Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              114      
115
       116              129       130       end
  

The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread
  
 
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #1 · p.115 #1 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Bizarre And how the music playing angel turns into the shadow of an old man smoking a pipe


Mar 25, 2013 at 08:42 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #2 · p.115 #2 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Impressive shadow spotting Carsten (!), I was focused with the triangles actually rhyming quite well with the gothic arches :-)

Great page, great images.

Leady, how do you find corner sharpness with the Speedbooster?



Mar 25, 2013 at 08:52 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #3 · p.115 #3 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Some cars today released from their winter hibernation. Two first are stitches, then a single shot just for comparison.

2 vertical shots


3 vertical shots


A similar composition with a single shot







Apr 01, 2013 at 07:40 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #4 · p.115 #4 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


You know my opinion already


Apr 01, 2013 at 07:59 PM
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #5 · p.115 #5 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Robert & Wilhelm, C/Y 1.4/35 and old cars make me doubt every time did I choose right when I went to ZE-version. Really nice shots, thanks for posting.

BTW. People seem mostly shooting wide open, does the C/Y bokeh improve/smoothen when closed down to f/2, f/2.2, f/2.5 (I know there is no "click" between f/2 and f/2.8 but when I shoot with C/Y lenses e.g. 1.7/50 I all the time shoot between f/2 and f/2.8 since the "sweet spot" between quality and amount of bokeh is there)? Does it loose the "3D" if you do that? The ZE version improves in bokeh quality, specially in corners.





Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 @ f/2, 1/4000s - larger




Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 @ f/2, 1/4000s - larger



Samuli



Apr 01, 2013 at 08:42 PM
ceder
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #6 · p.115 #6 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


wfrank wrote:
Some cars today released from their winter hibernation. Two first are stitches, then a single shot just for comparison.

2 vertical shots
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8247/8611335750_af96af0cf6_o.jpg

3 vertical shots
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8246/8611336036_64c7a4244b_o.jpg

A similar composition with a single shot
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8535/8611335494_4b34c3aed3_o.jpg


Lovely shots!
How do you do your stitches? Tripod? Special head? How much overlaps etc? I never done it...



Apr 01, 2013 at 08:44 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #7 · p.115 #7 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


carstenw wrote:
You know my opinion already


I knew you'd vote for the Merc. You Germans are all the same! ;-)



Apr 01, 2013 at 08:48 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #8 · p.115 #8 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


ceder wrote:
Lovely shots!
How do you do your stitches? Tripod? Special head? How much overlaps etc? I never done it...


Thanks ceder!

No, that's the beauty of it, no special equipment at all just common sense. Overlap in your mind and keep a horizon. Here at FM there are multiple examples of beautiful stitches with many more images than say 3-4. In those cases you may need to take some more care like working in a spiral (hard) or an imaginary row-by-row scheme (slightly easier).

Then select File/Automate/Photomerge in Photoshop. That's more or less it.



Apr 01, 2013 at 08:56 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #9 · p.115 #9 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Samuli Vahonen wrote:
BTW. People seem mostly shooting wide open, does the C/Y bokeh improve/smoothen when closed down to f/2, f/2.2, f/2.5 (I know there is no "click" between f/2 and f/2.8 but when I shoot with C/Y lenses e.g. 1.7/50 I all the time shoot between f/2 and f/2.8 since the "sweet spot" between quality and amount of bokeh is there)? Does it loose the "3D" if you do that? The ZE version improves in bokeh quality, specially in corners.

Samuli


imo, the c/y version doesn't improve bokeh much on stopping down. the corner bokeh gets a little less crazy (they are worse than the Z* btw), but in general there isn't much bokeh softening with stopping down. when you add the octagons from the non-rounded aperture blades (or even worse the triangles from the rollei) it often doesn't make a whole lot of sense to stop it down for reasons other than dof or cross the frame sharpness.

i don't have any longer distance comparisons (which is where it actually matters), but here is the same shot with the c/y (on aps-c unfortunately) at various apertures:

f/1.4:


f/2:


f/2.8:


f/4:



Apr 01, 2013 at 09:28 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #10 · p.115 #10 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Robert & Wilhelm, C/Y 1.4/35 and old cars make me doubt every time did I choose right when I went to ZE-version. Really nice shots, thanks for posting.

BTW. People seem mostly shooting wide open, does the C/Y bokeh improve/smoothen when closed down to f/2, f/2.2, f/2.5 (I know there is no "click" between f/2 and f/2.8 but when I shoot with C/Y lenses e.g. 1.7/50 I all the time shoot between f/2 and f/2.8 since the "sweet spot" between quality and amount of bokeh is there)? Does it loose the "3D" if you do that? The ZE version improves
...Show more

Thanks Samuli!

