There is a quality to the contrast that is really something...on the original pumpkin pic...the fall-off on the roundness of the biggest and orangest pumpkin in the foreground...it jumps out at you!

Re: Sigma 20...I can't wait for it to "turn wide" with any less crop than 1.6...the 1Ds2 is calling me...everything becomes possible when we crawl towards the ultimate goal of being "like film."

Donagh...those are some amazing pics...esp. the Dolls.

G.

It is ashamed that we cannot see these images in large prints where you can see the 3 dimensional looks of these images. Beside the ultra high resolving power, the micro-contrast of these Zeiss lens is the mechanism behind the 3-D looks.

losloslos wrote:
There is a quality to the contrast that is really something...on the original pumpkin pic...the fall-off on the roundness of the biggest and orangest pumpkin in the foreground...it jumps out at you!

Re: Sigma 20...I can't wait for it to "turn wide" with any less crop than 1.6...the 1Ds2 is calling me...everything becomes possible when we crawl towards the ultimate goal of being "like film."

Donagh...those are some amazing pics...esp. the Dolls.

G.


thanks^^ sorry my english is very poor and the conversation is more difficult to me...

yes the zeiss lens have a 3d look fantastic, the color is great is very "real"

ps
in italy is simple find the 28 f2, 28f2.8 , 50, 35-70 like new but the cost is no cheap...

http://stores.ebay.it/IL-KREMLINO-della-FOTOGRAFIA_W0QQssPageNameZl2QQtZkm

this store is very professional

hoppy wrote:
one day i'd love to see some shots taken of the same subjects to compare look, not sharpness or CA or any of the technical aspects but simply the artistic side.

You mean like this?
http://www.16-9.net/ultrawides/

To be honest, I think the "3D" comes out of the sharpness, contrast and colour. It isn't reducible to those three elements, but it's an "emergent property", so to speak.

Neither hydrogen nor oxygen will put out a fire (oxygen will feed it!), but when you combine them to form H20, you get the emergent property of "wetness" which cannot be reduced to the elements. It's real, even if you can't objectively measure it as well.

cheers,

Chris

When packing 8.2 Mega Pixels on a 1.6x cropped chip, 20D's sensor has highest pixel density among all the Canon DSLRs as of today. This, in fact, is pushing the resolving power to their limits of many lenses, but not Zeiss 21mm/2.8.

I took this picture yesterday, and am still amazed how much details I can get out of it. It's straight out of the camera, just converted from RAW to JPEG.

you simply cannot beat a german designed lens.

Here's another comparison -- a comparison between the Contax 50mm f1.4 and the Canon 50mm f1.4.

But I actually can't tell any difference between them, so the T* coating doesn't appear to make a difference at least under these light conditions. (Scroll down for the comparison).

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=116970&page=6&pp=20

The poster in the thread concluded: "[I] don't find the Zeiss 50mm impressive compared to the Canon. 50mm is a very simple focal length to make and most brands have very good 50mm lenses in their lineup. But once u go below the 50mm standard focal length to the wide angle department, this is where the Zeiss really stands out distinctively over the Canon. The Zeiss 28mm and 21mm simply beat Canon without sweat."
Chris

I do not own a 21 mm Zeiss lens and I am assuming it is being used with an adapter on Canon cameras, but I have used Zeiss optics with a Hasselblad and previously a Contax with Zeiss optics.
In my humble opinion, Zeiss remains among one of the best manufacturer of lenses in the world. Their quality control is simply outstanding and their optics are superb.Their customer service could be No. 1 but it is not because of Leica. To me they are No. 2 in that respect.
Ernst Leitz still has my respect as the best lens maker in the world. You can be sure Zeiss is a very close second.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

100 % crop from the bulldozer photo -- zero sharpening (in camera or otherwise)

I should not have just sold this lens.

Grace,

The answer to your question about "Why the Zeiss obsession" is pretty simple and expressed in that old saying, "The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys". Very few photographers will be able to take advantage of the quality of the glass in Zeiss lenses. Very few people shoot like Guy where there is time to use the camera manually. I'm guessing that many will buy these fine lenses and when they are shooting they will not have the time, ability, or eye sight to get the shot in focus so they get a sharper image than they would have done had they used a $200 Sigma lens on auto focus.

Lanny

Lanny,
Along the same line, I suspect we amateurs are mostly driving the CZ phenomena. When your job is on the line and you just cannot take the risk of losing any shot, I doubt if a responsible pro would grab Zeiss on EOS body. There may be occasions where it makes sense to use Zeiss. But I seriously doubt that the occasions are common.

