Steven,
Did my last N 50 image have pop or no?
Can you post a sample of a 50 1.7 shot with pop?
Yes, I believe the Sonnar design has less 3-d pop than a planar design but can still deliver 3-d pop with the right conditions. I am basing this on the ZA 135 1.8 lens.
TIA
For me, pop comes from the micro details, and I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing it in your Buddha images. Well, maybe a bit, but I want more from Zeiss. The detail looks a little bit "smudged", like the macro-contrast has been pushed too hard maybe. It is a fine image though, and the colours are very satisfiying. The second rendition, with more sharpening, has a bit too much high-contrast edginess for my taste, and I agree with your cautious approach in over-sharpening web images. It's a tough call, and I'm no master of it. I should have someone teach me the basics because I usually just drag the slider around until I'm relatively happy.
Here are two images that I feel show the kind of fine-detail pop that I like. I wish there a way for me to show you the print of the second one. Sometimes the web doesn't do justice to the images from these fine lenses.
5D, C/Y 50/1.4 (look at the rocks and branches in the foreground; there was a lot of contrast-busting mist coming off the stream, but I think the Zeiss did a good job of picking out the micro-details despite that.) http://www.pbase.com/image/120766641/original.jpg
5D, C/Y 50.14 (maybe oversharpened, I'm terrible at deciding. This is one reason I like images from Zeiss lenses: they are so punchy out of the camera, which keeps me away from the Smart Sharpen filter. ) http://www.pbase.com/image/120766785/original.jpg
Steven, no doubt about it, these images have "pop" as far as I am concerned. So my hypothesis that maybe the planar 50 was not as "pop-rich as other Zeiss designs is plain wrong. Thanks! And congratulations for two really beautiful images. Where there they shot?
wayne seltzer wrote:
Which lens is used in the first shot and is warmer?
The ZF was the lens in the first images and appears to be slightly warmer in tone. It is subtly warmer, but evident none the less. I wonder if this new warmth is carried through the ZF line relative to the c/y lenses. If I had more of my old c/y lenses I could test. The obvious additional comparisons with comparable c/y lenses would be the 18mm. 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 85mm and the 100mm. (ok, nearly all of them). I checked the Digillyod reviews to see if he compared the ZF's against the earlier c/y lenses. He didn't. He did however, note that color performance across the ZF lens is remarkably consistent, so I would expect this warmth relative to the c/y to continue through the lens line.
Which lens was the second and third ? Bit surprise that the first was the zf; though you did mention it was slightly out of focus in the first set.
Lotusm50 wrote:
The ZF was the lens in the first images and appears to be slightly warmer in tone. It is subtly warmer, but evident none the less. I wonder if this new warmth is carried through the ZF line relative to the c/y lenses. If I had more of my old c/y lenses I could test. The obvious additional comparisons with comparable c/y lenses would be the 18mm. 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm, 85mm and the 100mm. (ok, nearly all of them). I checked the Digillyod reviews to see if he compared the ZF's against the earlier c/y lenses. He didn't. He did however, note that color performance across the ZF lens is remarkably consistent, so I would expect this warmth relative to the c/y to continue through the lens line.
philber wrote:
Steven, no doubt about it, these images have "pop" as far as I am concerned. So my hypothesis that maybe the planar 50 was not as "pop-rich as other Zeiss designs is plain wrong. Thanks! And congratulations for two really beautiful images. Where there they shot?
Philber, Thanks. The images were taken in the Korean highlands on the east coast. Good hiking trip out, and some nice photography.
Andi-
Which N lenses did you get? Did you get a copy of the N85?
I finally figured out how to do the micro-adjust on my N85 (it was front focusing significantly) so I actually haven't used it much on my Canon. It was a favorite lens on my N1, back in the day. But here are a couple very recent test shots that might show some of the lens' lovely character wide open. Where it really shires, of course, is with portraiture. I hope to put it through its paces on a suitable project soon. http://boncratious.com/images/FloridaPine.jpg http://boncratious.com/images/EnjoyYourPark.jpg
Paul, congrats on the lenses, you will be happy! The N85 is the last lens that I would ever sell. The N50 is small, light and superb as well. I wish that the N line had grown to additional lenses, a 135/2 would have been really nice too.
thx philber:-)
this was shot in the lobby of Mandarin Oriental in Bangkok which was rather dark. so i choose iso 3200. eventually for this shot against the light from a window there was more light, so a lower iso would have been sufficient, ur right ... i was just to lazy to change
I just received a converted 85/1.4. No joke, it feels the heaviest of all the N's with the exception of the 400. (The images it produces are heavy weight too....awesome!)
Finally I found a N85 wide open shot back in June, 2009. I was using a 400D at the time. Pic is slightly adjusted WB and exposure in LR, no further adjustment applied.
If it's too heavy, you can sell it to me....
Seriously, I'm looking for one.....
DocsPics wrote:
Paul,
I just received a converted 85/1.4. No joke, it feels the heaviest of all the N's with the exception of the 400. (The images it produces are heavy weight too....awesome!)
)