Makten since you're filling up cyberspace with your new 50 1.4 ZE, I think someone needs to give the 35 ZE some love...
It was the perfect time of day, gave me nice colors... (this was from the jpg) The full size RAW file looks amazing on the monitor in full..
So here's a shot from today 35 @ f2, just resized for web (and probably didn't even do it right)..
adamdewilde wrote:
To be honest with you, they all look the same to me.
You shouldn't look at them as posted here in sequence. Download the images and flip through them and you'll definitely see variations. Differences in distortion become for instance pretty obvious (although since there are no straight lines you can't tell which way the distortions go).
I am with Bobu and Makten. Except that I hope (C) isn't the 50 f:1.4, because it could lead to buying another lens....:-(((
Bobu, congratulations on your new lens!
Samuli, thanks for settign up this test. Very interesting. And you and Makten are forcing me (in a good way) to revisit my evaluaiton of the f:1.4. What I put down to softness wide open was mere photographer incompetence..:-(((
denoir wrote:
You shouldn't look at them as posted here in sequence. Download the images and flip through them and you'll definitely see variations. Differences in distortion become for instance pretty obvious (although since there are no straight lines you can't tell which way the distortions go).
Probably, but I don't shoot landscapes, and my shooting style is probably far different from Samuli's. So for me to download and flip through them would be meaningless for my work.
Though I may just do that for the heck of it... Since you took the time to post the suggestion. I did it with someones purple macro of a flower, thats when I realized that I must have the 100 MP ZE, and thats what started me off on my ZE journey.
The thing is, one might be tempted to say that they are are more or less equal so it doesn't matter which lens you use. As good and valuable such examples are (by the way, thank you Samuli for taking the time to do it) one can learn only so much from one or a few test shots. I know for instance when I got my 5DII that I was completely convinced that it was no better in terms of image quality than my 7D. I set out to prove it and sure enough my early tests showed when using low ISO, the same glass and when difference in DOF was not apparent, I had a hard time telling them apart.
Yet now after longer use I definitely prefer the look that the 5DII gives me. The 7D is the better camera in terms of functions but the 5DII is in my experience clearly superior in terms of image quality. After many thousands of shots with them both I can say that with certainty. In my LR image library about 85% of the (by me) top rated images were shot with the 5DII.
So a set of test shots can only tell you about certain aspects of the gear. The final evaluation comes first after prolonged use.
Even it did rain I decided to go shooting, during the 5 hour hike in forest, it did not rain for 15 minutes, which allowed me to shoot one comparison shot. I did leave lens C home, so here are just lenses A and B. Hike was otherwise very useful, I found out that 50MP is like "mini"-100MP, similar brilliance is in the images. I have just very quickly checked images in Appe Aperture and there were few surprices, which I didn't except to see, but more about those later.
50MP usability on rainy day was excellent; the front element is very deep inside the lens and hood adds little more protection. Focusing mechanism focus feeling is best (according to me) of ZE lenses, due to which the slightly short throw on "normal shooting distances" did not came problem even I had to focus through rain protection sleeve.
The more I think this, it's next to impossible to arrange useful side-by-side shooting. Even on rainy day (it was very overcast, the sky did seem homogenous gray) like this the light just changes too much. This leaves only option to shoot side-by-side in direct sunlight or moonlight. Every other light just changes too much. Any advice would be welcome how to mitigate this. Second 5DmkII would of course help since it's faster to swap camera bodies than lens.
Test shots are shot with lenses A and B using aperture f/2.8, tripod etc. are same as in last shot. Distance is also about the same, thou I don't know exactly since my laser meter was not with me. In Aperture I applied same settings to both images (recovery 0.09, saturation 1.1, highlights 13.06 - this is my preset for image when it's imported into Aperture - not an image specific adjustment optimized for either of these images).
Due to light changing I again would advice against draw any conculsions of contrast, color, "3D" etc.
Ask if you have any questions concerning test images.
Image 2 lens A
Image 2 lens B
Image 2 crop 1 lens A
Image 2 crop 1 lens B
Image 2 crop 2 lens A
Image 2 crop 2 lens B
Now closed down to f/2.8, and I still don't see the advertised superior sharpness advantage of 50MP... (and FYI - I still could not care less about sharpness, just proving wrong the forum BS - there just isn't that big difference between 50mm primes on sharpness, this is one reason why sharpness is really boring discussion topic and pretty meaningless on this kind of simple lenses)
PS. Easier solution than to download images is to open them to tabs then you can flip tabs easily.
PS2. Lenses A, B and C are all different lenses - there is no trick, neither bias towards to any of the lenses, I'll just try to provide information, same time while learning myself.
These two are at the same aperture? A has loads more DOF than B. In this case I like B better as the shallow DOF gives it the type of 3D/depth effect that some here don't approve of.
With two images it actually becomes easy. The 50 MP, being a macro lens must be better corrected for geometrical distortions than the planar. B shows barrel distortion relative A. B also still has vignetting, which I guess should be gone by f/2.8 on the planar.