Lanny and Pondria,
Why do you underestimate the folks on this forum so much that you don't think they can get the image with the Zeiss glass. Look Pondria you have D30 and I am not too sure about your eyesight either. You see these folks can use this lens without any problem and no disrespect to Guy whom I totally agree not only a pro but one of FM leading photographer and mentor but there are lots of folks here who are very capable of taking images with the manual focus. In fact do you know that some of us here even take the Contax focusing screen and modified it to fit on our 1Ds/II to make these camera like the film camera focusing screen? Do you know what folks do to make these lens works like the day of the film day? Do you know that Contax and Leica camera and lens works just fine in the film day without autofocusing? Look autofocus was not just discover yesterday but most folks here think autofocusing and digital SLR were discover together. This thinking is because folks like Pondria own the D30 crop factor camera and keep on criticizing and undermind folks that use Zeiss and don't think they are capable. It is Guy that keep beating on you to keep you from attacking the Zeiss users and excluding him out. I would like to let you know that it is not a science to use manual focusing to get the job done. I done many jobs under high pressure with manual focus all the time and other folks here as well.

Also the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 is not an easy lens to find. There is a secret to find the sharp copy just ask some of the folks that got the lens from me.

-Son

Pondria,
Should your statement read something more along the lines of "... I doubt if a responsible Pro (except Guy) would grab Zeiss on EOS body".

I don't understand why you think the loss of autofocus would preclude a Pro from using these lenses in a shoot.

Look there are player and there are audience. Stop this nonsense about boys and men. I cannot help to love my tool thus folks think it is my toys. I have a choice and I choose to have tools that I love to work with. Like every profession if you love and devote in what you do you reach a new level that only those that have been there to understand. Look there are two type of folks here either you are a player or you are an audience. Looks like to me the players here never have one problem with manual focusing with these Zeiss lens. In fact as strange as it seems they are willing to pay high $ to do manual focusing. We cannot all be stupid enough to pay high price and punish ourselves with manual focusing. Common stop this nonsense.

If we had a sub-culture of photographers on this forum dedicated to getting the best photos out of the crappiest lenses available, there would be someone beating up on them in every thread about how "time is money" and they'd be better off spending a few more dollars for a better lens.

If you don't agree with the way others pursue their art/hobby/profession on technical grounds, just leave them alone. We all make our own choices about our priorities.

(Personally, I'd love to constantly berate people in threads about the ethical problems inherent in dodging state sales taxes, but I restrain myself, because who wants to hear the same tired refrain over and over?)

I don't have any Zeiss glass and I doubt I will ever own any because I shoot mostly on the long end and Canon does a good job fitting the bill.

If I had to make a living at the wide end or my area of interest was the wide end then Zeiss or Leica would definitely be my choice. Canon just doesn't have anything to offer for a FF sensor on the wide end.

As far as a manual focus lense being a problem that is simply bull. I shot mostly sports with a manual camera and MF lenses for 30 years without a problem. I have only been using a DSLR and AF lenses for 2 years. I can MF faster and more accurately than AF any day of the year. That is got to be the most absurd statement I have ever heard as a reason not to use Zeiss or Leica.

Don't get me wrong I like AF but it surely isn't a panacea.

Jim

I find manual focus on full-frame to be a snap at 28mm and wider. The large DOF means you can establish focus on any contrasty object, after which the whole scene is under control. I also make extensive use of focussing by scale. The engravings on a C/Y lens are optimized for readability and utility, not decoration.

My own experience with Zeiss includes that I've replaced the focusing screen with Split & Micro prism type.

There have been two difficulties for me.
(1) One is AF, which is not a big deal with 28mm. However, It is a big deal with 85mm @ f/1.4. It's basically a tripod lens.
(2) Stopped downing the aperture. As I reported in the other thread, the split prism screen confuse the center EF sensor. Av mode didn't work properly. Full manual mode with counting the Stop-clicks was the only reliable way. I had to shoot the same shot multiple times with histogram to get the exposure right.

With (1) and (2) above, my own conclusion is that using non-EOS lens is not suitable when one needs Speed and Consistency. Lanny introduced himself as a pro. And he also claimed that his partners didn't use Zeiss due to the Speed and Consistency.

I myself have gotten some good images from Zeiss to my satisfaction. I enjoy it as I'm an amateur not under pressure. Many images here support that Zeiss indeed are great lenses. What I am not convinced is if a Pro would grab it when he cannot take chance. Of course, one can come up with situations where extremely quality is necessary at all cost and the Zeiss would be desirable. I do NOT deny that such situations exist. They DO. I'm only challenging how frequent such situations are.

