Zeiss Lens Photos and Discussion
/forum/topic/1009161/160

1       2       3              160      
161
       162              249       250       end

Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
Country: Finland

Haven't shot many photos with Sonnar T* 3.5/100 C/Y, considering how much I like the rendering. I guess it's because having Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE almost always with me. However checked Aperture Library for some Sonnar photos.

Lens has really great bokeh, even wide open. Also all other aspects are very good already wide open, however I tend often prefer f/4 which helps with vignetting (and specially issues vignetting causes to bokeh) and causes small improvement to contrast. Worst in lens is magenta/green color errors in bokeh.

For limited time there will be also 2048px version available of photos below:
http://www.vahonen.com/2013/temp/Sonnar_100_2048px/


f/3.5






f/4






f/4






f/4






f/8






f/3.5






f/8






f/4






f/4






f/4






f/4






f/3.5






f/8






f/5.6






f/5.6






f/5.6





Samuli


carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

The f/4 and f/3.5 shots of trees are exactly the kind of stuff I love from you, and this lens does do it really well. Interesting lens.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3217
Country: Sweden

Agree, I may be a sucker for old cars including Volvo 142's but that 3.5 rendering is very attractive and 3D:ish in that first image. But I would doubt using it having a CY 100/2.



Toothwalker
Registered: Jan 24, 2009
Total Posts: 1494
Country: Norway

Zeiss goes square:




















rico
Registered: Jul 13, 2003
Total Posts: 5033
Country: United States

Toothwalker wrote:






Very clever, Walrus. I'm not at all a fan of tilted pics, but this one had my scratching my head for at least two minutes. It works so well with the extra headroom to accentuate the "vertical" corrugation, and the complete lack of other cues - not even a plumb-line. Love the square, too.


Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 713
Country: Sweden

Toothwalker wrote:
Zeiss goes square:







That one's neat, would have loved to come across the location. I do believe it would have an even stronger visual impact if you ran it through, say, PS distortion correction. There's both perceptive distortion and some barrel distortion that is easily correctable.


philip_pj
Registered: Apr 03, 2009
Total Posts: 4167
Country: Australia

Some 21mm Distagon bokeh:



Toothwalker
Registered: Jan 24, 2009
Total Posts: 1494
Country: Norway

rico wrote:
Very clever, Walrus. I'm not at all a fan of tilted pics, but this one had my scratching my head for at least two minutes. It works so well with the extra headroom to accentuate the "vertical" corrugation, and the complete lack of other cues - not even a plumb-line. Love the square, too.


Thanks rico. I am always happy to confuse you and suppose two minutes of viewing time is long for images posted in this forum.

Rodluvan wrote:
That one's neat, would have loved to come across the location. I do believe it would have an even stronger visual impact if you ran it through, say, PS distortion correction. There's both perceptive distortion and some barrel distortion that is easily correctable.


You are right. I am annoyed with myself for not getting it right on location and for being too lazy to apply the corrections before presenting the image to an audience.

I have just replaced the image by an improved version.



crazeazn
Registered: Jul 16, 2005
Total Posts: 1765
Country: United States

was that a hill?



rico
Registered: Jul 13, 2003
Total Posts: 5033
Country: United States

crazeazn wrote:
was that a hill?

No. I finally realized there's a swimming pool in the foreground (cleverly cropped out).



Toothwalker
Registered: Jan 24, 2009
Total Posts: 1494
Country: Norway

rico wrote:
crazeazn wrote:
was that a hill?

No. I finally realized there's a swimming pool in the foreground (cleverly cropped out).


Actually that is just a bicycle stand, identical to the one further away.

I found this overview picture on the web.



Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3731
Country: Czech Republic



Not much activity here lately..

Bit different way than I shoot flowers usually, this time ended better than regular shot (due my inability to focus decently and underexposure). Contax 50/1.4 MM isnt exactly great near MFD, but still pretty decent. What isnt decent are Fuji S5 Pro colors. No matter what color profile I try, its always bit off (usually due red cast). That and exposure meter doesnt play nice with this lens (or is S5 set to "heavy underexpose" on default). At least it doesnt have much problems with noise..

Well, enough b*tching, time to get another camera.



briantho
Registered: Oct 07, 2011
Total Posts: 1122
Country: Sweden

Posting in this thread for a change...

Some orchid shots with Contax 645 Apo-Makro-Planar.


Orchid by briantho, on Flickr


Orchid by briantho, on Flickr


Orchid by briantho, on Flickr


Orchid by briantho, on Flickr



Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3731
Country: Czech Republic

Wow.. thats some look from this lens, it looks like MF even on APS-C.



wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3217
Country: Sweden

Mescalamba wrote:
Wow.. thats some look from this lens, it looks like MF even on APS-C.


Try shoot flowers with anything beyond 85mm or so.



Foto Dude
Registered: Jan 13, 2013
Total Posts: 51
Country: United States

i have a zeiss 21mm f/2.8, and i use it for landscape photography.

is it generally a bad idea to put a circular polarizer filter on a 21mm?

at about which focal length does it become a bad idea to put a circular polarizer filter on?



jamgolf
Registered: Nov 30, 2012
Total Posts: 264
Country: United States

zf.2 21mm:







philip_pj
Registered: Apr 03, 2009
Total Posts: 4167
Country: Australia

Foto dude, you really have to experiment, a close look in the VF and instant review are your best friends (almost typed 'fiends', might be a better description).

Anyway, for variable blue skies the Pol will accentuate the effect, it can be artistic, sometimes very off-putting. More often the best use is to quell reflections and glare, if you have the 2 stops to spare. 35mm looks pretty normal as a starting point, but it is all case specific sadly. No golden rules..



Foto Dude
Registered: Jan 13, 2013
Total Posts: 51
Country: United States

ur right philip, i do just need to get out there and experiment.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 16163
Country: Germany

Four uninteresting shots, which do show the rendering of the ZF Planars. In order: 85P@2.0, 50P@2.0, 50P@1.4, 50P@2.8, all on Nikon D800:

























1       2       3              160      
161
       162              249       250       end