ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
/forum/topic/860134/839

1       2       3              839      
840
       841              989       990       end

alkanphel
Registered: Jan 31, 2011
Total Posts: 273
Country: Singapore

ZE 100MP


Pesto 1 by alkanphel, on Flickr


Pesto 2 by alkanphel, on Flickr


Pesto 3 by alkanphel, on Flickr



Diploneis
Registered: Jul 08, 2010
Total Posts: 316
Country: Norway

Thank you, Ronny & Blackout!

Here is a portrait with 100MP:







Cheers,
Martynas


kururu
Registered: May 13, 2010
Total Posts: 121
Country: Japan

nice photos from 100MP!

lunch time, 2/25







Ronny _Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 2481
Country: Sweden

Great shot Martynas
Great shot kururu

Carl Zeiss 1.4/85 ZF by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr

Zeiss Makro-Planar T * 50mm f / 2 ZF.2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr

Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1595
Country: Finland

johnahill, I'm usually not big fan of urban ultra wide angle shots, but those two were nice, specially liked the 2nd one ("Covent Garden, London").

Ronny, your 2nd image was nice, even I don't care much about Makro-Planar T* 2/50 rendering style. If I counted correctly 3rd photo with that lens I end up liking.




Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 @ f/2.8, 1/2500s, 5DmkII, 3 shot panorama




Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 @ f/5.6, HDR (1/250s, 1/800s, 1/2500s), 5DmkII



Samuli



Ronny _Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 2481
Country: Sweden

Thanks Samuli
That's very divided opinions on this compared to 50 1.4 ..
but I like it for some macro and flower photos .. where it works really good I think ..sometimes I think getting a 50 1.4 to compare .. actually I don't need it
when I have 100MP to macro and flower pictures
Which Zeiss lens do you like best and which has the best rendering style you think?
Good pictures from you as usual



johnahill
Registered: Jan 08, 2006
Total Posts: 2542
Country: United Kingdom

Another 'Urban ultra wide angle shot'

ZE21



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1595
Country: Finland

johnahill, thanks for one more urban wide angle. I start to see trend here - I liked all 3 photos and they all have been shoot so that you did not tilt the camera. Hmmm, something to practice with 21mm, maybe it's usable afterall.


Ronny _Olsson wrote:
That's very divided opinions on this compared to 50 1.4 ..
but I like it for some macro and flower photos .. where it works really good I think ..sometimes I think getting a 50 1.4 to compare .. actually I don't need it
when I have 100MP to macro and flower pictures

50mm Makro-Planar vs Planar - very different lenses. For makro and close-up usage Makro-Planar I kind of like (I like wider view on makros), however I don't like it at all medium or long distances.

Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Which Zeiss lens do you like best and which has the best rendering style you think?

Any other easy questions like "what is purpose of life?"...

Short answer from my personal point of view including just lenses I have shoot with - "best" doens't mean anything so unfortunately I'll have to give you few answers:
- best overall Planar 1.4/50 ZE (on my use and assuming user can mitigate focus shift - lens is near perfect from f/2.2-2.8 to f/8 - also normal FOV is most useful and can be used on most situation)
- best colors Distagon 2/25 ZE
- best wideangle landscape "presence"/"feeling of being there instead watching postcard" Distagon 2.8/28 C/Y or 2.8/25 C/Y I like both even they are somewhat different
- best bokeh (my criteria: lower contrast in bokeh than in subject, smoothness of bokeh also on situations background is close to subject and containing patterns etc. "difficult") Planar 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 (closed down to f/2.8 or more)

Best rendering style in my opinion is offered by Planar 1.4/50.

If I would not have any ZE lenses I would not buy them all, just 2/25, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 1.4/85 and 2/135 (based on Lloyd review), most likely could manage without 35 and 85 as well. Thou now I already have all of them (excluding 15mm and 18mm), I'm shooting with all of them from time to time. After getting used to 2/25 colors and 1.4/35 characteristics and 1.4/50 raw optical performance (assuming it's f/2.8 lens), I was quite disappointed to results I got from 2/28 and 2/35 last weekend, but I also like many things in 2/28 images. Also 2/50 gets very little use, only if I'm planning to shoot macros or close-ups (and then my S-Planar 2.8/60 C/Y is often preferred). 21mm I find too wide for almost any use, even I very much like the lens rendering (thou colors are not that great) I can't use it much, might be also skill relevant, I'm pretty inexperienced wideangle photographer, not my thing. 2/100 I use quite a lot, but I doubt it sees much use after Zeiss finally sells me 2/135 - even going every day to Zeiss webshop and refreshing webpage multiple times 2/135 doesn't come available

Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Good pictures from you as usual

Thanks, just trying to survive here in middle of all the damn snow - really wanting to photograph but knowing I still have to wait 1+ month before spring starts makes me really miserable.

