Some 50 MP shots. This is quickly becoming my favorite lens. And to think I thought I did not like the focal length! The 21 & 100 MP are great lenses, possibly objectively better than the 50 MP, but they are a bit more specialized and the 50 MP is just a fantastic all-round lens. I've started thinking about getting the 35/2 which should also be generally useful..
Here is a surprise (at least for me) between the two ZE 50mm lenses; at 70cm@f/5.6 there was no clear difference between the two of them (expect for the field of view differences - which I maybe next time compensate with macro focusing rail, which I now didn't have with me), I expected that 50MP would be much better. Both are OK on bokeh and sharpness is decreased same amount when going to corner (well close to corner since there was nothing in focus in the corner).
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 @ f/5.6, 1/40s, ISO 100
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/50 @ f/5.6, 1/40s, ISO 100
Samuli, are you saying that you find these two images absolutely identical in every respect? Because then I would have to revisit the tricks that my mind plays on my judgement.
philber wrote:
Samuli, are you saying that you find these two images absolutely identical in every respect? Because then I would have to revisit the tricks that my mind plays on my judgement.
Philippe, they are not identical, except from sharpness and overall bokeh appearance. I did not print these, but based on my experience I would say that it would be impossible to separate these two if printed. What kind of differences you see?
There are again slight light differences. If you look really carefully the sun was shining through little thinner cloud cover in Planar shot, making shadows to have slightly more defined edges. Sorry about to not remember to mention this. This is why I don't see side-by-side as a very good method. Thou warning about this or not mentioning this, people seem to make guesses anyway that lens A looks more 3D etc. even it's not possible to make such judgements on changing lightning or even from the scene shoot. Exactly the reason, why I don't respect much this whole side-by-side technique, but this has been requested... This far I have seen it only executed properly in direct sunshine from cloudless sky during midday or indoors with controlled lightning, both types of shooting I could not care less, and which results typically don't count on real shooting situations.
Samuli, I "see" the MP picture as slightly more sharply etched. It could be more contrast, or more colour saturation. Actually, on this low-res and my monitor, it looks like the MP shot is slightly more 3D. Now that I know that there is a difference in lighting, it makes drawing any conclusion less than definitive. Thanks for the effort!
philber wrote:
Samuli, I "see" the MP picture as slightly more sharply etched. It could be more contrast, or more colour saturation. Actually, on this low-res and my monitor, it looks like the MP shot is slightly more 3D. Now that I know that there is a difference in lighting, it makes drawing any conclusion less than definitive. Thanks for the effort!
Slightly more saturation I can see, like somebody said (sorry can't remember whom, read last 10 pages and you find out ) 50MP is most saturated ZE lens.
Comparing these two lenses has been actually quite fun, thou one thing I have learned is that many times 50MP looks more contrasty and saturated, but if analyzed more carefully it's because of the huge vignetting of 50MP. At f/5.6 50MP still vignettes more at infinity, but at close focus they both seem OK. It's funny that Zeiss does not specify what distance the vignetting is specified (except for f/5.6 50MP = 1:4, where it shows it's only decent vignetting curve), both Makro-Planars vignette much more at infinity than they do at close focus - both have slight tendency on some scenes to create hot spot/region in middle of image.
faremax wrote:
Hi. I am a brand new user of Zeiss ZE series but having some problems with my new 85mm 1.4. I initially purchased 50mm 1.4 and was blown away by IQ I was getting so I decided to try out 85mm. Oh boy, was that a disappointment. The pictures came out very soft. I was aware of the shift issues so I first selected an aperture and then focused using LiveView (Stills + Movies -> Movie Display). Even at 5.6 it was very soft. I did side-by-side with 85L II and even wide open Canon beat Zeiss. Is that just a bad copy or am I doing something wrong? Can you check the Zeiss images and let me know if this is what I should expect to see from that lens?
Yep, that would sum it up (though your photos are slightly user error, but not by much).. I'm unhappiest about my 85ZE, though honestly It's still a good lens, once you get use to it's quirks. You can use it at 3.2 on a model who's about chest to top of head (with some breathing room) in vertical crop on FF with some stunning results. But tight crop on the head wouldn't really yield as nice results. In that case I'd pick up the 50 MP ZE it does that beautifully in my opinion.
Guys, I picked up the 21 ZE for my trip... Will show photos when I get back mid month...
I really hope it's worth it, as the lens is really to wide for anything other then vacation photography!
