The 3D pop is there from time to time, but it really depends on the scene, lighting and aperture. In the 3 to 5 foot range the 50/2 ZE has a nice 3D feel. At 10, 12 or 15 feet the 3D feel slips away. I would like the 50/2 ZE to mimic the 3D results the Mamiya ZD produced (see this page for some examples); however, the Mamiya images were taken with a 80mm lens on a 48x36mm sensor, so hoping a 50mm lens on a 36x24mm negative can produce the same feel is unrealistic.

In my opinion the 50/2 ZE’s standout features are its sharpness, resolution and bokeh when focusing at close distances. Light fall-off in the corners in minimal and is a non-issue around F4. Likewise, the corners are a tad soft F2, and by F2.8 to F4.0 they are quite sharp. CA is well managed. There be a slight touch of pincushion distortion. I have seen no signs of focus shift. Overall the 50/2 ZE has all the indications of being a very good lens. I still think the Leica 50mm F1.4 Summilux-M ASPH is the best 50mm lens I have used, but that comparison is rather pointless unless you own a Canon dSLR and a Leica M rangefinder.

CONCLUSION

Similar to the Zeiss 28mm F2 Distagon ZE, the 50mm Makro Planar’s signature / fingerprint is most apparent at close focusing distances. For landscape work at mid distances and infinity, the Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro-Planar performs admirably, however, its fingerprint is less distinctive. To my eyes the images look much like that of any good 50mm lens stopped to around F5.6 or F8. On one hand this could be interpreted as a good thing because the lens is flexible enough to go from extreme close-ups to infinity and perform all roles in between. Or, the lack of distinction could be considered as a detriment. If trying to decide between the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 Planar ZE and the Makro-Planar ZE, I would pick the Makro-Planar every time.

Had Zeiss made the 50mm Makro Planar a F1.4 lens, it would be near-perfect. For indoor use in low-light conditions I feel F1.4 is a “must-have”. When shooting indoors at our house or when out & about at the local restaurants, F2 is not fast enough. The 50mm Makro-Planar does not seem particular good at gathering light; it does best in brighter settings. I would also like F1.4 for additional background blur. For walk-around purposes, a lens like that Minolta Rokkor 58mm F1.2 may be a more attractive option given its fast aperture. Though, the Rokkor’s bokeh at F1.2 can be extremely busy.

I have yet to find the perfect 50mm lens for the Canon 1Ds Mark III, and I have tried ALOT of 50’s --- Contax 50mm F1.4 N, Leica 50mm Summilux-R, Canon EF 50mm F1.4, Canon EF 50mm F1.2, Canon EF 50mm F1.0, Zeiss 50mm F1.4 Planar ZE, Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro-Planar ZE and Minolta Rokkor 58mm F1.2. For the Leica M9 my favorite is the Leica 50mm F1.4 Summilux-M ASPH and that is exactly the lens I would to find for the Canon 1Ds Mark III. So I am biased by 50mm Summilux-M ASPH and nothing else has performed as well.

It is difficult for me to say, “go buy the Zeiss 50/2 MP, you will love it” because the lens caters to a niche market segment. It is very a good lens with appreciable resolving powers. One of its best attributes (in my opinion) is its performance at near focus distances when the objective is to force the bokeh (background blur). At these near focus distances the F2 the bokeh rendering is more pleasing than the Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH, more pleasing than the Leica 50mm Summilux-R (E60) and Contax 50mm F1.4 Planar N.

For close-up candid work, such as pictures of the family, I prefer using a Leica M because the camera size is less intimidating. Not everybody has M, so this preference is very specialized to me. If I did not have a Leica M, for those candid type of shots and general shooting purposes, I would prefer pick the Contax 50mm F1.4 Planar N over the 50/2 ZE because the 50N has auto-focus (review available here). However, while the Contax 50N may be easier to use, the Zeiss 50mm F2 Makro-Planar ZE produces nicer bokeh.

The last outing with this lens at Kansas City went well. The printed images look very good and even have a degree medium format feel. If the 50mm Makro-Planar ZE was a f1.4 lens, I would probably be raving about the lens. For a general use / walk-around lens, I covet F1.2 and F1.4. I think it is the f2 aperture that keeps me from telling the world to buy their ZE today. Zeiss needs to put the 50mm F1.4 Planar ZE and 50mm F2 Makro-Planar ZE in a super collider and marry the two together.