Denoir - correct answer. A. MP2/50ZE, B. P1.4/50ZE and C. P1.7/50C/Y. I did not expect much differences between 3 Zeiss 50mm lenses, if I would have time this would get much more interesting if I would throw in also CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Tessar 2.8/50, Canon 50/1.4 & 50/2.5, Helios 58/2, Olympus 50/1.8, Pentax Super-Takumar 1.4/50 & 50/4, Porst 1.4/55 and few other 50mm lenses, which I can't remember but I have in some cabinet or camera bag... But I will never have that much time...
I have also been wondering the large DOF in 50MP, but it is exactly as Wayne explained it. It also seems that in 50MP there is field curvature, since distant background on corners is much more in focus than it is in image center, or then this is caused by "closing down" in corners due to vignetting.
Mast3rChi3f - I liked your first image.
Makten - the first photo on the blog is marvellous, just what I expect from Zeiss landscapes to look like.
Samuli; then A must be MP and B the Planar. Now, what lens is C?
Of the latest examples, B is nicer because of the bokeh, with its lower contrast and with less LCA.
Edit: Oh, there was the answer! So, the 50/1.7 is obviously a terrific lens!
Glad you see the difference I was talking about the DOF being greater with the 50MP and following off faster from the focus pt. with the 50/1.4.
About the sharpness which I know you don't care about, you have wrong what I and other people were saying about the 50MP. I said the sharpness in the middle of the frame was only slightly sharper with the 50MP BUT it remains sharper acrros the frame better than the 50/1.4 except by f8 they are simialar in the corners. When I said this I was referring to infinity distance test I did earlier using a wall of a church at infinity distance to test sharpness. Here is the link to my sharpnes test: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864916/1
Also, the very extreme corner lack of sharpness anomaly of the 50MP does not show at f5.6 and smaller apertures. In typical large DOF landscape shooting at f8 you would not see this anomaly and the sharpness of the 50MP being more consistent across the frame would make it better for pano's. This is why there was an article in Outdoor Photography last year where the guy was using the ZF 35 and ZF 50 MP for his landscape pano work. Also, tale a llook at Andi Dietrich's 50MP and 50/1.4 comparison distant landscape shots and you will see the better sharpness at that distance.
Also, as people know the 50/1.4's sharpness at portrait distances is a lot softer than the 50MP.
I look forward to seeing shots which show this better volume.shape, 3-d thing you so desparately seek.
I think you need to take some comparison shots at more stopped down apertures like f8.
I took some landscape and cityscape comparison pictures yesterday too at f stops from f2 to f8,f11. They pretty much confirm what I have said about the DOF transition to OOF.
Also, if you take pictures with some troublesome bokeh like backlit leaves, the 50/1.4 will render worse more nervous/uglier bokeh than the 50MP.
BTW, I am not sensitive about 3-d definition. As an engineer with a Masters degree I get frustrated when people can not analyze better in technical lens drawing terms what their forming their opinions and feelings when viewing a picture instead of using vague higher-level subjective descriptions. I got frustrated trying to figure out what you and Philippe are talking about in terms of real lens characteristics.
I am more sensitive to cliqueishness that goes on here in this forum thread and the forum in general but I will just try to ignore it.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Also, as people know the 50/1.4's sharpness at portrait distances is a lot softer than the 50MP.
This is what troubles me about the 50 1.4 ZE.
Hence me being on the 50 MP ZE bandwagon.
If I shot landscapes, I may have an argument ready for you guys, but I don't.
BTW, I think we need to initiate a new rule, whereas if you post a comment you post a photo!
We start this rule once I get some more shots worth posting
So I did that download to macbook and open in preview thing to the first set of Samuli's photos..
So Samuli, I think that you'd prefer the 50 MP ZE then (Shot A), as it's sharper at the corners then the other lenses, and it has more DOF then shot B, which has blurry corners and blurry distant background? Though I think shot B didn't get the same light that shots A and C got.. Also, shot B seems to have better frontal bokeh, as I mentioned before.
Anyway, on your second set of shots, I prefer the bokeh on lens B, the background backlit crop.. It's much more pleasing for this type of shot.
Though as I mentioned just above this post, the 50 1.4 ZE not doing well at close distances concerns me.
Thanks Samuli for your comparison of real life shots, and tests that just don't compare sharpness in a clinical setting.
I am finding that I'm using both the 50/1.4 and 50MP for different effects. For evening portraits I'm using 50/1.4, and landscapes/travel the 50MP. Both lenses are excellent in their own realm. I find the 50/1.4 has more an artistic painting like feel which I love. The 50MP is an excellent lens which exacting sharpness and detail, and great colour.
For portraits I'm liking the ZE 35 too, at f2.0 . The only problem is the bokeh on the corners. But the 3D effect and feel is amazing, while isolating from the background. The bokeh for me can vary, so long the original subject has the correct feel. No point having a great bokeh, but subject is flat.
The discussion has been amazing with great contributions.
My initial photos from Thailand are linked here using a variety of only ZE lenses.
A has loads more DOF than B. In this case I like B better as the shallow DOF gives it the type of 3D/depth effect that some here don't approve of. 
