DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is 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. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

The Zeiss 45mm/f2.8 pancake lens

G

Guest

Could someone bring me up to speed regarding the 45mm f2.8p lens? I am new to this stuff, and have been doing a fair bit of research, but I am sure I am missing something here. This lens has an amazingly low weight and size, and still offers a half decent maximum aperture at 2.8. Can someone perhaps do a comparison with a 50mm 1.4. I realize the the 50mm 1.4 will do so much more in low light situations, but what else should I be aware of?
 
Hi Gavin,

the 45/2.8 is a great lens. If you want to compare it optically with the 50/1.4, I would recommend you to have a look at the MTF charts of both lenses in the download section.

I think the most important difference is the size and weight. The 50/1.4 is one of the best lenses available on the market. Even the new N-system has with its 50/1.4 the exact same lens design. If Zeiss is not improving that lens in a totally new system, you can conclude, that it must be already extremely good, even for such an "old design".

The 45/2.8 might be not as good as the 50/1.4 optically, but the question is, whether you will see that difference in your personal shooting style. The same argument is valid for the weight and size differences. The 45 weights 90g, the 50/1.4 275g. The size difference is tremendous.

If you i.e. use a Contax Aria or Contax S2 with the 45/2.8, you have the perfect compact camera with all desirable features of the SLR system and a very good performance. The S2 weights roughly 565g, the Aria 480g with the 45 together 655g/570g. Compare that to a Contax T3 with 230g or Leica Minilux with 330g. There is not that much difference anymore...

But the size of the 45 lens has alo disadvantages if you change often the aperture it is not as comfortable as with the 50/1.4. If you use lens hoods it is even worse.

I almost never shoot with aperture 1.4; the reason is the shallow depth of field. So 2.8 is better for me. With a Fuji Provia 400F, this should be also no big deal anymore in low light situations...

dirk
 
I have the 45mm/2.8 AE and 50mm/1.7 lenses. The pancake is definitely a good choice for travel, and it's as light as can be for a lens. It is a little contrasty compared to the 50mm; with it's 4 element Tessar design. And yes the aperture and focus rings are so darn close together that you can mess the focus up when changing the aperture. If I had a choice of only one lens though, I would choose the 50mm/1.7 for it's shear sharpness and color rendition.
 
Hi all,

I am recently interested to have a T-45mm because I would like to put my 159MM with this lens in my suitcase all the time. Weight becomes important to me.

Having reviewed the earlier dicussion in this thread, quality wise should be okay. I also compared the price to P50mm/1.4. I was surprised that the T-45 is more expansive. I never had a thought that such simple lens costs higher.

Could someone help to answer if the T-45 is really more expansive ? Or tell me why it is more expansive.

Thanks,
Francis Chow.
 
Hi Francis!

I think this is a question of marketing. You are right when wondering why the 50/1,4 is cheaper (and IMHO better), but when Zeiss startet with the Tessar in 1982, it costed half of the Planar 1,7 (!!) - and I got it. But it did not sell very often. Now maybe Zeiss thinks that only expensive lens are attractive? If weight is important to You I think You will be very satisfied with the pancake.

Regards
Wolfgang
 
Hi Wolfgang,

Thanks for your indication. I think I would prefer to use 50/1.7 if the T45 has no special feature buy expansive.

Regards,
Francis.
 
what a stupid question! the price was lower than the 50/1.4 in earlier years which then rised when demand was higher and production price too. its so simple. pls shoot instead if discussion. or should we start again a special discussion leica/zeiss. leica lenses are more protected agains dust. but they are not better, maybe different.
 
> Michael, I've often wondered if you are rude by hobby, or by profession. Which is it? Where do you get off calling anyone stupid for asking a question?
 
Hey guys,

please calm down and respect the netiquette on this forum...

Thanks

Dirk
 
> Dirk and the rest of the group, I apologize for typing what I did. -Lynn
 
Back
Top