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

1       2       3              839      
840
       841              1086       1087       end

Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
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: 472
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: 472
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: 570
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: 16156
Country: Germany

Beautiful!



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 713
Country: Sweden

rirakuma I feel dizzy looking into that, well done.



Picture This!
Registered: Aug 03, 2010
Total Posts: 2143
Country: United States

Zeiss 100MP



johnahill
Registered: Jan 08, 2006
Total Posts: 3273
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: 817
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: 1892
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: 2167
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: 4780
Country: Sweden

Thanks
Great Shot Jim! Really nice color



Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3731
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.



Ronny Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 4780
Country: Sweden


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

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

Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZF 2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1892
Country: Finland

Ronny, the 1st shot is really great, wonderful colors and usage of shallow DOF. The harsh bokeh gives a lot to photo, it would not be nearly as good with "neutral bokeh" lens.

Jim, great colors, but if this was HDR why to leave the foreground so dark?


Mescalamba wrote:
Im using this for a long time now. It works really nice in small amounts combined with less than perfect lens...

....Nice pic btw.

Thanks - so it's normal that with good lenses at optimum apertures it won't do anything, or at least doesn't seem to do anything positive? If I would shoot makros, this would be really great (could shoot f/14-16 and recover sharpness). But I don't think I'll buy Topaz InFocus since I don't like "all sharp" nature photos and I rarely anymore do makros.


"1st branch" - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 @ 1.4, 1/1600s, ISO 100



"2nd branch" - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 @ 1.4, 1/2000, ISO 100



Samuli



Ronny Olsson
Registered: Jun 24, 2012
Total Posts: 4780
Country: Sweden

Thanks Samuli

Your first one is Great


Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZF 2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr

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

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



Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3731
Country: Czech Republic

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Mescalamba wrote:
Im using this for a long time now. It works really nice in small amounts combined with less than perfect lens...

....Nice pic btw.

Thanks - so it's normal that with good lenses at optimum apertures it won't do anything, or at least doesn't seem to do anything positive? If I would shoot makros, this would be really great (could shoot f/14-16 and recover sharpness). But I don't think I'll buy Topaz InFocus since I don't like "all sharp" nature photos and I rarely anymore do makros.

Samuli


With small dosage as I described before, it simply sharpens things up a tiny bit. But no, if you have really sharp lens, it wont do much. You are using it as DOF/diffraction removal, which is other way to use it.

Probably as you said, most useful if one doesnt have perfect lens or do a lot of macro shooting. Maybe it doesnt have huge effect on my pics cause Fuji S5 is sorta "soft" permanently and regular sharpnening is near useless on it.

If you ever wanted this for free, its built-in in RawTherapee. Among other interesting stuff..



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 713
Country: Sweden

Some street with Distagon 2.8/21







wfrank
Registered: Feb 09, 2011
Total Posts: 3179
Country: Sweden

Samuli, enjoying to see your usage of F/1.4.

Ronny, hard to comment all goodies. Last page "p.840 #4" No2&3 are superb in very different ways. Awesome stuff on this page too.

Rödluvan, sweet. I did not see any Nikon cam guy but here's a shot from the very same place at noon today (as your #1). Distagon 35/1.4:





dubaiphil
Registered: Jun 10, 2009
Total Posts: 972
Country: United Arab Emirates

Its been too long - time to chime in with a couple from Venice with the 2/35 Distagon +D700:



1       2       3              839      
840
       841              1086       1087       end