks
Thank you!
I myself have made several comparisons between 50mm lenses, mainly these shown here and your video points to the same conclusion i get: there are lenses and lenses. Same lenses have variations between samples, and if you get a good sample you have a great lens regarding of the brand and price. Do not be impressed by brands and hype of fame. f1.2 and 1.4 are very expensive and by f2.8-4 they are equal to a cheap 1.8.
Back in the days of film I shot a roll of Kodachrome using a Zeiss 50/1,4 and I wasn't exactly happy with the sharpness, which was way below that of my 35, 85 and 45 mm Zeiss lenses. In fact, I could take sharper photos on my old Ricoh 50mm 2,0. All I can conclude is, Zeiss made the 1,4 because all the competitors had one and they sold well, so Zeiss wanted a slice of that cake. The lens didn't turn out good, but it was a 1,4 and it was good enough from f5,6, so it was added to the lineup. I guess enough people bought it because it was a Zeiss and there really were no good alternatives in the Yashica/Contax mount. If I had to pick a favorite 50, I'd take either my superflat 45/2,8 Zeiss or my Pentax 50/4,0 macro, both of which are extremely sharp, with lovely color and contrast. All the above of course are manual focusing goodies from the late 70's and 80's.
The Zeiss and Yashica similar?,well Yashica used to make(still make?) lenses for Zeiss.
Great presentation and helpful.
The T stop for the lenses might be why the the fujica lens seemed not as blown out given the same exposure ratio. That is a possibility
I have a Yashica DSB 50mm f1.9 lens (got it new as a teenager in the 70s) and as much as I love it, I bought a Yashica ML 50mm f2 ($29 + tax used) because it renders even better. The DSB lenses were cheap kit lenses when they were new. I like getting that "old film look" through these lenses to my GX85 while I'm just having fun on the street. Because I'm using a MFT camera, I'm not getting a lot of the edge softness that these lenses are prone to give. Anyway, it doesn't cost much more to get the better ML lenses that will be even closer to the overpriced Zeiss.
Wide open and Zeiss's result is shockingly sad!
However when you look at CA and error correction, Zeiss is winner all through.
I wish to see a comparison between various Yashica s especially that F 1.4 screw mount, I believe Rekinon original lens.
I had a Yash 35mm, 50mm and 24mm. All three were excellent performers. The 24mm was special, very useful on crop sensors for its fov and it produced wonderful colors.
The results of the tests even more impressive that you use the old and inferior models of Fujinon and Yashica lenses. I recon X-Fujinon 50/1.9 (or 50/1.6, or 55/1.6) and Yashica ML 50/1.7 (or 50/1.4) would be even better in terms of IQ. I have all of them and X-Fujinon 55/1.6 is my favorite so far in terms of bokeh, but Fujinon 50/1.6 is equally sharp..
With one you recommed to my Fuji X-T3 from this kind of old lenses?
Thanks I don't care about sharpness much but if color is quite close that's a deal breaker, I just bought a Yashica for less than half the price of zeiss
I'm not a Canon fan, but you can use Canon EF 50 f1.4 and EF 85 f 1.4 that are pretty good with the exception of flare resistance. And if you're good and people throw money at you, you can also get the EF 35 f1.4.
That ZE Zeiss 50 f1.4 has the ugliest bokeh I ever seen on a 50mm lens, that before the lacking sharpness, and even the AR T* is a bad joke compared to the SMC that was suposed to be his father. Zeiss were nice in the '50s and '60s Made in RFG. In the '70s made in Japan for Contax with T*, the contrast was already wey too much...
Even the Nikkor fugly bokeh is better then these newer Zeiss ZE and ZF can produce, and I'm not talking about the newer Nikkor 85 f1.2 Z that is pretty good for a Nikkor but the lens looks like a jarr and cost like a car and the DOF is wey to stupid thin. A 90 f1.7 or 85 1.6 would be more then enough for FF35.
Something to keep in mind is that you used a DSLR adapter for these lenses which uses a correcting lens to compensate for the flange distance from that of old 35mm cameras. This added lens does add softness, aberration, and even color casting to wide open apertures because they are typically not coated or not coated well. I have a DSLR adapter for my Canon FD glass and I can't shoot anyting below f/2 on my 50/1.4 because it renders very murky image quality. A more controlled test would have been to use a mirrorless camera because those cameras don't require a correcting lens in their adapters, as they only need to add distance from the sensor plane. This would give you the most accurate image quality
You're right, adapters can certainly change the actual performance of the lenses. However, in my case, my adapters did not have any lens or glass material. They were strictly physical/mechanical adapters. I have some experience with adapters that have glass in them, and that experience has always been negative.
