Lotusm50 wrote:
Remember my comments. There maybe small differences in the point of focus and there are differences in field curvature between the lenses. Objects to towards the edges of the frame may show differences in focus becuase of this. Accordingly, I would not draw conclusions from which one might appear slightly sharper on certain object .
How do you explain the fact that #2 has more linear distortion? - Or do you not see that, either?
Cableaddict wrote:
How do you explain the fact that #2 has more linear distortion? - Or do you not see that, either?
What do you mean by "either"? Is there something else that I am supposedly not seeing?
If you see more linear distortion in #2, I have no explanation for it. I would just say that the no one said that the 50/2 MP is without distortion, but it does have less than the 50/1.4. How much linear distortion do you see and how have you assessed this? When I switched to the 50/2 MP there could have been a little movement on the tripod head along the panning axis (the pan was a little loose) and that could produce some small difference in the way some of the straight lines are represented. But I am fishing for a reason here.
Regardless, I'm not sure why you continue to attack this I am absolutely certain, beyond any doubt, that my #2 image above was indeed the 50/2 Makro-Planar. There is no mistake, no mix-up, irrespective of any linear distortion you may or may not see. You need to take my word on this. Further refutation of my word on this is not only pointless but but verges on being insulting.
If you see more linear distortion in #2, I have no explanation for it... When I switched to the 50/2 MP there could have been a little movement on the tripod head along the panning axis (the pan was a little loose) and that could produce some small difference in the way some of the straight lines are represented. But I am fishing for a reason here.
I suppose that's possible. -Another example of how hard it is to do these tests with absolute accuracy.
Yes, I will take your word for it, but not easily.
For those of you who would like further evidence of the exceptional 3-dimensionality or plasticity that the the ZF/ZE 50/2 MP can produce -- even at distances approaching infinity, please look at the images of Norway that Bobu captured with the lens in this thread: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/881865
Lotus, I don't think that there is any doubt of the 50 MP's potential for plasticity. Any difference with the f:1.4 in this respect is very slight IMHO (on a scale that also incorporates non-Zeiss lenses).
philber wrote:
Lotus, I don't think that there is any doubt of the 50 MP's potential for plasticity. Any difference with the f:1.4 in this respect is very slight IMHO (on a scale that also incorporates non-Zeiss lenses).
philber wrote:
Lotus, I don't think that there is any doubt of the 50 MP's potential for plasticity. Any difference with the f:1.4 in this respect is very slight IMHO.
I agree, the differences are small. Nearly all Zeiss lenses (at least the ones that I've come across) excel in this area. I think the 50/2 MP might have a leg up in this area over the 50/1.4, but it's a very, very short leg and hardly worth worrying about.
Cableaddict wrote:
You really don't see it?
See what? I'm really not sure what you're driving at here.
philber wrote:
I do see a difference, but it is small compared to the difference with, say, Canon zooms, Leica primes etc..
+1 at small differences ... which is corroborated by the 'small difference' in the MTF's. Part of the issue isn't always the issue of one being BETTER than another, but WHERE do they differ relative to frame composition & subject distance. This could be in part why one person is finding the 1.4 preferable to the 2.0, while the reverse is true for others. If you found the SWEET spot for the 1.4 vs. the 1.7 vs. the 2.0 ... I'd expect they all show a different subject distance/aperture/frame composition zone (A,B,C) for which they optimally render the effect.
IIRC .... Thrice did a nice test showing how the 3D effect was different at varying subject distance for a given lens / aperture (50/1.7 iirc) ... as such, I wouldn't put TOO MUCH stock in 'very minor' differences.
RustyBug wrote:
IIRC .... Thrice did a nice test showing how the 3D effect was different at varying subject distance for a given lens / aperture (50/1.7 iirc) ... as such, I wouldn't put TOO MUCH stock in 'very minor' differences.
Well, this may be considered flat...but my oldest son seems closer to me, the hats seem to project forward (wish they weren't wearing them) and my youngest son's hand seems to be coming out of my monitor. It may just be my imagination though.
Cableaddict wrote:
OK, do you guys REALLY not see a difference in the two Buddah shots?
Really?
That's frightening to me. Here's a tip: Look only at the blue roll of tape. Or, look at the entire pic as a whole, and see which has more depth & "pop." If you don't see a difference, you need to find a new hobby!
Landscape test coming soon.
Sorry, I don't see any differences regarding 3D in these two pictures.