That is interesting and I know you advocate stopping down slightly on most of these lenses. Your images at F/2 are super-crisp (as usual coming from you). I think I have an old DOF chart stamped in my head just next to a huge lump of medium-format nostalgia. And when these conspire together I open up. Remembering images from R.Young, Leady and others adds too. But I should try your scheme and see what comes out.

Incidentally, here's another shot from today at F/2.8 or F/2. I stopped down to get more of the cafe behind (say hey to Johan, the hat-guy and proud owner of the Merc -64 :-). I imagine you lose part of the depth-feel that lens is capable of by doing this. Or do you mean the smoother bokeh (I would agree to that) compensate?

(This is earlier in the day, super harsh spring light, not my fav scenery)



Apr 01, 2013 at 09:35 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #11 · p.115 #11 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


wfrank wrote:
I knew you'd vote for the Merc. You Germans are all the same! ;-)


Hehe. I am neither German, nor would I vote for the Benz, although it is lovely



Apr 01, 2013 at 09:44 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #12 · p.115 #12 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


I know and I know and I think you knew that


Apr 01, 2013 at 09:52 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #13 · p.115 #13 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


I was wondering, but I wasn't sure


Apr 01, 2013 at 10:23 PM
ceder
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #14 · p.115 #14 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


wfrank wrote:
Thanks ceder!

No, that's the beauty of it, no special equipment at all just common sense. Overlap in your mind and keep a horizon. Here at FM there are multiple examples of beautiful stitches with many more images than say 3-4. In those cases you may need to take some more care like working in a spiral (hard) or an imaginary row-by-row scheme (slightly easier).

Then select File/Automate/Photomerge in Photoshop. That's more or less it.


Thanks for the reply. Never used Photomerge in Photoshop, but I will try it - the images have a lovely medium format feel! Great job Frank!



Apr 02, 2013 at 02:24 PM
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #15 · p.115 #15 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


sebboh, your aperture series tells exactly why there is no point of evaluating lens bokeh from flower shots; all is blur and there is no difference between apertures. If lens has bad quality bokeh on that kind of circumstances it most likely is useless for any shots involving bokeh...

wfrank, most likely you used f/2.8 on that Mercedes shot, hard to imagine cafe behind would be that sharp if shoot with f/2.0 - also vignetting (lack of it) indicates f/2.8. I would believe even f/4, but for f/5.6 bokeh is too thin. Even shot closed down the Mercedes appears pretty "real" in my screen - thou I have never seen connection between shallow DOF and "3D" (except too shallow DOF most often kills it for me).


Thanks for the aperture discussion sebboh, wfrank. I started to evaluate my own photos from 2012 to better understand the behaviour of the lens wide open vs. closed down. Last year I made conclusions too fast from the images I shoot - sure some of the wide open shots have one of the most ugliest bokehs I have seen from Zeiss lens (e.g. this).

Based on these initial (and partially wrong) conclusion I have mainly used the lens at f/2.0-2.8 for bokeh shots and shooting landscapes with f/5.6. If I correctly interpret the last year sample images:
- ugly bokeh can come if circumstances are suitable (until closed down to f/3.2-4 depending on distance), it's mostly caused by bright edge bokeh circles, closing down will make the bokeh circles smaller but there still is quality issue in them
- bokeh magenta/green issues on contrast edges are bad at f/1.4, but depending on subject they may not be at all visible (e.g. my typical summer photos of green mossy forest with random brownish and reddish colors will never bring it up) - these issues improve a lot already closing down to f/2
- can't see similar behaviour as with planars (all of them, including 2/100 MP) that closing down would increase contrast at target - with planars, specially 1.4/50 the subject stands out MORE with f/2.5 than it does f/1.4 due to increased contrast on subject (but not on bokeh)

So my brand new guideline for myself for 2013:
- bokeh shots: shoot f/1.4, if bokeh issues, go closer and/or close aperture to f/3.2-4 depending shooting distance - if vignetting or magenta/green issues close f/2.0-2.8 depending shooting distance
- landscapes: keep shooting f/5.6

Getting used to hotspotting...eh...vignetting may be quite challenge for me. I rarely want vignetting from artistic point of view.

Some images, which hopefully show what I concluded. I placed these to temporarily folder so they won't be available forever, most likely I'll clean them at some point during 2013.


