Lynn Ross wrote:
One: does the lens adapter have to be one with a chip and if it doesn't have one will it still register the focal length and lens info to the camera chip to be used in lightroom or PS for my personal information.
An adapter without a chip will send no info to the camera, so nothing will be correctly recorded in the file data. The lens will probably show up as something like a 0mm, f0.0 lens. A chipped adapter still cannot tell where the lens is zoomed to; only one focal length (e.g. 35mm) will be recorded for all shots. Depending on adapter type, you may be able to set the aperture on the camera to be recorded (if you remember to do so correctly for each shot). I personally find a chipped adapter is fairly useful on the 35-70/3.4 for focus confirm at the wide end, where it is often hard to accurately focus by eye due to the slow aperture.
One more question, I would like to know if when you process photo’s with this lens do you have to process them much, I do find that I have to do more work with my Canon lenses, camera processing to get a little pop in them, just a dumb question but all the photo’s that I saw on this thread have color rendition that seem naturally cool looking.
The amount of PP needed is up to personal taste and skill. In general, this lens should require less extreme work than most Canon equivalents to get good color/contrast/sharpness/pop, but small tweaks are still often desirable even with the best lenses to fine-tune an image.
One of the easiest lens to post process images from, one reason for the consistency you see in this thread.
Mine is usually restricted to mid-tone contrast enhancement and quietening over-bright highlights or raising shadows a little. Occasionally adjust the mid-tones for exposure. A little capture sharpen on entry in PS using Smart Sharpen (Patrick Lavoie's method for an authentic rather than 'sharpened' look) after cropping, another after resizing before sRGB/8bit/jpeg saving or print prep.
Interesting to note that details really jump out with a little sharpening, yet at 100% the details are not ultra sharp, like the 21mm is. This is consistent with Zeiss's statements that consistent micro-contrast across the frame (a feature of the Vario Stunnar (copyright mpm)) creates the impression of sharpness, and adds 3D. One reason the CY zooms are so good.
Very little colour or global contrast work is needed; and in fact, can easily destroy the subtle colour tonality of the lens's images. Colour is the key image attribute of this lens IMO, this one consistently reproduces exact colours - just as remembered, provided brightness is correct. Zeiss lenses are a productivity benefit, as so little PP is required even for challenging light conditions, so the keeper rate stays very high - my reason for using them.
Vario stunner sounds good.
One touch wonder.
Prime Vacuum.
This is harder than it appears.
I wrote a short review on this lens over at POTN. I don't know what the policies are for linking, but I'd rather link than copy-pasta my impressions from it.
Just got my C/Y 35-70 and heading out to take in some landscapes to see what this lens will do for me. It's such a small lens compared to my old lenses and looks so cool on my camera, I'm glad to have come to look at this thread and to see some of the images that many of you have put up here. My only hope is that this lens that I have has good IQ, I don't know if there are sample variances or not but I'll have to wait and see.
Thanks to all the people here for turning my head around.
Lynn
This is my first post of a shot taken with the C/Y 35-70 3.4 at 70 I think, I've been reading about Zeiss lenses for a long time. I owned a rangefinder and couldn't afford to have one, now I have found one it's everything I tought it would be. Getting use to using a manual focus lens again is the hard part with my eyes not as good as they use to be and my hands shake more than they use to, I feel it's going to be fun on a tripod
Lynn
Lynn, I often use the dof markings on my MF lenses (these are very good on the VS), to do a kind of cross check for typical distances, to see if you are close or not. Much easier with landscape work, even intimate landscapes than close up work...the slow speed helps cover minor focus errors...oh and focus error might be strongly correlated with that stuff in the bottle, the imbibing of it. ;-)
Lynn, lovely shot! I just wonder if just a tad more space to the left of the cheese, and less negative space in the bottom, if possible, would not make it even yummier.
I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions and the original topic starter.
I was considering selling mine due to AF frustration and missing some action shots that I shouldn't have been attempting.
There are so many positive attributes already to this lens.
3D, lack of CA, micro-contrast across frame and so on. But the one that really strikes me is how it handles highlights. This lens makes highlights look so natural and along with all the other attributes gives a natural real looking image, not like something taken through a lens. It's as though the lens gets out of the way and delivers the image instead of burdening you with a whole lot of its own idiosyncrasies.
There is only one thing I find a little objectional with a lot of the Zeiss lenses of that period - it's a greyness or anemic cast. Only a minor pick. It is really amazing that Canon can't bring us performance like this some 30 years later with more of the range of lenses it offers.
craig_oz_land wrote:
I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions and the original topic starter.
I was considering selling mine due to AF frustration and missing some action shots that I shouldn't have been attempting.
There are so many positive attributes already to this lens.
3D, lack of CA, micro-contrast across frame and so on. But the one that really strikes me is how it handles highlights. This lens makes highlights look so natural and along with all the other attributes gives a natural real looking image, not like something taken through a lens. It's as though the lens gets out of the way and delivers the image instead of burdening you with a whole lot of its own idiosyncrasies.
There is only one thing I find a little objectional with a lot of the Zeiss lenses of that period - it's a greyness or anemic cast. Only a minor pick. It is really amazing that Canon can't bring us performance like this some 30 years later with more of the range of lenses it offers....Show more →
I shoot almost everything using MF and I find this lens to be one of the least suitable for action shots. I find the focus to be pretty hard to use on fast moving subjects, comparing to other MF lenses.
And I'll have to agree with you about the highlights... I have a Contax P-filter on the lens and ghosting/flare is not an issue. When I used the same P-filter on the Distagon 35/1.4 it gives me som ugly reflections in some situations.
You know everytime i think about selling this lens to help fund another i end up coming back to this thread and keeping this economical & versatile vintage jewel. It really is almost like having 3 decent primes in one body with a little macro to boot. [ 30-50-70 ]
Am i the only one that has this problem selling the 35-70 ?
I have one more question that is on my mind about this lens, since I purchase this lens I have noticed that my lens isn't as sharp as I expected, now once I add tad bit of sharpening to it it becomes really sharp but to take a photo and put it online right from the camera it would be terrible looking not any worse than what my canon L lenses would look like without some sharpening. From corner to corner there hands down better than all the lenses that I have owned except my 400 mm and 70-200 they were sharp as tacks also.
Now is this a anti-aliasing thing that only gets help through sharpening.
Lynn
Lynn, which body are you using ? Also are you using Live view and MF or relying solely on a AF confirm adapter thru the viewfinder ? I can usually get captures at 70/f4 with this lens to just about equal my 70-200MKII at 70/f4
Silverfox1 wrote:
Lynn, which body are you using ? Also are you using Live view and MF or relying solely on a AF confirm adapter thru the viewfinder ? I can usually get captures at 70/f4 with this lens to just about equal my 70-200MKII at 70/f4
I'm using the 1ds II, focus confirmation, I just ordered a new one (adapter) thinking that its not focusing right, gets here today, any suggestions?
Lynn