The truth is, all three lenses are PLANAR by optical design, the differences are in glass formula of manufacturers.
Same with the Sears 55mm f1,4, the cheapest one.
Too bad you did not have a Pentax 1.4 to test along side. I would have been curios.
Yashica has some history with zeiss, which explains the similar rendition. They made lenses for the contax/yashica film cameras and i believe yashica received some of that coating knowledge in this collab.
Especially the yashica ML series, which is nowhere near the build quality of contax-zeiss, is optically very comparable to some designs. I have the ML 24mm 2.8 and its very sharp with somewhat similar colors like the distagon counterpart
I own both.....the build quality of the Yashica ML is far far superior to the Zeiss.......which actually bugs me a lot......I have owned both lenses from new......see above
I agree , i also have the yash 24mm 2.8 and it is very sharp with colors that pop.
I thought you were comparing with Contax 50mm f/1.4. The ZE version's image quality is even worse than the mostly 30 to 40 years old Yashica lens?! That is interesting!
The ZE lens is actually a modern version of planner that costs around 600 in retail price right now. What a big disappointment.
Btw, the CY version which is around 40 years old now might be better than ZE version, though the price is now as high as this ZE.
I have a Contax f/1.7 version, which is a light-weight and high quality great lens and most of all, it came with my yashica film camera and costs me less than USD200 3years ago.
The ZE Planar is exactly the same as the old CY Planar, they just changed the body, so you can expect the same results
I'm confused at the beginning you refer to the middle lens as Fujinon then at the end you said it was canon and so which one was it
Nice comparison. I was looking for these kind of video. I got Contax 139 body and I am looking to get lens. Zeiss and yashika need adaptor for contax 139 body? If you can make that video that would be very helpful. also compare with Planar, Sonnar, other zeiss lenses. 85mm
Nice video but was wondering if you could have chosen a better subject to bring out the differences more. What I noticed in the Zeiss in this and in other photos online is that it underplays the highlights thereby making it look more refined. It is not the sharpest lens and most people know it .. it is good for bokeh and that artistic drawing.
I see no reason to be negative. At least Yev has gone to the trouble of producing this you tube item. I found it interesting as well as polished and professional. I was unaware that vintage lenses could have mounts made to use on digital cameras. I Now am. A one-time radio presenter pal of mine once said, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything
ajwnew hey thanks! I'm glad the review was useful
Thanks to a cheap adapters from China, Canon EOS can take plenty of old lenses, except of Minoltas, Konica Hexanons, Canon FD and a few exotic species. The mirrorless can take absolutely ALL.
It looks like you have a bad copy of the modern Zeiss or you didn't focus well.
Your Fujinon wide open shot scene has more shadows than the two other lenses shots. You need identical exposures to compare.
Agree. I have the earlier version of that Zeiss lens in Contax mount and I was disappointed.
Thanks. I know I rustled up some Zeiss feathers with this video, but it’s all honest.
bought a 1960-ish Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50mm f/2 its razor sharp wide open at F/2. paid 45$ for it
Thanks for review and comparison.
I am beginning to think that zeiss glass is not necessarily superior. It's ridiculously high price may be attributed to their rarity rather than quality. For every superb zeiss glass out there, there probably is a Japanese lens that would be its equal if not better.
You’re probably right on that. I would be curious to compare high-end Canon glass to Zeiss lens at some point. But the Zeiss lenses are not easy to get a hold of.
Nice Tube Screamer!
Very interesting video and conclusions, but please turn off the distracting music in future.
Not only are the vintage lenses sharper, but they have better contrast, color rendition. Great video
Gracias por el vídeo!! 🙂👍 Acabo de comprar el fujinon 55mm
Uso adaptadores para Canon y no he necesitado hacer ningún tipo de programación.
Test should have been between Zeiss 1.7 and Planar 1.7.....Another thing to bear in mind is that the majority of people buy these 40 plus year old lenses on E Bay and bung them on their camera and use them. There is usually so muc debris/haze etc build up that they do not perform anything as they did 40 years ago.....colours are affected, distortion, sharpness etc etc. I have mine pro serviced and they really perform as new.....