BTW, also a very goofy looking lens if you want my opinion.
faremax wrote:
I don't know but I especially value Canon 85mm 1.2 II because of its ability to be very sharp wide open while producing unbelievable bokeh. When I use it I don't have to think about if I am shooting at MFD or infinity. As for contrast and color rendition I think both lenses are very very similar. At least to me. If I would want to produce softness I'd get a filter to use when needed. I think it's a major drawback (again for me) regarding Zeiss 85mm.
Now I wanted to ask your advice. What wide lens would you recommend. I currently have 24-70 f/2.8 but I wanted to add a wide prime. I know 21mm Distagon is very good but is it worth getting instead of 35mm f/2? Or maybe 28mm? Is 21mm substantially larger in size than 35mm or 28mm? If you had a choice to get a wide Zeiss ZE lens, which one would you get? Thanks...Show more →
I'd get the 35/2 if I were you... The 21 (just picked up) is REALLY wide, and honestly not practical for anything other then landscapes/architecture (if u don't mind beard or mario mustache or whatever distortion?!).. The 35 however makes a great portrait lens, as well as a good landscape lens, in fact it's probably the most versatile zeiss lens, unless you're a macro/50 fan, then then MP ZE is the way to go.
faremax wrote:
Jochenb, have you ever had a chance to use Canon 24-70 2.8? How 21mm Distagon compares to Canon 24-70 in size?
Just picked up the 21 ZE for my trip... It's tons lighter and smaller then the 24-70L
But it's quite the awkward lens, and the lens hood is big. In fact it won't fit in my 1N lowepro belt bag which ALL the other Zeiss lenses fit in. So I was forced to pick up the 1W which is huge and now my other lenses wobble around!
Kinda bugs me, but whatever. I'm just hoping I get wonderful photos with it...
Samuli: Initially the MP rendering looked more 3D to me, but it may have something to do with the lighting. There is a shadow after the second bend that emphasizes the separation that is absent on the planar, so that may be the explanation.
I have been doing some tests on my own trying to reproduce the effects in Boris' (Bobu) Lofoten photos (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/881865). I had a theory that simple geometrical objects in the scene would help a lot (the houses) as would side lighting (emphasizing the 3D).
No such luck though. Here are are a couple of shots where I see no 3D going on. These are no formal tests, but I just took a couple of shots when I had the opportunity - the idea was not to produce a set of identically framed images to compare. Instead I wanted basically as many variations as possible.
Distagon 21:
@f/2.8
@f/5.6
50 MP:
@f/2.0
@f/7.1
100 MP:
@f/2.0
@f/5.6
My updated theory is that the geometrical objects should be distributed in such a way to show depth. In my photos above all the objects are basically all in the same plane. I have not had the chance to try it out.
denoir wrote:
I have been doing some tests on my own trying to reproduce the effects in Boris' (Bobu) Lofoten photos (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/881865). I had a theory that simple geometrical objects in the scene would help a lot (the houses) as would side lighting (emphasizing the 3D).
Denoir, one thing to notice about Boris' Norway pictures is that the objects he photographed were pretty deep (side of the mountain). In your pictures objects are all about same depth. It's like difference you photographing texture of the building wall, when Boris photographed the building.
Yesterday I teased myself with idea of shooting at worst time of day when the sun is at it's highest positions. Just to see how Zeiss survives from such torture (and for excuse, real reason of course was that I was very sleepy and lazy on the morning...). Sure I tried to use the cloud edges etc. as much it was possible. All 3 shots below, with 50MP @ f/9, 1/80-1/100, polarizator.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
It's funny that Zeiss does not specify what distance the vignetting is specified (except for f/5.6 50MP = 1:4, where it shows it's only decent vignetting curve),
It's infinity unless stated otherwise. The choice (or labeling?) of the MP2/50 curves is a bit peculiar. For the MP2/100, we see curves for f/2 (infinity), f/4 (infinity), and f/2 (1:2), which makes more sense.
both Makro-Planars vignette much more at infinity than they do at close focus - both have slight tendency on some scenes to create hot spot/region in middle of image.
All lenses have less vignetting at close focus than at infinity. Of course, the difference is larger with macro lenses.
charles.K wrote:
Thank you! No noise reduction, just very minor Imagenomic Portraiture, purely on skin tone. My monitor does not show loss of details. I have attached another without Portraiture.
That looks a thousand times better! Look at girls hair. Very different now.
Nice shot otherwise! 
