Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              72      
73
       74              987       988       end
  

ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
  
 
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #1 · p.73 #1 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


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



May 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #2 · p.73 #2 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


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!



May 29, 2010 at 10:25 PM
RickPerry
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #3 · p.73 #3 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Samuli.


Outstanding "Real World" lens comparison. Thank you very much



May 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM
SKumar25
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #4 · p.73 #4 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Samuli, great effort. Thanks!


May 29, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Wilfredo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #5 · p.73 #5 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Mast3rChi3f wrote:
100mm ZE
http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/671/rabacal25fontes043.jpg


The Zeiss bokeh has a delicate pastel quality I find very appealing in certain circumstances such as your bird shot. Beautiful.

www.BenitezRivera.com



May 30, 2010 at 12:42 AM
Wilfredo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #6 · p.73 #6 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


I tried my Zeiss 50mm Planar on a Canon 5DII the other day to see how well it would do in making fine art reproductions and I was very pleased with the results. This is something I did for artist Al Musso, from Cayucos, California. www.BenitezRivera.com
Image 438004 not found





May 30, 2010 at 12:56 AM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #7 · p.73 #7 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Samuli,

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:
http://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.




Edited on May 30, 2010 at 07:23 AM · View previous versions



May 30, 2010 at 01:56 AM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #8 · p.73 #8 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


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



May 30, 2010 at 04:07 AM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #9 · p.73 #9 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


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.



May 30, 2010 at 05:03 AM
charles.K
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #10 · p.73 #10 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Great shots Mast3rChi3f!

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.

http://kalnins.zenfolio.com/p845494260

I hope to add some more when I arrive back in Australia.



May 30, 2010 at 06:44 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #11 · p.73 #11 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


adamdewilde wrote:
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


Adam,

I should have mentioned that I think it is softer at portrait distances at wide apertures (less than f2.8) just like what is reported around here for Z* 85/1.4 but sharpens up nicely after 2.8 or so.
And sorry I posted my image in the other 50MP thread going on right now.



May 30, 2010 at 07:21 AM
wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.73 #12 · p.73 #12 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


charles.K wrote:
Great shots Mast3rChi3f!

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
...Show more

The C/Y 35/1.4 would be maybe another good option for narrow DOF portrait and looks from shots on the forum here to isolate the subject better from the background than our Z* 35/2. I wanted to try one but am waiting for the new rumored ZE version.



May 30, 2010 at 07:32 AM
Bobu
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #13 · p.73 #13 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


charles.K wrote:
My initial photos from Thailand are linked here using a variety of only ZE lenses.

http://kalnins.zenfolio.com/p845494260

I hope to add some more when I arrive back in Australia.


Charles, I really like your pictures of Thailand! Some of them have smooth bokeh and some not. I suppose this is the result of different lenses (and probably different conditions and f-stops). I prefer the smoother bokeh for example on the pictures #10 and #19. Which lens is this?

Boris



May 30, 2010 at 08:08 AM
Makten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #14 · p.73 #14 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


wayne seltzer wrote:
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.


I think he just did it, and showed the opposite. The MP is clearly "uglier" to me:

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Image 2 crop 1 lens A
http://www.vahonen.com/temppi/20100529_50mm_7.32m/crop2A1.jpg

Image 2 crop 1 lens B
http://www.vahonen.com/temppi/20100529_50mm_7.32m/crop2B1.jpg




May 30, 2010 at 08:20 AM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #15 · p.73 #15 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Charles: Very nice gallery! I see that the 100 MP is your favorite lens.


wayne seltzer wrote:
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.


LAMO! Is the Zeiss forum only populated by engineers? You're an engineer, Samuli is an engineer - I just read on Charles' zenfolio that he's an engineer and I have a master's in electrical engineering. I can't for a second believe that such overcrowding of engineers is representative of the FM average. So what is it about Zeiss glass is it that attracts engineers?

By the way, I think Samuli's '3D sensitivity' comment was directed at me. I was like you asking for moderation in using vague subjective opinions as facts. Note that I have nothing against subjective opinions. I only mind that when things get very specific as this lens vs that lens that they should not be stated as universal facts.


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.


That's true. There are alternatives though. The landscape & wildlife forums are generally friendly and you'll always get comments on your images. If you want admiration (nice on occasion), POTN are pretty good. The "why does my polarizer filter rotate?" crowd is typically awed by the image quality produced by a high quality lens. They are also pretty representative of what the general populous will think of your photos. The downside is that you are unlikely to learn anything new - most people there are new amateur photographers with very limited budgets whose dream in life is to get an 'L' lens. (Well, that's not quite fair - there is a number of very good photographers there as well but the large majority are newbies).

