Thus for the 50 MP has been the stiffest focus ring in the ZE's I've owned. Prior to the ZE's, the ZF 100 MP was really stiff. Using the ZF as a benchmark, the 50 MP isn't so bad. But as you said Ray, it's a surprise. I briefly had the 50/1.4 ZE and its focus ring had a very light action.
Paul Yi wrote:
I'd love to see some comparison between C/Y and ZE version if anyone has both...
And, I think you're a perfect candidate for that John......
A few initial impressions with all captures at f/2. Don't take this too seriously; I don't when other people post such test results.
-And I CAN pick the difference. The ZE is clearly sharper, (from this limited test) and with no serious bokeh penalty in the top pic. - but they are much closer than expected.
Sadly, other threads have shown this lens to have slighlty questionable bokeh. I can be a bit "nervous."
Paul Yi wrote:
Toothwalker.....wow, thank you for the comparison......
I really can't pick the difference....
The ZE is the second one, i.e., bottom or right. It looks a bit better to me in the example with the placard. It also yields a little less (absolute) blur in the background because i) its focal length is 97.5 mm (versus 99.9 for the Y/C); ii) it falls short of f/2.0 and is closer to f/2.1.
Toothwalker wrote:
The ZE is the second one, i.e., bottom or right. It looks a bit better to me in the example with the placard. It also yields a little less (absolute) blur in the background because i) its focal length is 97.5 mm (versus 99.9 for the Y/C); ii) it falls short of f/2.0 and is closer to f/2.1.
I'd have never guessed it correctly....
I think I can live with such a minimal difference....
I'm starting to think that maybe Contax N100/2.8 is a better option for me since I already have it.
As I use it more, I'm seeing 3D quality from it as well.....and it has 1:1 macro capability.
-And I CAN pick the difference. The ZE is clearly sharper, (from this limited test) and with no serious bokeh penalty in the top pic. - but they are much closer than expected.
Sadly, other threads have shown this lens to have slighlty questionable bokeh. I can be a bit "nervous."
More comparison pics, please!
I am waiting until it's less cold so that I can go out with a tripod without my hands freezing to the equipment. But if you can live with slightly different conditions, you can inspect this file for the ZE and this file for the Y/C. Both at f/2. And here is a passer-by with the ZE at f/4.
Toothwalker wrote:
I am waiting until it's less cold so that I can go out with a tripod without my hands freezing to the equipment. But if you can live with slightly different conditions, you can inspect this file for the ZE and this file for the Y/C. Both at f/2. And here is a passer-by with the ZE at f/4.
[Edit: zero sharpening of course.]
Wow...!
From those two files, the ZE100 looks a lot better.....
I second looked.....it seems there is a slight difference of metering or exposure...
Paul Yi wrote:
Wow...!
From those two files, the ZE100 looks a lot better.....
I second looked.....it seems there is a slight difference of metering or exposure...
The ZE consistently yields darker images than the Y/C on my 5D, so I needed to adjust the brightness. Otherwise the lighting conditions are different here, with the ZE enjoying a little more of the late-afternoon sunlight. Here is another one of the Y/C that compares better to the ZE in terms of light.
Toothwalker wrote:
until it's less cold so that I can go out with a tripod without my hands freezing to the equipment. But if you can live with slightly different conditions, you can inspect this file for the ZE and this file for the Y/C. Both at f/2.
Excellent! Thanks.
I guess the bokeh isn't so different after all. Those other pics must have been "worst case" situations.
Sadly, these pics do reinforce what we have seen elsewhere: The ZE doesn't quite have the plasticity (3D) of the Planar. This is very clear, and makes the decision almost impossible, as the ZE is superior in sharpnessr, contrast, and color. - plus it does macro, of course.
Well, the ZE still has nice plasticity, it's just that the Planar is one of the best lenses on the planet, in that regard. -so maybe it's not a horrible trade-off after all.
Toothwalker wrote:
The ZE consistently yields darker images than the Y/C on my 5D .
Interesting. I suspect this has something to do with the newer coatings, and maybe that's why the contrast & color is superior on the newer lens. (I thinking of an analogy to focus screens)
Cableaddict wrote:
I guess the bokeh isn't so different after all. Those other pics must have been "worst case" situations.
I couldn't find much difference in the bokeh in the other pics either.
Sadly, these pics do reinforce what we have seen elsewhere: The ZE doesn't quite have the plasticity (3D) of the Planar. This is very clear, and makes the decision almost impossible, as the ZE is superior in sharpnessr, contrast, and color. - plus it does macro, of course.
Here you lost me. I see that the ZE is sharper (at least in today's test shots), but more plasticity (3D) with the Planar? I don't see it.
What about at other apertures? Are they pretty close in sharpness?
Wondering if my ~$900 C/Y 100/2 is a much cheaper almost as sharp alternative than the $1800 ZE if you don't need macro, which I don't since I have the Leica 100 APO.
Cableaddict wrote:
Sadly, these pics do reinforce what we have seen elsewhere: The ZE doesn't quite have the plasticity (3D) of the Planar. This is very clear, and makes the decision almost impossible, as the ZE is superior in sharpnessr, contrast, and color. - plus it does macro, of course.
Toothwalker wrote:
Here you lost me. I see that the ZE is sharper (at least in today's test shots), but more plasticity (3D) with the Planar? I don't see it.
Cableaddict wrote:
Then you don't see it.
To me the makroplanar.jpg image renders finer texture detail, better color contrast, better color reproduction, and a more defined bokeh with the same basic degree of silky softness as the anotherplanar.jpg image. If I had to pick one that fits the FM definition of plasticity it would be the makroplanar image. I'm not sure who's saying what so I dunno who I'm agreeing with tho.
