Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZF.2 vs Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 for infinity?

[Jedi]

Hello, I would like to read your opinions about the differences between Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 and Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 50mm f/2 for infinity focus shoot on a camera like Nikon D810 or better. I don't search mtf results, image quality  tests of famous sites, but personal experiences by old shooters with white hair. I think that Makro-Planar T* version is better for short distances shoots, like macro and portraits, is it true?
Thanks!!!!!!

[longzoom]

My copy of the Zeiss macro 50/2 for infinity was terrible, as well as their 100mm. Both were mushy to any distanced  objects. I tried use them for portraiture, but gave up - too harsh, with unnatural color/contrast ratio. Those were designed for macro, so I used them for that porpoise only.  Zeiss 50/1.4 was in my possession for limited time - it was sharp enough to f4.0 only, not even at f3.5.  I had the very good copy of Nikkor 50/1.4 AF, which was equally sharp at f2.8 (with Zeiss at 4.0),  with way better job for infinity, then Zeiss 50/2.0 macro, while was not perfect, either. Hope my experience may help, while anybody else may have different point of view. LZ

[pluton]

Used on the D3, and now the D800/E, my copies of the ZF 50/2 and the ZF 100/2 are excellently sharp at infinity.  They are useable wide open, and surprisingly decent at small stops like f/16.  In my opinion they are outstanding general purpose 50mm and 100mm lenses.
Sorry, but I never had the ZF 50/1.4. 
If you want a fast 50, I expect the newer-design Milvus 50/1.4 to be very good.

[Jedi]

If you want a fast 50, I expect the newer-design Milvus 50/1.4 to be very good.

I want the best Zeiss 50mm between the Makro-Planar 50mm f/2 and the Planar 50mm f/1.4 at f/5.6 at infinity focus; not the Milvus.

[Akira]

My friend pro phog used Yashica/Contax Planar 50/1.4 AE (made in Germany, not MM) on his Canon full frame DSLR.  He shot landscapes with the starry night sky in Hawaii, and said that this Planar was excellent at infinity.

[Les Olson]

IMO it depends on the aperture you plan to use them at.  The 50/1.4 is distinctly soft at f/1.4 and f/2, which gives a quality some people (including me) like in portraits, but if you don't like it or don't want the lens for portraits those apertures are not much use on the 50/1.4.  The 50/2 is much sharper at f/2, so if you want sharpness at large apertures the 50/2 is a much better choice.  At smaller apertures on landscape scenes both were excellent - I thought the f/2 was a shade better but you have to look very hard.   

When I made my choice the price difference was much larger than at the current discounted price of the 50/2.  Now, when the price difference is only $150, I believe I would choose the other way.

Bjorn Rorslett has said that the 50/1.4 gives an unattractive rendering of OOF areas, but I have not seen that.

[longzoom]

So would you please anybody be so kind and post any images they consider "sharp at infinity" made by Zeiss 50 or 100 macros? With crops, if possible?  THX in advance!  LZ

[jhinkey]

Hmmm . . . haven't tried the 50mm Planar, but the 100/2 ZF.2 that I used for a bit was excellent across the frame wide open at infinity on my D800 (as is the 135/2).

[Les Olson]

One issue that you cannot assume the hard stop at "infinity" gives infinity focus.  With both the lenses I tried I had to back off the tiniest bit, and that seems to be common.  I have read various explanations, but the most plausible, IMO, are (1) the need to allow for the use of filters, which change the focal point even though they don't change the focal length, or (2) the need to allow for manufacturing tolerances in the lens and in the camera mount (the same issue that leads people to say they have a "bad copy" of a lens).  If both lens and camera are as designed, or if one is at the fat end of the tolerance and the other is at the thin end, the fit is perfect, but if both are fat the effect is the same as a tiny extension tube and they have to allow for that or some people would lose infinity focus. 

[longzoom]

Any macro lens is designed as such, with the best performance in macro range. It could be less or more better to infinity, with use of floating elements or groups, but it never ever could be as good to infinity as a regular lens. Some testers are telling us that the macro lens A, B, or C, designed today, is equal to regular lens to distances. No way! The lenses A, B, or C ARE regular lenses with very well implemented macro abilities, due to dramatically raised programming, what I , personally, am  welcome and applauding to!  THX!  LZ 

[Airy]

I own both the 50/2MP and the 50/2 Milvus, next to a range of other fifties. I'd like to recommend the Milvus because of a range of slight improvements (vignetting, gasket...) and a big one (better coatings, can work against bright light). The price was in the same range for me, because I managed to find a second hand Milvus shortly after it hit the market !

Both lenses are among my sharpest fifties, at least in the centre. I did not make extensive tests at infinity settings, but they are very sharp wide open. Please find below a comparison with the 50/1.8 G, both at f/2. All pics are screenshots from LR displays. The Zeiss pic is on the left, as you would have guessed from the telltale vignetting.

Focussing the 50/2 (any version) near infinite takes some precautions, because of the short throw. On the other hand, the focussing action is fluid (no dry friction feeling, no slack) and rather firm, so precise focussing is possible.

Possible rivals: not the Summicron-R (slight glow, nice by the way) ; possibly the Voigtländer 58/1.4 in the center... but from experience, Zeiss tends to have the highest contrast wide open at any distance.

[pluton]

One issue that you cannot assume the hard stop at "infinity" gives infinity focus.  With both the lenses I tried I had to back off the tiniest bit, and that seems to be common. 

In my experience (10 shot and 6 current), it is common with Zeiss ZF and ZF.2 for the lens to focus "past" infinity.  I think 4 out of 6 that I presently own go past.