Closing down to f/2.5 (1 and 2/3 stop down!!!) didn't cure the bokeh highlight issues, just made bokeh highlight smaller size - also f/2.5 apparent bokeh contrast is much higher [handhold and branches swinging in front of the sun, so don't evaluate on focus area, just bokeh]





Closing down f/2.2 (1 and 1/3 stop down) removed magenta glow from white fence





Strong vignetting wide open, lots of bokeh highlight issues - closing down to f/3.2 (2 and 1/3 stop down) cured most of them but few give still hint of sharp edge





With correct scenario there is nothing to lose using f/1.4 - only thing gained seems to be less hotspotting/vignetting. With both apertures bokeh is very smooth.




Samuli



Apr 02, 2013 at 05:05 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #16 · p.115 #16 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Samuli Vahonen wrote:
sebboh, your aperture series tells exactly why there is no point of evaluating lens bokeh from flower shots; all is blur and there is no difference between apertures. If lens has bad quality bokeh on that kind of circumstances it most likely is useless for any shots involving bokeh...
Samuli


actually, i find them quite useful for evaluating bokeh for other flowershots.

i disagree with your second statement as well. i've encountered a number of lenses that have quite poor bokeh up close that improves dramatically at longer distance. a few people on fm have suggested the zeiss 50/1.4 that you use is one of those, i've not played with it enough to know

very interesting series by the way. i think you would be disappointed by the c/y compared to your Z* for your type of shooting as the contax has much worse bokeh in the corners. i suspect most of the extra size in the new version comes from trying to even things out towards the edges. the new version has less "impact" in the center and (slightly harsher bokeh there too), but more resolution and softer bokeh towards the edges from what i've seen.



Apr 02, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #17 · p.115 #17 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


sebboh wrote:
actually, i find them quite useful for evaluating bokeh for other flowershots.

Good point - for flower shots it give some indication However I have never seen lens, which gives bad bokeh on that kind of ratio between focus plane and background, that was my point - when focus is at 30cm and background at 300cm, there hardly can be bad bokeh expect bokeh highlight shape and light concentration issues.

sebboh wrote:
i disagree with your second statement as well. i've encountered a number of lenses that have quite poor bokeh up close that improves dramatically at longer distance. a few people on fm have suggested the zeiss 50/1.4 that you use is one of those, i've not played with it enough to know

On my experience most bad bokeh, is mostly caused by mechanical vignetting. Most lenses, which don't have inner focusing, extend during close up-focusing making effective focal length shorter and decreasing vignetting. Of course there could be other issues behind bad bokeh as well, e.g. bokeh highlight shape and light concentration, which may or may not "live" as function of focus distance.

I have quite little experience shooting 50 planar wide open close up - tried few frames years ago and that's it. The focal plane stuff shoot f/1.4 close-up is so rubbish that I mostly close down to f/2.8-4 when doing close-ups. And at those apertures I have not detected any bokeh issues, quite the opposite. I know shooting it wide open close-ups can create swirly bokeh, but I rarely manage to make it happen (at least if I want that effect it won't happen...) - it may also create bad bokeh, so I have heard (maybe I should test that too, I have just made my own rules of not shooting f/1.4 close-up years ago and I doubt I have shoot more than 10 images at f/1.4 in past 3 years, and none of them close-up with the 50).

sebboh wrote:
very interesting series by the way. i think you would be disappointed by the c/y compared to your Z* for your type of shooting as the contax has much worse bokeh in the corners. i suspect most of the extra size in the new version comes from trying to even things out towards the edges. the new version has less "impact" in the center and (slightly harsher bokeh there too), but more resolution and softer bokeh towards the edges from what i've seen.

Very good point about the size - the increase in size is quite big. One dislike for me is the size and weight of 1.4/35ZE, it takes huge space from camera bag. Interesting to see what comes from Zeiss after 1.4/55 (which is gigantic size), if it's wide angle e.g. 1.4/28, most likely also gigantic size, but most interesting will be will these new ones have anymore any "impact" compared to old Zeiss designs.

Samuli



Apr 02, 2013 at 05:40 PM
sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #18 · p.115 #18 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Good point - for flower shots it give some indication However I have never seen lens, which gives bad bokeh on that kind of ratio between focus plane and background, that was my point - when focus is at 30cm and background at 300cm, there hardly can be bad bokeh expect bokeh highlight shape and light concentration issues.


oh, there are a ton of lenses that will produce bad bokeh in such a situation. in this case it's ~60mm subject 200mm background. here is the same shot with the 35 lux pre-asph, which is noticeably worse, and i've seen a lot of lenses that are much worse.

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
On my experience most bad bokeh, is mostly caused by mechanical vignetting. Most lenses, which don't have inner focusing, extend during close up-focusing making effective focal length shorter and decreasing vignetting. Of course there could be other issues behind bad bokeh as well, e.g. bokeh highlight shape and light concentration, which may or may not "live" as function of focus distance.

