ISO1600 wrote:
I like bokeh that punches you in the face. None of this prissy "smooth and blurry" poppycock for me. I want chaos, i want obvious. I want a train wreck with no survivors.
Lotusm50 wrote: ISO1600 wrote:
I like bokeh that punches you in the face. None of this prissy "smooth and blurry" poppycock for me. I want chaos, i want obvious. I want a train wreck with no survivors.
Unfortunately that often translates to "distracting", "irritating", "unpleasant", or "headache-inducing"
I feel rather stupid for posting these, as i only used this lens for one day. The reason for posting these pictures is because i've noticed a certain 3d effect in the way the OOF areas are rendered by my jupiter 37a. that made me wonder if bokeh has anything to do with this. The pictures I post are taken on that day without the intention beforehand to create a 3d effect.
As part of my webpages I have been creating (under progress already over a year...a little hard to find time for this kind of things) a comparison of short tele lenses I have shoot some comparisons, I'll post few of them here:
All images are processed with normal Apple Aperture all sliders in middle and same white balance. Due to this images look a little "mild" but gives better comparison of lenses. When I took images I used Canon EOS 1D Mark III and Av-mode.
--
Samuli Vahonen http://www.vahonen.com
ISO1600 wrote:
oh come on. This has to be simply the most subjective and pretentious thread i've seen in years.
let me also point out that it's ludicrous to even get on the topic of bokeh unless you're shooting said lenses on a Film or FF/FX sensored camera. You're only cheating yourself to do otherwise.
I like bokeh that punches you in the face. None of this prissy "smooth and blurry" poppycock for me. I want chaos, i want obvious. I want a train wreck with no survivors.
Haha. Welcome.
We all play with the stuff we have available I guess. Train wrecks? That's modest.
oh man, i didn't see that pic earlier. In all the 50/.95 shots i've seen, i think this is one of the most "aggressive" in showing what the lens is capable of. Thank you for sharing!
Samuli - which version of the L90 did you use - the last prior to it being discontinued (formula was adjusted for better close focus ) or an earlier version?
Conner999 wrote:
Samuli - which version of the L90 did you use - the last prior to it being discontinued (formula was adjusted for better close focus ) or an earlier version?
It's latest version as far as I understand http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/451879/0#3881597
Thanks. Nice shots BTW. Zeiss has slightly higher contrast (classic Zeiss vs Leica), and Zeiss colors are a bit more saturated - part of that being the higher contrast from the T* coatings. Resolution wise in center, are very, very close from the shots above. Bokeh-wise there is that love it/hate it double-edge effect on OOF edges with the Zeiss (flower stalks). 3D effect to the Zeiss. Depending on your taste in bokeh and contrast, it would be a toss-up either way (price aside of course).
To my eyes, the Zeiss looks sharper, as well as a little higher contrast and little more saturation. I think the bokeh of the Zeiss, across all the images is nicer as well. There is a bit of a bright line effect on the evident in the Leica (in particular in the field shot at the top), For the most part, the Zeiss is smoother. I really don't see the double-edge effect mentioned with the Zeiss anywhere in these samples.
Thanks for this great illustration of the different styles of the two lens makers. Each lens is a thoroughbred from its respective stable, and this subtle difference is maintained in many other comparable lenses from Zeiss and Leica. In my opinion, which you prefer is a matter of taste. Either lens is a privilege, but I'll take the Zeiss, because of the 3D effect.
Thank you for the comparison, and with nice images to that.
To my eyes it seems as there is a little more microcontrast in the Zeiss images. If I'm not fooling myself that, together with the slightly increased contrast, has something to do with the 3D effect mentioned earlier. The Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar is interesting. Some day when I have the money I may have to check it out and compare it to the 90Cron ASPH and see how I feel about it. Regards,
Thanks for nice comments about images but let's be honest they are just test images of subjects on different distances to evaluate bokeh and far from nice. Personally I have fallen in love with Zeiss bokeh after 35ZF and 100ZF - it may be a little edgy sometimes but it's up to photographer to utilize good properties of equipment and hide the bad properties. Earlier I reached only for smooth bokeh, but the Zeiss "character" has change my mind.
Let's turn around the expectations: Smooth bokeh from Zeiss and edgy bokeh from Leica however I think both serve the purpose well...
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planal T* 2/100 ZF @ f/8
Leica Summicron-R 50mm f/2.0 @ f/2
PS. This week I try to compare Zeiss 100 to 85L and maybe 135L, maybe even EF100makro - however I doubt much surprices there, both Canon Ls ave just ultra smooth no-surprises bokeh, more interesting to see colors and contrast.
--
Samuli Vahonen http://www.vahonen.com
I finalized first comparison images between Zeiss 100 ZF and 85L and was pretty surprised that actually 85L performed almost as well as Zeiss 100 ZF in my first test scenarios except having some bokeh CA, well more demanding scenarios to be added later Link to review.
Both lenses do have some bokeh CA, but it's worse on 85L
mh2000 wrote:
Samuli, the Summircron-R 50 looks significantly better 1/2 stop down from open... those bright lines completely go away.
At this photo the intention was to give feeling of forest after rain when sun is shining as a background for spider web. I think wide open worked very well for this - also the bokeh is not distracting, it's just busy and a little edgy. The bokeh "circles" are evenly illuminated (would be annoying if edge of those circles would be more bright than the centers) and if there are two lights close to each other they nicely blend by those overlapping circles. Only thing I personally would like to change, if laws of physics would allow without making lens bigger size, is to have round circles in corners instead of "cats-eye" shaped.
those circles look brighter around the edges on my screen... sorry. my Summicron does it too at f2... big difference at f2.4 (or whatever that first intermediate stop is)... much smoother IMO for not much more DOF. I like the feel of the photo though... don't mean to be critical. I just love my Summicron so much more after realizing how much smoother it is at f2.4...
Agree, those circle edges are a little brighter than edges but not to nearly as bad as for example in Canon EF100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, much closer to "perfect" (see definition here: link) but not quite there.
ISO1600 wrote:
oh man, i didn't see that pic earlier. In all the 50/.95 shots i've seen, i think this is one of the most "aggressive" in showing what the lens is capable of. Thank you for sharing!
I only post that one for shock value! The boke is usually much more subdued than that.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Agree, those circle edges are a little brighter than edges but not to nearly as bad as for example in Canon EF100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, much closer to "perfect" (see definition here: link) but not quite there.
however I think both serve the purpose well...