This Zeiss forum and this thread on the other hand have been exceptionally useful to me. It helped me for instance (and your posts were very helpful) in choosing the 50 MP. I got some insight in resizing/sharpening techniques through Samuli's and Makten's posts which led me to rework my existing system. That's just the past week. And even if you are unlikely to get a comment on a picture you post, the discussions here are interesting.

Anyway, to follow Adam's excellent "one comment one picture" suggestion..

100 MP:


21 D:


Luka


Edited on May 30, 2010 at 09:27 AM · View previous versions



May 30, 2010 at 08:41 AM
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #16 · p.73 #16 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


wayne seltzer wrote:
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:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864916/1


Wayne, my comment was not directed to you. Based on what I have read on this forum over last few years I have got impression from people comments and Lloyd review that 50MP sweeps the floor with planar starting at f/2. I'm sorry but I don't see it happening. To me outside image center both of them just suck, planar may start to suck sooner thou... We have to remember here that I'm not claiming planar being better lens on general usage, that would be just sick, why Zeiss would charge 3x price for 50MP if it would not be better?


wayne seltzer wrote:
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
...Show more

Well, I don't always do things traditional way - I really don't see why landscape needs to be f/8-16 (specially if you want to maximize sharpness and microcontrast - with current sensor anything over f/5.6 is diffraction limited by good lenses). Neither in panoramas I rarely aim for perfect front to back sharpness, and more often than not I use critically places DOF plane to highlight the subject or generate separation in panoramas. Any lens this far, except 100MP, Sonnar 100 and Canon 300/2.8, I have shoot panoramas has benefitted by not using the extreme corners when building panoramas.


wayne seltzer wrote:
I look forward to seeing shots which show this better volume.shape, 3-d thing you so desparately seek.


Me too, hope we have some suitable light in Finland at same time when I have possibility to go shooting suitable subjects, on shoots I do this time of year (forest) there are rarely as good test scenes than in urban environment. At same time I try to get understanding of other 50MP rendering characteristics as well, this is only one lens drawing characteristics, and I need to understand how the lens works under various conditions in order to use it as efficient as possible in future.


wayne seltzer wrote:
I think you need to take some comparison shots at more stopped down apertures like f8.


I have for the first comparison image - I don't see much difference between the 3 lenses. At f/8 all 3 lenses are diffraction limited and microcontrast is already reduced in all of them, if pixel peeping the f/8.


wayne seltzer wrote:
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.


I have been only once now shooting with 50MP (so this may not be my final opinion) and I disagree with this comment. Seems that planars (I have shoot years with C/Y 1.7/50, only real difference to 1.4ZE is that 1.4ZE has more aperture blades making it's bokeh at f/4-16 better) have more nervous bokeh as bokeh characteristics, the highlights seem to be pretty problematic with 50MP even stopped down, but more so on aperture I shoot a lot (f/2.5-4). I have not earlier been concerned of bokeh highlights since I have not had issues, but on 50MP photos, which show clouded sky between trees I had a lot of issues, which don't even seem to go away when closing down the aperture, only by increasing blur disc size (adjusting ratio between target, background and camera so that bokeh is more blurry) the issue is fixed or by decreasing blur disc to size in which background appears to be in DOF. Real photos coming soon about this.


wayne seltzer wrote:
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. To me its similar to trying to find out why my girlfriend is upset but she herself doesn't know exactly why.
I am more sensitive to cliqueishness that goes on here in
...Show more

Wayne, in addition to that there are differences in opinion what is 3D, the thing what I call 3D, we haven't found a real explanation why it happens. Majority of the people agree it's more likely to happen with Zeiss lenses (+few other like Leica R90APO). In the discussions we have had one theory has been the different rendering in edges due to polarization and/or diffraction caused by light bending on the edge. However this would only explain (if plausible) edge effects, but not why the surfaces of objects appear more 3 dimensional. So if I would know I would happily tell you the optical phenomenons behind all this.

Like you, having similar background from education I'm really frustrated that there is clear reason why things happen this way. Since I don't know or understand the creation of this effect I can only enjoy the results. I have not yet ever seen this (Makten's f/7.1 shot) kind of results from 50MP sample pictures, but it happens often with any of the planars C/Y (1.7&1.4) and Z*, and can be quite often seen in sample photos when conditions allow it to be shown. I'll try to investigate this now when I have both lenses, can I get it visible with 50MP.