Samuli


sounds like we may be sensitive for different things in bokeh, but what typically bothers me the most is bright high contrast outlines in bokeh highlights. i've used a number of lenses that have these at some focus distances not others. usually they will be better at short than long distances, but not always. the the rokkor 28/2 for instance has large bright rings at short distances but smooths out nicely at longer distances (though corners still have some issues).



Apr 02, 2013 at 06:43 PM
wfrank
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #19 · p.115 #19 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


Interesting Samuli, thanks for the walk-through and images. You're probably right about F/2.8 aperture, looking at EXIF shutter time it looks two steps stopped down as I remember bordering on the 1/8000 5D2 limit with ISO100 in that light.

Talking about bokeh including the linked digger example - I agree, not very nice. But do you mask that area while downsizing? I always mask bokeh/OOF areas. If not bokeh have a lot of potential turning worse than it is. Sometimes it doesnt matter though, very much depending on distance, size and amount of contrast in the OOF areas.

I also have to ask, why only F/5.6 on landscapes? With 5D2 I want at least F/8 or F/11. Diffraction cant be an issue, right? On a crop sensor F/5.6 is fine, in my case a 16MP Nex 5N.

On the issue of vignetting, too bad lenses provide so little of it . I usually add more. I wouldnt necessarily call it artistic - simply a way of highlighting the subject in question. Or actually the exact opposite, reducing the impact of the rest.

CA/Fringing, I often fail to spot it. I had to look for some time before finding it in the white fence, and only by enlarging the image. But I've seen here others notice it immediately, so I have a lack of fidelity for that.



Apr 02, 2013 at 07:22 PM
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.115 #20 · p.115 #20 · The official Zeiss 35/1.4 thread


wfrank wrote:
Talking about bokeh including the linked digger example - I agree, not very nice. But do you mask that area while downsizing? I always mask bokeh/OOF areas. If not bokeh have a lot of potential turning worse than it is. Sometimes it doesnt matter though, very much depending on distance, size and amount of contrast in the OOF areas.

I don't do masking or other photo processing. I do if photo is important somehow and it needs to be rescued for reason or another. After doing x+1 weddings and other stuff it causes strong negative feeling even just knowing I need to do that kind of work - to me the photo processing is the disgusting side of doing photography. If I have longer holiday it's quite typical for me that I don't even process all the photos - I still haven't even seen all photos I took in Scotland last summer, or from 2009 summer holiday from Norway and Lapland...

I have optimized all my workflows so that I spend 5-20 seconds active work time for each image I publish here or my website. Typical photo I post in this forum I have done nothing, sometimes I touch black level and WB. The extreme processing is that I need to touch other sliders in Apple Aperture, which is very rare and quite often I mention that when posting photo that image has been processed unlike my normal images. Thou in past few years I have learned more to use "highlights" slider instead of throwing image to trash bin if highlights are blown - but I loose my nerves if I start to tweak with it all the time.

One of the reasons to use almost exclusive Zeiss lenses is that I don't need to do post processing. Naturally in my workflow it's very important to do everything right already when shooting the photo - if I expose more than 1/3 stop incorrectly it's game over (or I'm forced to tweak the photo many more seconds, even minutes, and it will never have same purity of colors and tones what it could had if exposed correctly - so why bother...).

HDRs and panoramas are exception, for reason or another I find it interesting to tweak them.


wfrank wrote:
I also have to ask, why only F/5.6 on landscapes? With 5D2 I want at least F/8 or F/11. Diffraction cant be an issue, right? On a crop sensor F/5.6 is fine, in my case a 16MP Nex 5N.

Diffraction caused contrast loss - shooting f/8 requires extra work to restore same brilliance as comes natural when shooting f/5.6. If shooting f/11 it's impossible (for me at least) to restore it anymore no matter what I do and with what tools - sure image is still "ok" sometimes, but it lacks something. If DOF is really needed I shoot smaller aperture; on last week Friday I took many wide angle shots @ f/11 and background still wasn't sharp enough...

wfrank wrote:
CA/Fringing, I often fail to spot it. I had to look for some time before finding it in the white fence, and only by enlarging the image. But I've seen here others notice it immediately, so I have a lack of fidelity for that.

It's also hard for me - in this image it was quite easy to see due to the effect of it caused to the white (or whitish...) fence causing it to have incorrect white. Hard to see the individual pixels on the edges, those I fail to see many times, but if it influences to generic colour of something then it's easy to spot (and difficult to remove via software).

Samuli



Apr 02, 2013 at 08:29 PM
1       2       3              114      
115
       116              129       130       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              114      
115
       116              129       130       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password