Samuli



dthrog00
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 254
Country: United States

John,

Your black and whites are tremendous. Do you have any processing tips?

Best Regards
Dave



dthrog00
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 254
Country: United States

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
- best overall Planar 1.4/50 ZE (on my use and assuming user can mitigate focus shift - lens is near perfect from f/2.2-2.8 to f/8 - also normal FOV is most useful and can be used on most situation)
Samuli


Wow, high praise for the 50P. It's the only Zeiss lens I have (since December) and I hope to learn to use it to its potential.

Dave



rirakuma
Registered: Jan 26, 2012
Total Posts: 412
Country: Australia

One from the hike yesterday

21mm with the T* polariser

Coomera Gorge by letsgetaway, on Flickr



carstenw
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Total Posts: 15828
Country: Germany

Beautiful!



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 679
Country: Sweden

rirakuma I feel dizzy looking into that, well done.



Picture This!
Registered: Aug 03, 2010
Total Posts: 1932
Country: United States

Zeiss 100MP



johnahill
Registered: Jan 08, 2006
Total Posts: 2542
Country: United Kingdom

dthrog00 wrote:
John,

Your black and whites are tremendous. Do you have any processing tips?

Best Regards
Dave


Cheers Dave
I've got the Nik/google software bundle on demo at the moment and i've been using Silver Efex Pro 2 (part of the bundle) to convert to B&W.

It gives some nice looks and effects that may be reproduceable in CS but with silver efex it's just a few clicks and done.



user222
Registered: Sep 13, 2007
Total Posts: 793
Country: United States

Very nice rirakuma. Love how the 21 can "bring foliage to life." That is the best UWA lens there is IMO.



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1595
Country: Finland

rirakuma, very nice wide shot (specially the bigger size in photo sharing website). I have always wondered why in earth someone would use polarizer with ultra wide lens (causes uneven sky if sky visible) - now I can stop wondering...


Wanted to try one new technique; deconvolution sharpening. I tried it to normal images, but it didn't do anything positive to normal images. So I tried it with image, which is destroyed by diffraction. Results were rather good, sure at pixel level it looks little weird, but as print or screen (I view images in 2560x1600 screen) it looks ok. Tried this with few lenses, but it worked best with Makro-Planar T* 2/100. Wanted to share this, so my test don't go wasted since I don't feel any need for shooting "all sharp back to front"-images (boooooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiing).

Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/22, 1/6s, 5DmkII, Topaz InFocus deconvolution sharpening + USM 20%, 35px (=local contrast enhancement)



For reference same image shoot with f/5.6 and normal processing



Same images in FM Alternative forum -> HD image thread as 1600px height:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1189320/15#11466375

Samuli



Grenache
Registered: Dec 18, 2008
Total Posts: 1917
Country: United States

Ronny, love your shots with the ZE 85. Colors on the macro shot are amazing.

Samuli, always love how you can say so much with a line of trees.


Too much work and too little play for me lately, but I finally got a little break. Something from the ZE 21 (three shot bracket).

Jim


Paint by Numbers by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr



Ronny _Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 2481
Country: Sweden

Thanks
Great Shot Jim! Really nice color



Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3213
Country: Czech Republic

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
rirakuma, very nice wide shot (specially the bigger size in photo sharing website). I have always wondered why in earth someone would use polarizer with ultra wide lens (causes uneven sky if sky visible) - now I can stop wondering...


Wanted to try one new technique; deconvolution sharpening. I tried it to normal images, but it didn't do anything positive to normal images. So I tried it with image, which is destroyed by diffraction. Results were rather good, sure at pixel level it looks little weird, but as print or screen (I view images in 2560x1600 screen) it looks ok. Tried this with few lenses, but it worked best with Makro-Planar T* 2/100. Wanted to share this, so my test don't go wasted since I don't feel any need for shooting "all sharp back to front"-images (boooooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiing).

Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/22, 1/6s, 5DmkII, Topaz InFocus deconvolution sharpening + USM 20%, 35px (=local contrast enhancement)

For reference same image shoot with f/5.6 and normal processing

Same images in FM Alternative forum -> HD image thread as 1600px height:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1189320/15#11466375

Samuli


Thats what I used on your photo in The how-would-you-process-my-image thread. Im using this for a long time now. It works really nice in small amounts combined with less than perfect lens. With InFocus Im using "Unknown/Estimate" then set 1 under blur radius and click on Estimate Blur. It usually looks bit harsh, so I use Edge Softness around 0.6 and Artifact Suppression 0.5 (needs re-clicking Estimate).

Its not only thing that can do deconvolution, but it has probably best control over artifacts that it can produce.

Nice pic btw.



1       2       3              839      
840
       841              989       990       end