CP2 50mm 2.1 or 50 2.1 Makro?

[Bob Moore]

Cp2 50mm macro is optically superior to standard cp2 50mm; as a bonus it also a close focus.

No one has mentioned bokeh...there I have done it.

The 50 1.4 has one of the harshest busy OOF backgrounds in the line....50 2.0 macro at normal distances is much smoother...IMHO.

Bob

 

[albert rudnicki]

No one has mentioned bokeh...there I have done it.

The 50 1.4 has one of the harshest busy OOF backgrounds in the line....50 2.0 macro at normal distances is much smoother...IMHO.

Bob

as far as I know, they have the same number of blades, thus giving almost the same bokeh.
50mm at 1.4 is not acceptable in my opinion (cp1 only) as the cp2 is locked to 2.1

 

[Häakon]

No one has mentioned bokeh...there I have done it.

The 50 1.4 has one of the harshest busy OOF backgrounds in the line....50 2.0 macro at normal distances is much smoother...IMHO.

Bob

The thread title clearly states we're discussing CP.2 lenses. There is no 50mm 1.4 CP.2.

 

[Häakon]

Cp2 50mm macro is optically superior to standard cp2 50mm; as a bonus it also a close focus.

I believe, however, the focus scale is different. If you don't normally do close focusing, it is not wise to invest in a macro lens that is not well set up for your general use.

 

[albert rudnicki]

Haakon, I don't remember exact numbers, but I think the range was greater then standard (perhaps due to macro element) (I may be wrong on this one, but it's worth checking)

 

[Lee Saxon]

The thread title clearly states we're discussing CP.2 lenses. There is no 50mm 1.4 CP.2.

I think he's just trying to distinguish between the Macro 50 and the other 50, which is the ZE/ZF 50 1.4 with the aperture artificially limited.

I kinda wish "Zeiss" hadn't done that, it makes it confusing to distinguish between the two, as this thread has shown.

 

[Bob Moore]

MY understanding is that the ZF 1.4 is the new CP(.2) 2.1 - just locked at 2.1. Both use same elements hence assumed it is approximately similar bokeh.

Yes both CP.2 50s have similar number blades but different optical elements.

Try for yourself...majority of stills shooters avoid the 50 non-macro as is appears harsh....at less than 4 or 5.6.

Bob

 

[Bob Moore]

as far as I know, they have the same number of blades, thus giving almost the same bokeh.
50mm at 1.4 is not acceptable in my opinion (cp1 only) as the cp2 is locked to 2.1

Here is ZF 50 1.4 at 2

http://zeissimages.com/showphoto.php?photoid=13282

Here is ZF 50 Macro 2.0 at 2

http://zeissimages.com/showphoto.php?photoid=9799

And this is the 50 Macro at distance

http://zeissimages.com/showphoto.php?photoid=786

http://zeissimages.com/showsearchphoto.php?photoid=12183

http://zeissimages.com/showsearchphoto.php?photoid=8518

http://zeissimages.com/showsearchphoto.php?photoid=2054



THe first picture shows how busy the OOF of the non Macro can be....the others are not comparison shots but the Macro tends to have a less harsh OOF overall.

I know which lens I will use...

Bob

 

[Lenny Manfred]

someone asked about why the 28 was so bad, i second that question.

i have cp1s, and i bought the 28, 50 and 85 because i wanted all to be 2.1 or faster only. i do want to get the 25 2.1 as soon as available, and then the 100.

by the way, in case no one said it, they are coming out with a 15 2.9 and a 25 2.1

i disagree that the 50 and 85 at 1.5 are unusable. they are very usable, when you want that soft creamy look for close ups of people that can use a soft creamy look.

but if you want sharp, then stick to 2.8. but it's nice to have the option.