Gianluke wrote:
Tariq, do you think the Zeiss has infinity hard stop with M42 mount too?
The M42 Zeiss ZS 25/2.8 I have has an accurate infinity stop. It is the only Zeiss ZS lens I have tried so I don't know if there is any variability in this respect.
Strangely my ZF.2 21mm has a perfect infinity stop with my Leitax adapter.
Same with the Leitax adapters I have owned. They seem to be very accurately calibrated. To be this accurate, it must be that the bodies we have used (Sony ) AND the specific lenses are both spot on (and for David/ Leitax to make the adapter so accurate, the lens infinity tolerances must be pretty tight). This would point to any issue with an accurate infinity stop likely due to sloppy tolerances/ QC on the body (Canon 5D for instance), not the Zeiss lenses.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Sometimes I wonder though, well what if my lens isn't reaching Infinity this whole time? Hmmm. It seems almost too easy and simple you know?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The M42 Zeiss ZS 25/2.8 I have has an accurate infinity stop. It is the only Zeiss ZS lens I have tried so I don't know if there is any variability in this respect.
Which M42 adapter do you have on this lens? Big_is, Leitax or JamesLao? I should use Zeiss with Sony A850
Gianluke wrote:
Which M42 adapter do you have on this lens? Big_is, Leitax or JamesLao? I should use Zeiss with Sony A850
On that lens, I used a cheaper non-chipped adapter, either Big_is or similar made out of heavy chromed brass. I do have a James Lao chipped adapter on another M42 lens and it works perfectly. If you go with the cheaper adapters, it's probably hit or miss with regard to the infinity focus accuracy (some will focus past infinity).
FlyPenFly wrote:
However, the Zeiss 35mm F2 seems to be well regarded for micro-contrast and strong 3D. Although thinking about it, maybe its imperceptible to most people on a blind taste test.
denoir wrote:
It's not. About 90% of people here can tell a Zeiss lens from a Canon lens in a blind test. In a forum (POTN) frequented by people new to photography the accuracy was about 80%.
ontime, denoir's test has my statistician's seal of approval, lol. Random allocation of images, varyng across sets. Also, plenty of images in the set, with SE (and CI from memory) reported in summary. Of course, you can choose not to believe me.
'the Zeiss 35mm F2 seems to be well regarded for micro-contrast and strong 3D.'
Yes it is, for good reason - flat MTF lines for all line pairs = good 3D. This depsite a none too impressive 40 lpmm set, but still the images are very convincing, you may agree. Not everyone sees it, 3D that is, just like AhamB can see CA I can't.
'Same with the Leitax adapters I have owned. They seem to be very accurately calibrated.'
I have six of them, David did half, all are perfect regarding ininfity in general use (not interested in wide open too often). Exception is the 100-300mm which is very tricky as it has no infinity stop and actual focus of infinity varies widely by focal length - it's also f4.5-f5.6 and really needs LV/peaking to be effective. I focus bracket this one, it's other drawback is narrow DOF at the short end; it's very sharp, better micro-contrast than the 100MP, out to the wide edge anyway.
philip_pj wrote:
ontime, denoir's test has my statistician's seal of approval, lol. Random allocation of images, varyng across sets. Also, plenty of images in the set, with SE (and CI from memory) reported in summary. Of course, you can choose not to believe me.
Statistics can't account or correct for biases in study administration; biases are too insidious, even affecting the numbers outside of study execution and raw data gathering.
I don't think it'd have a huge effect on the result, but I don't really know. That's why I said it would be interesting.
Tariq about Minolta corner performance, is it equal o worse than the Zeiss in your opinion?
I think the Zeiss reaches decent performance in the corners only at f 5.6.
I understood, seeing your test, center and mid-frame performance of Minolta are at the same level of the Samyang and Zeiss
Gianluke wrote:
Tariq about Minolta corner performance, is it equal o worse than the Zeiss in your opinion?
I think the Zeiss reaches decent performance in the corners only at f 5.6.
I understood, seeing your test, center and mid-frame performance of Minolta are at the same level of the Samyang and Zeiss
Oh, your killing me!
The Minolta that I had never reached the degree of corner performance which both the Zeiss and Samyang/ Rokinon do. It is worse than the Zeiss in this respect.
Anyone with the Samyang 35 1.4 on a NEX? I'm really happy with the 85 1.4 and was thinking about purchasing this one. If you have it, how is the size/handling?
rioni wrote:
Anyone with the Samyang 35 1.4 on a NEX? I'm really happy with the 85 1.4 and was thinking about purchasing this one. If you have it, how is the size/handling?
Trying hard not to act like an ass here, but why would you put a 660 gram, huge ”normal” lens on a small NEX camera? It's almost ridiculously large even on a 5D or D700.
Valid question Answer: I really like the IQ/DOF (in the sample pics I've seen) and would mainly be using it with portraits/still shots. Was also considering the C/Y Zeiss 35 1.4 but not liking the price. I have other 30-50mm lenses that would be used for more "normal" use.
Makten wrote:
Trying hard not to act like an ass here, but why would you put a 660 gram, huge ”normal” lens on a small NEX camera? It's almost ridiculously large even on a 5D or D700.
the c/y 35/1.4 handles nicely (to me) on the NEX-7, but not the NEX-3 or NEX-5. it negates the size advantage of the NEX though. the samyang is even bigger than the c/y though...
ya, it looks pretty big on the NEX7. Have also been thinking about the CV 35 1.2 but at almost a $1000 premium, thinking it's not worth it. I also like the sample pics of the samyang 35 over the CV 35 :/
sebboh wrote:
the c/y 35/1.4 handles nicely (to me) on the NEX-7, but not the NEX-3 or NEX-5. it negates the size advantage of the NEX though. the samyang is even bigger than the c/y though...
about Minolta corner performance, is it equal o worse than the Zeiss in your opinion?