How bad is Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZE Planar?
/forum/topic/1163096/3

1       2       3      
4
       5              13       14       end

carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15820
Country: Germany

Well, my opinion is opposite In fact, I think the ZF.2 50/1.4 is like a *really* good Scotch, good from the first sip, with lots of depth for future tastings as well.

But seriously, I think that both are great lenses, and neither is deserving of being cast as secondary to the other. All these comparisons which raise one up and put the other down are beside the point: this is personal.



JohnJ
Registered: Jul 09, 2005
Total Posts: 2000
Country: Australia

wayne seltzer wrote:
Sorry but I don 't think this is a fair comparison as the 50P is at 1.4 while the MP is at f2.
...


+100

I wasn't going to say anything because I have neither lens and didn't want to get involved but comparing lenses at different apertures, even if it is WO, makes no sense to me.

And yes, focus must be identical.

If the P has focus shift then this must be accounted for in testing/comparison too. You can't just focus once, wide open, and then keep comparing the same point in the image at different apertures as different parts of the image will in fact be in focus. Maybe that's why some people find poor close range performance, or maybe it's just weak at close range, maybe both.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1812
Country: Belgium

carstenw wrote:
Well, my opinion is opposite In fact, I think the ZF.2 50/1.4 is like a *really* good Scotch, good from the first sip, with lots of depth for future tastings as well.

But seriously, I think that both are great lenses, and neither is deserving of being cast as secondary to the other. All these comparisons which raise one up and put the other down are beside the point: this is personal.


+1

Here's another example at medium distance:


Smoking break, part II by Jochen-B, on Flickr

Shot from a few meters away, cropped afterwards, F2.
I like the look it gives me. Loved my 50MP, but it wasn't able to give me this character (which I like for these kinds of shots).



bushwacker
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Total Posts: 872
Country: United States

Jochenb wrote:
carstenw wrote:
Well, my opinion is opposite In fact, I think the ZF.2 50/1.4 is like a *really* good Scotch, good from the first sip, with lots of depth for future tastings as well.

But seriously, I think that both are great lenses, and neither is deserving of being cast as secondary to the other. All these comparisons which raise one up and put the other down are beside the point: this is personal.


+1

Here's another example at medium distance:


Smoking break, part II by Jochen-B, on Flickr

Shot from a few meters away, cropped afterwards, F2.
I like the look it gives me. Loved my 50MP, but it wasn't able to give me this character (which I like for these kinds of shots).


I like this one... so here's my question why does the 50MP got more DOF than 50P?





bushwacker
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Total Posts: 872
Country: United States

Toothwalker wrote:


You asked for f/2.8 and got f/1.4.



yeah even better bro...atleast I have an idea what's 50P's resolving power at f/1.4



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4159
Country: United States

bushwacker wrote:

I like this one... so here's my question why does the 50MP got more DOF than 50P?




Lens design affects how quickly the focus transitions to OOF.
I remember theSuede confirming this.
My Contax 35/1.4 is the same way and why it readers a subject with more 3-d



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4159
Country: United States

Great example Jochen!
Notice how the subject pops3-d and the people in the background and their shapes are not obliterated by the bokeh. This is due to undercorrected SA and this bokeh behavior of retaining OOF shapes is the same in the ZE 35/1.4. Just read the Zeiss white paper on Bokeh which describes this and has examples.



bushwacker
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Total Posts: 872
Country: United States

wayne seltzer wrote:
Great example Jochen!
Notice how the subject pops3-d and the people in the background and their shapes are not obliterated by the bokeh. This is due to undercorrected SA and this bokeh behavior of retaining OOF shapes is the same in the ZE 35/1.4. Just read the Zeiss white paper on Bokeh which describes this and has examples.



That's what I want, I don't like those bokehs with no details, I meant I want the blurry figures are still recognizable just like when you watch a movie were the background is reconizable but not too fuzzy.



bushwacker
Registered: Jun 12, 2005
Total Posts: 872
Country: United States

wayne seltzer wrote:
Just read the Zeiss white paper on Bokeh which describes this and has examples.



are you talking about this?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf



David R.
Registered: Jun 10, 2011
Total Posts: 62
Country: Australia


This little 50/1.4 is the alt forums (current) favourite ugly pet dog, hipster heaven. Elitism in reverse. All aboard....



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4044
Country: Sweden

David R. wrote:

This little 50/1.4 is the alt forums (current) favourite ugly pet dog, hipster heaven. Elitism in reverse. All aboard....


Yeah, it's just impossible that people actually owning the lens could like it, because any testchart wanker can see that the MP is sharper, so it must be better. All these people are fooled and they only like it because they want to be cool.



David R.
Registered: Jun 10, 2011
Total Posts: 62
Country: Australia

not just an ugly little dog but a snarly one too



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1812
Country: Belgium

Don't waste your time on a troll Makten.



David R.
Registered: Jun 10, 2011
Total Posts: 62
Country: Australia

I visit the Alt forum everyday, I learn heaps, visiting its foibles does not make me a troll. When posters resort to "troll" says more about their lack of argument than any pertinent point about me.



Jochenb
Registered: May 25, 2010
Total Posts: 1812
Country: Belgium

David R. wrote:
I visit the Alt forum everyday, I learn heaps, visiting its foibles does not make me a troll. When posters resort to "troll" says more about their lack of argument than any pertinent point about me.


Like your excellent "arguments" you posted above?



David R.
Registered: Jun 10, 2011
Total Posts: 62
Country: Australia

about why I am a troll



Makten
Registered: Jul 14, 2008
Total Posts: 4044
Country: Sweden

David R. wrote:
I visit the Alt forum everyday, I learn heaps, visiting its foibles does not make me a troll. When posters resort to "troll" says more about their lack of argument than any pertinent point about me.


Visiting is fine, but vomiting your worthless opinion makes you a troll. Contribute or f*ck off.



wayne seltzer
Registered: Dec 22, 2007
Total Posts: 4159
Country: United States

bushwacker wrote:
wayne seltzer wrote:
Just read the Zeiss white paper on Bokeh which describes this and has examples.



are you talking about this?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_35_Bokeh_EN/$File/CLN35_Bokeh_en.pdf



Yes, that is it and pages -40 is where they describe uncorrected SA effects on bokeh.
You would like the new 35/1.4 then too as distant OOF shapes are retained.



David R.
Registered: Jun 10, 2011
Total Posts: 62
Country: Australia

Makten you wally get a grip.



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15820
Country: Germany

David, to phrase what Martin was saying differently, you won't find many people here who will respect your opinion until you stick your neck out and start posting some photos. Like they say, opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one. Alternatively you could contribute knowledge, like theSuede and Toothwalker.



1       2       3      
4
       5              13       14       end