Non of you mentioned about moving object, so you don't understand of need that E=mc2.20N is static G.force and you already know it hard to handle, it becomes harder if you move it around the models, in short, you'll need to spend more force or your ENERGY to keep it right in moving not drop it to floor.Above formula of A.E tells the relationship among mass, moving speed and energy not energy alone as you thought.
Tough loCA test in that cropped watch shot agravated by overexposure of the metal highlights.
Bokeh circles are not round and more egg shaped.
All this doesn't bother me as wide open contrast is amazing along with nice non nervous bokeh.
Have to start saving now!
Hiep, do you still have your 100 Jahre 55/1.2?
sebboh wrote:
that appears to be loCA, which i doubt even this lens is fully corrected for. it does appear to be yellow blue though rather than the usual red green.
There are all kinds of colorful reflections in that image. Look at the blue color of the in focus part of the rim on top. And the rim turns yellow towards FG OOF. And the blurred glass and metal in the top and top left changes color from blueish to yellowish all in the backround OOF. While there are traces of yellow / blue in the BG / FG, I don't think everything wee see in this image is LoCA, far from it.
contas wrote:
Non of you mentioned about moving object, so you don't understand of need that E=mc2.20N is static G.force and you already know it hard to handle, it becomes harder if you move it around the models, in short, you'll need to spend more force or your ENERGY to keep it right in moving not drop it to floor.Above formula of A.E tells the relationship among mass, moving speed and energy not energy alone as you thought.
Sure, you win...
back to Zeiss shall we?
BTW, just so you know, there is no such thing as a static G-Force., look it up. Also, energy is not a force, different things.
Guari wrote:
Really though, this is not the place for these discussions. Wouldn't it have been easier from your original post just saying "a 1.2 Kg lens plus an 800 gram camera is heavy"
May I suggest kilogram (kg) instead of kelvin gram (Kg)?
(Yes, there should be a small space between K and g, but I don't think FM supports that.)
Could we get back to topic? kindly and all of that...
wayne seltzer wrote:
Thanks for the link to more images.
Tough loCA test in that cropped watch shot agravated by overexposure of the metal highlights.
Bokeh circles are not round and more egg shaped.
All this doesn't bother me as wide open contrast is amazing along with nice non nervous bokeh.
Have to start saving now!
Hiep, do you still have your 100 Jahre 55/1.2?
It is at sk grimes for a mount conversion right now. I do plan to keep the Jahre even if I get this lens. I am also saving right now for the wide-angle version of this Distagon. As much as we are nit-picking the performance of this prototype, the result is still phenomenal. It is interesting to see how Zeiss always avoids using exotic glass by forgoing size/weight constraint (e.g. the two Jahre's vs. Canon Asph and now this vs. the Leica APO).
contas wrote:
Non of you mentioned about moving object, so you don't understand of need that E=mc2.20N is static G.force and you already know it hard to handle, it becomes harder if you move it around the models, in short, you'll need to spend more force or your ENERGY to keep it right in moving not drop it to floor.Above formula of A.E tells the relationship among mass, moving speed and energy not energy alone as you thought.
oh man, i'm assuming i must be losing something in the translation here. perhaps you to are trying to talk about rotation or kinetic energy? otherwise newton is spinning in his grave. E=mc^2 definitely has no business there. perhaps you are thinking of kinetic energy: KE=.5mv^2 ?
In the end, this is a silly debate on a minute difference between a static state and a movement from raising the camera. You are being nit-picking right now. In short, a 20.1 N and a 20 N force is not worth it to go further. And do refer back to the momentum equation instead of relativity theory for this.
You wrote many emty arrogant words. Here the relation betweenEnergy and force:
Vis viva : energy
In the history of science, vis viva (from the Latin for living force) is an obsolete scientific theory that served as an elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy. It was the first [known] description of what we now call kinetic energy or of energy related to sensible motions.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Well, I thought lateral CA is defined to be relevant to the plane of focus. So what would you call this, bokeh fringing?
I meant to say that most of this may not be aberrations at all, but real colors in the image. Different colors appear at different places with little consistency. There are OOF areas without color where you would expect it if the lens had bokeh color fringing. In focus colors cannot be lateral CA because we are in the center of the image. What I see is some purple fringing around very bright higlights. But nowhere near what my P1.4/50 ZF would do under similar conditions.
hiepphotog wrote:
It is at sk grimes for a mount conversion right now. I do plan to keep the Jahre even if I get this lens. I am also saving right now for the wide-angle version of this Distagon. As much as we are nit-picking the performance of this prototype, the result is still phenomenal. It is interesting to see how Zeiss always avoids using exotic glass by forgoing size/weight constraint (e.g. the two Jahre's vs. Canon Asph and now this vs. the Leica APO).
Cool! I look forward to your compsrison shots between your 55/1.2 vs. this new 55/1.4!
The Leica 50/2 APO has the benefit of the shorter M register length and being f2 of course. My ZA 135/1.8 is my heaviest Zeiss lens and this one will top it. Next up a new 85/1.4?
contas wrote:
You wrote many emty arrogant words. Here the relation betweenEnergy and force:
Vis viva : energy
In the history of science, vis viva (from the Latin for living force) is an obsolete scientific theory that served as an elementary and limited early formulation of the principle of conservation of energy. It was the first [known] description of what we now call kinetic energy or of energy related to sensible motions.
I think you are taking this too seriously. As much as I would love to banter since my field of study is fluid mechanics, I will respectfully put the matter to rest.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Cool! I look forward to your compsrison shots between your 55/1.2 vs. this new 55/1.4!
The Leica 50/2 APO has the benefit of the shorter M register length and being f2 of course. My ZA 135/1.8 is my heaviest Zeiss lens and this one will top it. Next up a new 85/1.4?
I don't think the Jahre can stand a chance against this Distagon optically. At <f5.6, it has wavy field curvature. The Jahre is definitely much smaller (smaller than the 50L) and lighter. In the immediate future, I am curious to see how the Jahre would fare against the ZA 50/1.4.
