p.2 #1 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
You guys owe it to yourself to see a roll of chrome shot with the new Leica M 50 1.4 asph. I have never seen chrome look that good.
Unfortunatly it wasn't my lens :-(
p.2 #2 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
Robert
It might have been my testing - The Oly adapter I had was not very good, I now have a cameraquest OM:EOS and need to reshoot the test this year when I get sunlight again......
I got severely mauled by some quarters as I tested over several weekends at about the same time of day - I also cannot recall if the Macro had a B&W UV filter on it or not - oops! which may explain the strange colour cast compared to the other images.......the links if any one stil interested were as follows
I also I don't have the luxury of being able to buy multiple copies of lenses (not meant as a dig at any one ;-)) ), but used these tests to sort out my best lens for my purposes.
p.2 #3 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
Brambling, yout tests look interesting. .Im not sure if you did shot during same conditions. Because I see some shadows at some pictures, not at all pix. Zeiss pictures look completely flat, with high sharpness, no shadows. I liked best Zuiko lenses in color rendition, tonality. Why shots look so awkward with Canon Macro? It is just too much difference for me. The canon lense had everything except colors. Where are those? It was very interesting to look at your tests anyway. It would be nice to get a look at test shoots with typical primes as canon, nikon, leica and compare results with other.
p.2 #4 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
Its surprising how good the macro looks at infinity. That is the Canon 50mm f/2.5 ? I wonder how an unshifted 45 TSE compares with the Zeiss 50's or the Macro 50 at f/5.6? Anyone have both?
PS: Now Im thinking about my Pentax 6x7 lenses - I think I have a 45mm, too! Ive neen trying to find a straight P67>EOS adapter used to try it.
p.2 #6 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
Paul; the 1.7 stopped down is not IRL sharper than the 1.4 stopped down. I can't possibly think you'd see a difference between the two. From my vague recollection I remember the 1.7 was sharper wide open than the 1.4 was, wide open. I mostly used my 1.4 at f2 or f2.8 with great results (and gorgeous bokeh) but the 1.7 I can't recall as I didn't put it to much use except for a wedding shoot wide open where it was great.
Both are splendid but as said, the 1.4 focused closer and that was what made me choose it over the 1.7.
p.2 #7 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
Getting back to the Leica "ahhhhhh" vs. the Zeiss "wow," I want the wow ...the contrast and crisp detail. Im posting a Buy/Sell ad for another adapter and a CZ 50mm f/1.7 Also, I have shot tests with my wides - the cheap adapter that came with my CZ 28mm doesnt allow focus on infinity (glad I found out that on the ground!!!). It focuses at about 15-20 ft.
p.2 #9 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
Bill,
...nice have a repay instead of payback
Margulis is one of my hero's -- I love it when he said that he could color correct on a black & white monitor just as well as a calibrated one
He really knows his color and prepress! I learned to craft a curve by looking at his examples, but Im not familiar with that Canyondrum book. I photograph canyons, too!
p.2 #10 · 50mm: Canon Zeiss Nikon Oly - is there really any difference?
pchaplo wrote:
Bill,
...nice have a repay instead of payback
...
Maybe I can find a used one?
maybe- it's now 6 mos. old- if not it's worht the price.
If you can't find one I could try to summarize the relevant parts for you- but it'll have to wait as I am under the weather (pinched nerve in neck (OUCH!!) and now I have a f$U%&%$# cold!)
