carstenw wrote:
Bring back the chair! Bring back the chair!

Haha, the dumped green, old chair? I remember that shot.

Yeah, it is a great shot, and demonstrates the 3D abilities of this lens like few others have. I remembered the colour of the chair differently though. Was it really green? I thought it was brownish.

Yes, it had some serious 3D. I think the color was dark, old green. Makten?

Unfortunately I can't find that image, but I think you wouldn't be as impressed as you were back then. It's not very sharp, but the bokeh is really pleasing for the large distance.
The chair was brownish and the building in the background was greenish, IIRC.

The filename was DSC_1003.JPG

Uh, Carsten, do you take that from memory or do you keep track of everything posted?

Jonas B wrote:
Uh, Carsten, do you take that from memory or do you keep track of everything posted?

What's the problem, when you don't find a picture ask here

Haha, I found the webpage on which it was originally posted. I wanted to see if the webarchive had it, but they didn't.

carstenw wrote:
Haha, I found the webpage on which it was originally posted. I wanted to see if the webarchive had it, but they didn't.

Heh. So it slipped away. Here I was thinking everything once published on the Net stays available forever...

ultrapix wrote:
Jonas B wrote:
Uh, Carsten, do you take that from memory or do you keep track of everything posted?

What's the problem, when you don't find a picture ask here

Not a problem but a wonderful resource. I agree.

*Thanks to the people defending my right to an opinion (whether they agreed with it or not).* Some posters here have got WAY to much invested in what is only a camera forum an.... if trolls got paid by the post I'd be broke Honestly I feel a bit silly even replying to all this muck.

David R. wrote:
*Thanks to the people defending my right to an opinion (whether they agreed with it or not).* Some posters here have got WAY to much invested in what is only a camera forum an.... if trolls got paid by the post I'd be broke Honestly I feel a bit silly even replying to all this muck.

If they feel they have invested in the forum I can understand they get upset by your thread and the way you discussed the topic. It's about muck here and muck there.

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

This is not about sharpness it is about a coterie of the alt forum deciding the 50 1.4 is an art lens with special qualities some of us philistines don't get. I've spent a few years being taught drawing and charcoal drawing and my eye is reasonably tuned and while I can see it has properties that are admirable it is being given more credit than it deserves. Fashion.
...doesn't exactly lead to respect. You are entitled to your opinion of course, just as a forum owner is entitled to set up the rules or kick anyone out, and I'm entitled to use the Hide me -button.

you can debate lens specs all day long but real world performance is more important, that's why this tread is useless without pics. One taken yesterday with the 50 1.4 wide open.


IMG_7307-2 by Pete the Irish Guy, on Flickr

now someone comment on the flare...

I like your image, JBG. No problems with flare, but looking at her arm, I can swear you used a 5DII

MK1, lol. Yeah I pushed it a bit though only +.67

Edit: but truthfully the focus shift kills me with this lens. If I were to sell this lens it wouldn't be due to lack of sharpness, or CA, or anything else mentioned. Focus shift at F2.0-4.0 is the WORST

A diversity of views - especially regarding artistic matters - is always a good thing. I'm really happy people like this Planar, as that indicates it must be very worthwhile in the eyes of those who feel that way about it. That in itself is interesting since there are so many fine 50mm alt lenses around.

Giving it some thought, I don't think it's fair to compare it with the very different 50MP or similar lenses like say Leica's Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f2.8. These lenses are technically much better for a range of uses, but there are perhaps too many good 'technical' lenses and too few current 'artistic' lenses around.

I guess CZ will not be updating the ZE/F Planar 50mm as it has the super Distagon 55mm coming next year, for those after a modern fast 50mm class lens.

Philip, just for the sake of discussion, a lens with weaknesses is not necessarily an "artistic" lens. To me, an artistic lens is a lens that has remarkable capabilities, but constrained by some weaknesses. Whereas many lenses are just that: weaknesses not redeemed by outstanding qualities.
Also, an "artistic" lens IMHO has a distinctive rendering, a personnality, so to speak. I am not sure I would classify the 50P as such. Stopped down at infinity, for example, it is brilliant, pure and simple. "Artistic" ,for such shots? I am really not sure.

By 'artistic', philippe, I refer to the design intent by CZ; I feel this way about almost all fast lenses, they are simply meant for different purposes, don't you agree? There are so many trade-offs involved, everything from complexity to correction to the need to design in acceptable bokeh...usually anyway..the 50P in ZE is actually a simple enough lens (7/6) same as the CY one.

I in no way equate 'artistic' with image weakness, but mean to point out the higher performance of macro lenses (as an example) regarding corrections for CA, COF, distortion and for all-of-frame performance, it is expressed in CZ's own MTF. They (MPs) won't take good images at f1.4 though ;-)

Scanning back over this admittedly rather strange thread (threads seem to have personalities too!), maybe 60-70% of posted images are clearly aiming for the bokeh look, most likely shot wide open or near to it, no?

Such bokeh from the 50P, esp highlights can look harsh to my eyes and often looks kind of poorly saturated and wishy washy (to get technical, not), and the mid aperture results from the 50MP are much better, also a personal opinion - don't shoot me for having one please, I'm an old school medium format person.

Bokeh from the 50P is very different to what I see from a Summicron-R for example, you really are in doubt what Leica are looking for with most of their 'normal' FL lenses, say 35mm to 50mm, in R anyway - booming centres and soft full-blown bokeh outside that space.

I think all lenses have personalities too. And it is interesting to air different views as it provides insights into what we all see and why we prefer certain renderings.

Johnny B Goode wrote:
you can debate lens specs all day long but real world performance is more important, that's why this tread is useless without pics. One taken yesterday with the 50 1.4 wide open.


IMG_7307-2 by Pete the Irish Guy, on Flickr

now someone comment on the flare...

JBG,

on this shot, what's the camera to subject distance? you didn't crop this right?

kiddik wrote:
Here's one from 50P@f/4 last year that I hold dear. I remember being in awe when I first opened the file, because the lens was able to keep the colors & contrast so accurate to what I saw. This file has only been resized, not edited in any other way. I'm often called names at my local regional forum for being a Zeiss-fanboy or some such, but I don't mind, I know what I like :-)


Keilir by Kiddi Kristjans, on Flickr

I just acquired a 50/2MP for personal keeping last week (my comparisons from before were made with a loaner lens). So I thought I might do a comparison-by-request from someone here? Is anyone interested in seeing something particular? Like a medium-distance object at f/2.8 for example?


Kiddik,

I don't mind bro...I want to see them. maybe others too.

My 50P quits being an 'artistic' lens and transforms into a 'technical' lens at around f4.