One approach for this is of course just to not talk, or even complete ignore the effect since one doesn't understand it so it cannot exists. Photography is supposed to be art form, I'm pretty sure there are more than this 3D topics which subjective and "not easily translated to engineering language"-topics... If this bothers there is "HIDE ME" button since I'm more likely than not mention something like this again.

I checked the cliqueishness from dictionary since it was a new word to me. I have hard time understanding what you mean by this (most probably issue with my English - most of the dictionaries didn't even have this word and the ones had were having quite strange description for the word).

Samuli

PS. No pictures but I compensate posting many on next...



May 30, 2010 at 08:46 AM
dcjs
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #17 · p.73 #17 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


wayne seltzer wrote:...

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,

I've been following a lot of threads about "zeissiness" and "3D" on this board as a silent reader. Let me start by saying that I also prefer to look at the world from an engineering point of view and I'm convinced that there indeed is a technical explanation for even the most subtle differences in image rendering characteristics of different lenses.
The first problem is, these differences go far beyond what we can possibly quantify in an even remotely scientific way by looking at pictures. The vast variety of natural images provides a set of variables that is far too big to be able to analyse in "technical lens drawing terms".

The second, even more complex problem is the subjective part of the perception of an image and personal preference of the viewer. You can try to eliminate any subjectiveness from the description of rendering charcteristics of lenses, and you will end up with a very short list of properties that in the end won't necessarily relate to how an image is perceived by an individual.

I think Samuli has stated more than once that he is also frustrated by not being able to describe lens characteristics in a less subjective way, but has given up at a certain point. What you describe as "vague higher-level subjective descriptions" is a surrogate for technical descriptions that integrate technical aspects as well as subjective/aesthetic preferences. These descriptions may sound like complete rubbish to someone who doesn't share the same sensitivity to certain image characteristics or the aesthetic preferences of the person giving the description, but may be very meaningful to someone who does.

Let me say that from looking at lots of pictures and reading lots of "vague higher-level subjective descriptions" I have arrived at the conclusion that I share a lot of Samuli's preferences regarding lenses and his descriptions are indeed very helpful to me, and I think he does a great job given the elusive subject matter. There's other people whose subjective preferences I don't share, which doesn't mean that either one is "right" or "wrong". I do think though that going beyond concrete technical descriptions is meaningful and useful once you have established somewhat of a common ground by looking at lots of pictures and agreeing on major aspects of image characteristics.

What you describe as "cliqueishness" seems to be just that, people sharing some subjective preferences. That is nothing anyone should be offended by. I just try to determine whose sense of aesthetics I agree with most, and try to get the most out of their contributions here. I try to ignore those who I don't seem to agree with at all when it comes to subjective preferences. Even though this is unsatisfying in a scientific way, it does help me gatheri information about equipment that I may like and use it in the right way to obtain great images, which to me is the point of this forum.


Regards,

David



May 30, 2010 at 09:00 AM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #18 · p.73 #18 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Wayne, my comment was not directed to you. Based on what I have read on this forum over last few years I have got impression from people comments and Lloyd review that 50MP sweeps the floor with planar starting at f/2. I'm sorry but I don't see it happening. To me outside image center both of them just suck, planar may start to suck sooner thou... We have to remember here that I'm not claiming planar being better lens on general usage, that would be just sick, why Zeiss would charge 3x price for 50MP if it would not
...Show more

From what I gathered from Lloyd's review and the comments here is that the planar is not very good wide open but rapidly improves when stopped down. Also that it's not very good close up. The MP on the other hand is good throughout the range and good for closeups. So if you are not going to use the planar with apertures larger than f/2 then you might as well get the MP.

What is interesting about your test is that you have demonstrated quite a difference in DOF between the two. I did not expect them to differ that much. This of course complicates the question of which lens to get as it shows that there may be an aesthetic preference reason to get the planar.



May 30, 2010 at 09:34 AM
Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #19 · p.73 #19 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


Denoir, your first shot shows almost like a swirly bokeh. I'll have to experiment if that could be produced by 100MP. If it can be the subject to background distance is very close on your photo.

denoir wrote:
From what I gathered from Lloyd's review and the comments here is that the planar is not very good wide open but rapidly improves when stopped down. Also that it's not very good close up.

Yes, other than artistic purposes close-ups with planar other than f/8-11 have not been very successful. However the swirly bokeh is interesting, thou when I want it I have other lenses, which are better producing this "effect" (e.g. Helios 58/2 and CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50).

denoir wrote:
The MP on the other hand is good throughout the range and good for closeups. So if you are not going to use the planar with apertures larger than f/2 then you might as well get the MP.