I don't know soo much about lenses, but with this old lenses does their state of conservation affects to the sharpness? Maybe one of them was a bit more ussed and that's why the other are sharpper
not that surprised the Classic (ZE, ZF..) Planar 50/1.4 is the weakest. The C/Y mount one is completely different story - sharper wide open with less glow. 50mm is such a common/easy to design focal length that most manufacturers got it right so there is a reason why this Zeiss is the cheapest. Even then, not worth the money
I own and use both the Yashica ML 1.7 and the Zeiss Planar 1.7and have used both for years. I also own the 1.4 versions. The 1.7's are very sharp indeed and perfect for landscape photography but the 1.4's are good for low light and to knock out the background when needed. The 1.7's are the best for overall photography by far. In my opinion the Zeiss and the Yashica ML,s are almost identical in colour rendition and sharpness...there is very little in it....maybe just maybe the Zeiss is slightly better....i'm still out on this after years of using both. But....for the price the Yashica ML is a bargain....and its build quality is FAR superior to that of my German built Zeiss. PS Both of them blow my Nikon glas away.
Good video. Conclusion supported by solid evidence, unlike some of the comments here. The only catch is that it left me wondering if I've paid too much for my 50mm f1.7 Planar.
The 1.7 Planar is a lot sharper than the 1.4 version.
Anyway, it's worth more or less 100-120€, even tho you can get a 1.7 Yashica with similar results for less (the Yashica ML lenses are basically Zeiss lenses with worse coating)
@@arashi9469 - Thank you. That's made me feel a bit better. I bought the 1.7 Planar to complete a Contax RTS body, not so much to shoot with. While an equivalent ML would probably perform almost as well, it wouldn't look quite right on an RTS.
"Today I'm going to FOCUS mostly on sharpness" 😁
Personally, I do not like the image qualities of the Zeiss 50mm here, however his opening assumption, that people judge the relative qualities of their 50mm lenses used at widest aperture, is dead wrong. People almost never use their fast 50mm lenses wide open because the manufacturers do not design them to perform their best at those apertures. Rather, they are optimized to perform best in the 5.6 - 8.0 range. If you want a 50mm lens designed to be used wide open, get something like the Nikkor 50mm 1.2 or Leitz Noctolux. They do surprisingly well wide open, but will suck below f4.0 compared to a normal lens.
Wrong. By 5.6-8 all lenses behave more or less the same. Zeiss lenses are often prized for their open aperture performance. So, either reviewer has a bad copy or this lens is overrated.
you kinda look like Charlie from its always sunny in philadelphia
I had this zeiss lens. Shooting portraits at 1.4 is almost impossible, with canon 5d2 i used it at 2.0 in the artificial light, and at about f4 at daylight with good results. Would i buy this lens again now? I doubt as i found that contax zeiss 50 1.7 performs even better, for 1/4 of the price.
Why not compare the 1.4 lens to other 1.4? Are you serious?
I guess I'm the only one who thinks that the out of focus bushes behind the subject are just plain ugly on the Zeiss at 1.4 and 2.0. The same criticism has been made of this lesns in other reviews. Instead of blurred spots of green and lighter, its more like green with white halos - looks something like a mirror telephoto.
Since Yev and I agree that these lenses are really mostly used for portraits; I wish that he would have made these tests with a human or even with a manikin that has human facial features and skin tone. I really don't get very much constructive information from shooting that fuzzy red toy... Oh well, I guess this is better than shooting trees or brick walls...
I wish that my manikin head had glass eyes rather than eyes painted with painted catchlights...
Should have used the ML Yashica, ML stands for multi coated.
Thank you
You are welcome!
Seems like you used autofocus and it sticked to the hair in front, you just didn't get the white eyeballs in fucus.
Tom Cypher as I mentioned in the video, only manual focus was used. All focused on the same spot, to the best of my ability.
Yashica at 4:32 is sharper then Zeiss look at elmo black part of the eyes
Very informative
nail your focus man!! at the 3 min mark your zeiss is out of focus. the corner of the stool is in more focus than your subject.
Yev, thanks for the reviews on these vintage lenses. BTW the link for the Yashika lens adapter at Fotodioxpro is no longer available. Would you have any idea how I can pair the Yashika 50mm with my Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K and how would I get my camera to communicate with the lens, please?
CA on the Zeiss was also quite pronounced wide open as well. Sheesh!
No surprise. You are just paying for the German name.
Which Yashica lens did you test? ML, YUS or DSB?
looks like dsb
which adapter should i buy if i want to use the yashica with a sony a58 (A mount) ? thanks
I'm actually not entirely sure. I don't have experience with Sony. However, if the A-Mount is the same as Sony E-mount, then there are Yashica (CY) mounts that convert to E-Mount.
video starts at 2:54
Hey dude help me out, i have an old yashida dx 38 mm can it be fitted with lens, is it available?
did u mean that lens was dismantled from a pocket camera?
did all the lenses had a fresh service? if not, the test is useles. lenses could decentrate in decades.
