I've used some Sony/Zeiss lenses. Top notch. Zeiss optics, ultrasonic AF, and in-body IS.

FlyPenFly wrote:
Any opinions on the Sony made Zeiss AF lenses? These are the ZA 85mm F1.4 and 135mm F1.8 lenses.

Do they exhibit the same 3D micro contrast of Contax Zeiss lenses?

Have a look here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/866054

I am happy to hear it, Jim. I hope that the lens works out as well for you as it has for me. I now more or less always carry 21/50MP/100MP/80-200 with me. I may swap the 50MP for a 50P or 35/1.4. I recently used the 50MP exclusively, got some very nice shots, but then I used the 50P exclusively for a week, and I think it is just more my type of lens. I might also keep both, since the 50MP is very good for certain things.

I'm also giving the 80-200 f/4 a shot thanks to this thread, didn't even realize it existed as I've been focused on prime lenses but it looks to be exactly what I want on the longer end to match my ZE glass. I'm currently using a Canon 100L, which I really like a lot, but it renders differently than the ZE lenses I often use along side of it. The fact that it costs less than the 70-200 f/4L is icing on the cake.

formula -- We're on the same wavelength!

I don't have terribly high expectations, especially since the lens is one of the lowest priced I've seen for a Zeiss, other than 50mm. I figure it has to be better than my low expectations.

I also have the 100L and will be comparing the two at that focal length. The 100L poses a pretty well known standard for IQ. The Zeiss is not a close-focus lens, but I have a 12mm Canon ring that will help a bit to see if it is capable of decent results.

Perhaps we can post our comparisons?

carstenw wrote:

Takk!

I have been trying to get a good shot of this nice bush for a few weeks now, but nothing ever really caught it the way I wanted to. This is the first time that I come close, although I am not completely happy with the result. ZF21:

Switching from bushes in Berlin to trees in Berlin (ZE 21 at 2.8):

Nice bush? I'm not getting close to that!

Carsten -- Sorry in advance for bulldozing and highjacking.

I got the adapter today, and have taken a ton of photos with the 80-200, never mind getting around to taking comparison shots with the 100L. (Don't say I'm not culling properly! )

What I've found so far:

Surprisingly nice lens! And by that, I mean one of the sharpest overall in the tele-zoom range I've every used. Not perfect, and that has to do with what you mentioned -- some minor purple color fringing that is essentially uncorrectable, at least with the variations I've tried in LR. One surprise in this department is that the worst fringing is at the 80mm range, and almost zero at the 200mm! That's an unexpected bonus. In fact, the 200mm setting benefits very little, if any, from profiling, other than to correct slight distortion (using the manual settings).

Light fall-off is pretty severe at all focal lengths, but this is very easy to correct. I initially tried running through all the various Zeiss lenses to see if any suited me. The closest I got was the 50/1.4, but I still needed additional correction for barrel distortion at 80mm. The setting I found best so far (brief investigation, I know!) is the Canon 70-300/f4-5.6 IS USM. This was best for the fringing too, and could almost eliminate it.

Needless to say, I'm ecstatic! The lens is like new, without a mark. Focusing is only slightly stiff approaching longer distances, which is fine with me. The Fotodiox cheap adapter works great on the Canon ($19). The 12mm extention tube with all the contacts was a bust -- mirror stayed up, and error flashed. The lens worked equally well on the 1Ds2 and the 60D, and due to the light fall-off, would be an excellent choice for APS-C format. But, as you will see, it covers full frame wonderfully.

The lens is slightly long, as you would expect. But keep in mind it is 55mm filter, so it is quite narrow and fairly lightweight. It balances beautifully.

These images have been somewhat modified, but nothing too extreme, mainly exposure, sharpening (50, and 34 for detail), color balance (color is warm, but wonderful with this lens!) and the profile/distortion/vignetting/fringing. Seems like a lot of fixing went on, but you know what I mean.

Here are some shots of the lens on the 1Ds2, shot with the 60D. All shots at ISO 200. All shots are wide open at f/4, attempting to show up the worst possible aberrations (or as it turns out, lack of).

Continued. . .

ISO 200, wide open at f/4.

A couple more taken with the 1Ds2. Focus is on the center orange rose.

80mm

28mm F2.8 on A850. Still looking for that Zeiss POP.


DSC01157.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


DSC01111.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


DSC01109.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


DSC01131.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

Jim, it looks like you got a copy as good as mine. Congratulations on that, and I hope it ends up being as useful for you as for me. Such a nice little (long) lens!

I have to admit that I run no corrections at all on mine Perhaps the Nikon sensor is slightly different, or perhaps the 12MP is just more forgiving, but the slight errors I see I just ignore. Nice to know that it tidies up well though, should I ever get pedantic

FlyPenFly wrote:
28mm F2.8 on A850. Still looking for that Zeiss POP.



Don't waste your time. If you can't get that Zeiss pop from the 28 Distagon, no other lens would help.

By the way, I would like to point out that Sony implements a somewhat flat mid-tone curve that plays a big role in the special Sony look in color photographs. Me and other members here suspect it is no good for 3D pop. Canon bodies seem to produce it the most, probably due to their crappy DR

@Gunzorro: I am curious to see the results comparing the 100L to CY80-200!

BTW, does anybody know when this lens was introduced?

Dergiman wrote:
@Gunzorro: I am curious to see the results comparing the 100L to CY80-200!

BTW, does anybody know when this lens was introduced?

Not sure exactly, but the zoom was a more recent addition. It only exists in MM mount.

Do you guys use the 80-200 handheld or on a tripod?

It's very small and light, and doesn't have a tripod socket anyway. I mostly used mine handheld except for long exposures, obviously.

thanks, Edward!

Here is an HDR shot, two captures for shadow and highlight detail. I am still not good at tone mapping in Photoshop, but I am learning. ZF21.