For sharpness perspective - for me planars are f/2.5 lenses, that is the aperture in planars when things clear up. I very rarely use them below f/2.5. (in C/Y lenses I just estimate and put aperture ring between f/2 and f/2.8, a little closer to f/2.8).

For DOF perspective this is not the case. Planars rapidly improve at f/2.5 and also bokeh quality improves. With 50MP it seems that from f/2.0 to f/3.2 the corners have different bokeh, like bokeh getting back to DOF in corners. This is either caused by field curvature or mechanical vignetting (lens also vignettes quite a lot in these aperture) causing vignetting act as aperture and therefore having less blurry bokeh in corners. I'm still newbie with 50MP so this is just what I found from first few hundred photos.

And for the record what is written above I have not scientifically tested, it's based on thousands of photos shoot and analyzed.

denoir wrote:
What is interesting about your test is that you have demonstrated quite a difference in DOF between the two. I did not expect them to differ that much. This of course complicates the question of which lens to get as it shows that there may be an aesthetic preference reason to get the planar.


Me too - I really don't get it. Must be same kind of thing as retrofocus wide angles have different DOF (e.g. Biogon vs Distagon). If Toothwalker is reading this, you could explain this to use since you anyway must know why it is



dcjs, I can just admire your writing skills. You put to one post what I have tried to say in thousands posts.

--------------

50MP images from yesterday's shoot. The conditions were not very good for lens testing, but otherwise excellent (I like shooting in rain, it makes a little different look to images than normally - however not having directional lightning does cause some issues).

1. Closer focus distance and f/5.6 allowed to render very well, the blur disc at point where trees and sky are is so large that quantity of bokeh hides any issues there are.



2. Transition from DOF to bokeh is very much different than in planar. I like also this transition, may require adjustments to shooting style thou. I'm not sure why the tree on left is "glowing" like that, in real life it wasn't - I had to take another look after seeing this image in LCD of camera. No bokeh highlights, no bokeh issues. f/4.



3. f/2.8 - the bokeh is really ugly at top where there are branches and sky. Overall look otherwise great, but due to higher contrast in bokeh different than what I expected.



4. f/2.8 (I shoot multiple apertures, f/2 was having really serious bokeh issues and from f/4 to f/11 there was not enough depth separation for my taste and the focus point just blended to background). Bokeh almost shows swirly pattern.



5. f/11 - shoot also this by various other apertures but rejected all of them due to horrible bokeh, seems that f/11 the bokeh settled down and neutralized (looking from real image not this thumbnail here). Sharpness is actually quite good (of course worse than in f/5.6 shot) so it seems 50MP is able to fight against diffraction quite well, like for example C/Y Distagon 2.8/28



6. f/8 - very versatile lens and quality at 1:2 seems to be what Zeiss MTF-charts show.



7. f/3.2 - picture again ruined by DOF quality issues




Based on this first shooting seems that 50MP shares some qualities with 100MP:
- brilliance (for definition people - I have not invented this term, see LLoyd ZF and argue with him if you have problem with the word, I perfectly understood it from his explanation)
- colors (maybe even little stronger, I would say most saturated lens of ZE lenses)
- due to being macro lens focus throw at normal shooting distances is short (not as short as in 100MP - and focus feeling is best of ZE lenses helping with this issue)
- bokeh characteristics sometimes seem typical to overcorrected lens (100MP this goes quickly away when closing down with 50MP this doesn't seem to happen)
- vignetting decreases when focusing closer


One thing, which is not yet clear to me; do I like the bokeh or not. I prefer to have my bokeh often so that it's not much blurred, just slightly blurred. This has worked well with planars, but 50MP it feels that bokeh is having too much definition (not talking about bokeh blur disc size, but how things in bokeh appear). This makes images look "heavy", while with planars subjects have less contrasty bokeh around them and have more room to breath. However this was just first shoot, in one kind of light so it's way too early to draw conclusions.

Samuli

EDIT: Added "vignetting decreases when focusing closer" to similarities with 100MP chapter.


Edited on May 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM · View previous versions



May 30, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Toothwalker
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.73 #20 · p.73 #20 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)


denoir wrote:
From what I gathered from Lloyd's review and the comments here is that the planar is not very good wide open but rapidly improves when stopped down. Also that it's not very good close up. The MP on the other hand is good throughout the range and good for closeups.


Diglloyd Inc also writes that the Planar offers higher contrast at distance.


So if you are not going to use the planar with apertures larger than f/2 then you might as well get the MP.


So if you are interested in landscapes at mid apertures, there is no reason to spend more money on the MP.



May 30, 2010 at 10:13 AM
1       2       3              72      
73
       74              987       988       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              72      
73
       74              987       988       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password