Haha! You will hate it more once my buy and sell thread hits the B&S section. I will be selling one of my copies soon along with another bunch of great gear as part of my yearly sale :-)
Anden wrote:
Haha! You will hate it more once my buy and sell thread hits the B&S section. I will be selling one of my copies soon along with another bunch of great gear as part of my yearly sale :-)
A
i wish i had heard that before i blew my camera budget for the summer.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Thanks Paul,Philippe,mMontag,AhamB,Andreas, and Charles!
I'll take a look at removing the CA in the 1st and 3rd one, thanks for pointing it out.
Alex, like the 2nd shot the best too.
Getting the right thickness adapter really made a huge sharpness difference for shots over 15 ft. away.
Would you mind sharing which adapter you're using now which has the right adapter thickness?
I tried a Contax 35-70/3.4 with an adapter that's much too thin (~1.35mm) and if the lens actually was in good shape (not 100% certain), it caused an insane amount of field curvature and corner blurring. The 35-70 has floating elements so adapter thickness is critical. I returned the lens now so unfortunately I won't be able to test that copy with a better adapter, but I am looking for a better adapter and will buy another copy of the 35-70.
BTW, I had another look at your shots and actually all of them display some CA in some places. It's up to you, but removing it is easy and the resulting image will look more natural and sharper. If you don't correct it you're basically looking at a double image, because green and red colors have a slightly different magnification (that's what lateral CA is). The absence of this is also what makes the images from apochromatic lenses so crisp and clean looking (not like an ordinary photograph which alway has some colour abberations 'overlayed', which reduces the transpacency and naturalness).
I got the latest HappyPageHK C/Y to EOS adapter with programmable chip.
I also got a micrometer to measure the thickness of adapters so I could give the thickness of the adapter if that helps. The adapter that came with the lens initially which was too thick was a Fotodiox Pro C/Y to EOS adapter.
Thanks about the CA and I guess this lens must have some when shot wide open then.
Not sure if anyone else has found that with their copy of the lens.
@Wayne: Thanks for the info. Is your adapter close to 1.425mm thick? On ebay I see that haoda adapter has a specified thickness of 1.42mm and they have a good return policy and 1 year warranty.
About the CA: most people will not look for it, but I usually 'scan' pictures to look at details and on the last picture, for instance, there's a pretty thick cyan fringe on top of the roof on the right. I don't think your copy of the 35/1.4 displays an undue amount of CA, but it's there. The 35/2 has it too. Sharpening accentuates it though.
Sometimes I can't get over how sharp this lens is! It almost seems too sharp sometimes, like it is discerning detail beyond what my 5D's sensor can recognize. I am going to have to see about getting another adapter for this lens. The Fotodiox Pro adapter I have is not able to focus to infinity on any of my C/Y lenses. Anyone have a suggestion of an adapter that is known to 100% focus to infinity? Thanks.
Jason,
I just got the latest HappypageHK adapter and I get infinity focus.Much better than the Fotodiox Pro adapter which I had too and which wasn't reaching infinity.
Andreas,
Nice shot of your tortoise!
Sure your Rollei copy will sell fast.
You should have written:
The official ZEISS-ROLLEI(HFT) 35/1.4 thread. Ok, its the same construction.
i had the c/y: marvellous in the corners already at 2.0.
Wayne: I hope it does not sell too fast. I kind of having a hard time letting it go :-)
europanorama: It was the rollei thread first but then we changed the name to the Zeiss (any flavour) 35/1.4 thread.
I have both the Rollei and the C/Y.
Anden wrote:
Wayne: I hope it does not sell too fast. I kind of having a hard time letting it go :-)
Sorry to crush your hope. No, actually, I'm not sorry at all.
mMontag wrote:
Such an interesting lens - I'm very tired of the term - but it does have "3D" to spare. I guess I'll just have to refer to it as "subject to back gound separation"
It's OK, you can say '3D' here. The other people at the Canon/Nikon forums won't hear you.
