zombii wrote:
The 100mm f/2 is probably the sharpest but I like the 85mm f/1.4 better for portraits. Maybe I got a better than average copy but mine is very sharp and it's easier to use for portraits than the 100.
I find the 100/2 easier to use for portraiture. Unlike the 85/1.4 it allows a tight head crop, I find it easier to focus, and the overall result is more pleasing to me. My ideal portrait lens. That said, it is difficult to go wrong with any lens in this focal length range, Zeiss or non Zeiss for that matter.
The 50mm f/1.4 is nothing special. It doesn't come close to my 50L but it's way better that the EF 50mm f/1.4.
The 50/1.4 is as good as a 50 mm can get, with an overwhelming contrast at intermediate aperture settings.
The 28mm f/2 is a great lens, particularly wide open but pretty pricey.
It is even better if you close it down by a few stops. It is one of my Y/C favorites, especially for use at close range.
James: incredible photos!! Thank you for taking your time and posting those!
Philber: Is the 135mm you used f2.8 or 2.0 one (MMJ?)? The photo certainly looks great!
Toothwalker: Thanks a lot for the tips. I haven't spotted the 180 or 300 yet, but will ignore.
Zombii: I found the 60mm in another store recently, but it was too expensive! In the region of 600USD I believ (well, keeping in mind current exchange rates). I don't think 28mm was that expensive though.
I think based on the info I got earlier, I would rather go for 50/1.7 than 50/1.4, albeit some images taken with f1.4 one are really good.
philber, I am a biologist, and your local fauna makes me loose focus on the IQ... Is bow fishing really legal there around? Who cares? Should get some nice filées out of that winged one!
philber wrote:
James, your set of pics is so gorgeous that it looks like pure advertising for Zeiss! I am just a bit puzzled by your comment on your 135, because mine does delight me.
I't hard to say why it does not "wow" me like the others. Maybe it's just because of what I've shot with it. I've also got Leica R 135/2.8 and a Pentax 135/3.5. All three lenses actually seem to give me about the same results most of the time. Still, the Leica showed to do really well shooting closeups of flowers so maybe I just haven't shot the right subject with the Contax 135mm
jamesdak wrote:
Still, the Leica showed to do really well shooting closeups of flowers so maybe I just haven't shot the right subject with the Contax 135mm
My shots with the 135mm are almost all mid-to-long-distance. For close-ups, I use my wide ZEs until the 100mm Makro comes out in ZE form. So this might explain that.
SMC 135/3.5 actually is great and if it's producing similar results to the CY 135/2.8, then I can wait with acquiring that one.
I actually borrowed a set of Kenko AC close up lenses and stuck on top of my Super Takumar 55/1.8..needless to say I was really surprised with the results. both 135 and 55 share same filter thread, so I will do the test and see how the SMC 135/3.5 does.
Actually planning to sell my 16-35 f2.8L to finance my CY acquisitions... Those 35 and 28 shots were just superb! And surely, the CA on the 28 can't be half as bad as on 16-35!!
@Z250SA
Those 35 and 28 shots were just superb! And surely, the CA on the 28 can't be half as bad as on 16-35!!