And please do not make case with my owning D30. I think I studied the lens enough to understand the implications with crop factor and what to be expected with FF.

Jim Victory wrote:
I don't have any Zeiss glass and I doubt I will ever own any because I shoot mostly on the long end and Canon does a good job fitting the bill.

If I had to make a living at the wide end or my area of interest was the wide end then Zeiss or Leica would definitely be my choice. Canon just doesn't have anything to offer for a FF sensor on the wide end.

As far as a manual focus lense being a problem that is simply bull. I shot mostly sports with a manual camera and MF lenses for 30 years without a problem. I have only been using a DSLR and AF lenses for 2 years. I can MF faster and more accurately than AF any day of the year. That is got to be the most absurd statement I have ever heard as a reason not to use Zeiss or Leica.

Don't get me wrong I like AF but it surely isn't a panacea.

Jim

Seems that you comment is toward me...
To me, MF was the easier problem to deal with than exposure, where you stop down to the actual aperture after focusing before every shot. For the reasons that I mentioned in another thread, metering doesn't work properly with split-focus screen.
I do often use MF especially with Macro setup with the camera on the tripod. Although I also had experience with non-AF film SLR, I have to confess that my MF skill is not as fast and reliable as yours.

rico wrote:
I find manual focus on full-frame to be a snap at 28mm and wider. The large DOF means you can establish focus on any contrasty object, after which the whole scene is under control. I also make extensive use of focussing by scale. The engravings on a C/Y lens are optimized for readability and utility, not decoration.

Exactly, Rico ! That's how I use 28/2.8. I even posted a thread with the title, "Ultimate P&S with Zeiss" or something like that after coming back from Alaska last year. With Wide angle, the hyperfocal distance is pretty close. At around f/5.6, pretty much everything in front of the camera is in Focus. Set the exposure manually. Set the distance with the engraved scale to put the far end of the hyperfocal distance at the infinity. You truly have P&S.

The issue here is not simply about MF or not.

Pondria,
I have not experienced the metering problem. I have a Beattie Intenscreen split-prism installed in my 1Ds. Using my CZ 28 2.8 it meters my grey card identically to my Sekonic L-558 from 2.8 to 22.

UFO, I'm very happy to hear that you don't have a metering problem with the split-prism. I am not the only person that has the problem. This problem had been observed and discussed among early Zeiss adopters before the fever started
It is less of a problem when aperture is either wide open or 1 stop or so down. When it is really closed down like f/8 or so, the metering just doesn't work for me.
This seems to be expected behavior well documented in Canon's own instruction manual for Ec-B screens, which I do not have.

Pondria, I definitely agree with you that the stop down metering is not as accurate at all with lens adapted to the Canon body. However, for most pro we do not use aperature priority as the metering method. In fact most pro choose to use ambient light metering instead of Aperature priority or shutter priority reflective metering. We address this issue before on one of my thread dealing with manual metering. Look metering is simpler as it makes out to be especially with these digital camera and the histogram that provide to make your manual metering setup properly. In the film day pro carried an Ambient light meter to set their exposure. Ideally the Zone reflective metering is most accurate beside the ambient light metering.

Here is the thread that I mentioned to overcome the obstacle of metering.
Meter Zeiss/Leica R Lens Canon DSLRs
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/200697/0#1638351

Look not every pro photographer is capable of manual focusing. In fact it is an art and if we challenge ourselves we can make manual focusing work fine. Please try to me positive and not negative with manual focusing. It is an essential tool and part of photography. If you are serious about photography you should consider getting yourself familar with manual focusing. It will help you. Please don't use the badge of Pro on your title to make you think you can make a general statement that if you are a PRO and you cannot work with manual focus therefore no other can use manual focus effectively.


-Son

i can manual focus and use stop-down metering on my 1Ds with an EC-B screen and get accurate results.   does that make me a pro?

this debate is hilarious.

-erik

Sorry for the side-tracking, but here is a very quick way to check if your exposure works Ok with Zeiss and split-prism screen.

Set it on the FULL manual mode.
Set the aperture wide open.
Look into the viewfinder and set the shutter speed so that the exposure meter reading is at zero (center).

Now, shift the aperture and the shutter together One-stop at a time to maintain the exposure level constant.

Try above steps with the various aperture mode that your camera offers.
If you see the metering pretty much constant. You are a lucky guy.
If not, you are with me.