The Zeiss was serviced just days before this test. The other two vintage lenses were serviced individually as much as possible. (Not by the manufacturer)
I have a handful of nifty-50 lenses. I don't want to get anymore. :) I use the Pronto AF adapter (Techart Pro clone) that makes all my vintage lenses autofocus. MF is fun, but sometimes I need AF.
Circular lens aberrations does not equal bokeh. it is a distortion which means you are far too open on your lens. duhhhh
Comparing a Yashica against a Zeiss ?
It's like having a 1960 2CV against a modern F1. The Yashica will cut the Zeiss head off : 3:44
Well... it's ur test conclusion. So fun.
Sorry, I just have to correct your pronunciation; the out of focus blur is a Japanese word "bokeh" which is pronounced "bo-ke", not "bokka". Please listen to the Japanese men in the end of the video:
ua-cam.com/video/Y0Brf2l8Ysc/v-deo.html
Thanks for debunking the stupid myth of German optic supremacy. Japanese optics, lenses and cameras are far superior.
I never get the point of these videos. As a photographer, the pictorial quality of the lenses is what you choose and choose to pay for. Tonal rendering, plasticity, microcontrast are qualities that this type of review misses altogether. Lenses are a far more complex proposition than you propose. There are sharp lenses that make beautiful images and sharp lenses that ruin a picture every time. Your review showed an oversaturated red toy with over pushed contrast that made all the lenses look equally bad and curiously too similar. To someone who wants to take great images and is interested in how a lens renders an image to the sensor your test is as useless an exercise as it could possibly be. All the lens formulae, glass compositions, coatings and artistic compromises needed for pictorial quality and computed to the nth degree by the great optics designers at Yashica, Fujica and Zeiss are all recognised by their adherents for the qualities they bring to their images. These have completely been erased by your experiment. You seem to have no idea at all. You completely forgot what a lens is for, or else you’ve never stopped to consider it at all.
Christopher Ward : This video is specifically a "sharpness" test, as the title states.
Some people DO want to know the sharpness results of lenses at various apertures. In fact, many companies often boast about their sharpness, like Sigma.
That's why, nowhere in this video, I made any sort of overall conclusions about the lenses themselves. My primary goal was to point out that these older manual lenses are quite amazing and cost just the fraction of most new wide aperture lenses.
Yev Zakharov, you confirmed my theory. Case closed.
A Zeiss fan boy; case closed. ;)
Some people dump a ton of money on equipment expecting that this will make them a better photographer, they need to justify that expense. The condescending Mr. Ward appears to be one of those people. I suspect his Zeiss collection (or perception of the brand name) is indeed significant here. It's no different to seeing braindead gamers arguing over whether a Playstation or an Xbox is superior.
Don't misunderstand me, Zeiss make magnificent lenses, each V lens I have for the Hasseleblad is wonderful, but I know deep down that the lenses for say a Zenza Bronica SQ will perform equally as well for half the price.
I've actually tried the Zeiss on Kodachrome a long time ago, but never tried again, because it really was nowhere near as sharp as my other Zeiss lenses, or my Pentaxes, or even my old Ricoh 50/2,0. The color rendition also was kind of washed out, especially at 1,4. Fortunately, I had other fifties to use, so I just put this at the back of the shelf and forgot it. Mechanically and aesthetically it's still a nice lens and if I ever need a soft focus effect, the 1,4 can almost do it without filters. You know, even Zeiss makes a dud once in a decade or so, usually because some lens making choices are dictated by the sales department, which just wants to quickly develop a lens to fit a market niche that seems to be popular with the customers. That leads to hasty product development, hiring subcontractors who are not up to Zeiss quality, starting manufacture before the workers have been fully trained and the assembly line fully optimized. All manufacturers make mistakes like that.
Bokeh does not equal lens aberrations. Those are distortions. The literal translation is BLUR not hexagonal shapes. Oh ffs
Short answer to the question is it worth it. No.
double click on the dislike button... good one ;=)
Thats stupid test! 50mm and 55mm have so big difference!🤦♂️🤦♂️👎👎👎👎
Just double click on the dislike button :)Lol
I one upped him and triple clicked on the video.
I hate out of focus shots of lenses - an out of focus shot of a zeiss lens is unforgivable
Don't do it again