ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
/forum/topic/860134/851

1       2       3              851      
852
       853              1068       1069       end

Taylor Sherman
Registered: Mar 26, 2012
Total Posts: 1482
Country: United States

Here's one from a couple weeks ago with the ZM 50/2 on the Nex-7:


DSC08383.jpg by Taylor Sherman, on Flickr



loosh
Registered: Jun 12, 2010
Total Posts: 533
Country: United States

Nice stuff guys.

ZM 35 2.8







akul
Registered: May 30, 2010
Total Posts: 1984
Country: United States

Ronny _Olsson wrote:
akul wrote:
Ronny - I am really enjoying your photos. Recent street shots also are very inspiring. And, of course your flowers. Great work!


Thanks luka
Really like your set from Zeiss 35 f2
One question: do you think it's worth an update from zeiss 35 f2 to 1.4?
So is it worth the huge price difference .. you have both right?



That is a tough question to answer. I still have both, and am having a hard time to let go f2. I have been thinking about selling f2 and get 25 f2.8 to cover more FL, but that has not happened. It may never happen, I don't know.35 f2 is a lovely lens with strong contrast. 1.4 is a superb lens, and it probably has more detail rendition but heavy. If it was not as heavy as it is, I'd have let go 35 f2 long ago. Going hiking with 1.4 means I may only take one other lens, or none. With f2, I can go with a few. So, it is from the practical reason I am keeping the f2. However, I am not ignoring the fact that when I used f2 a few weeks ago after a long interval, I was more pleased than I imagined.

I guess, if one already has f2 and happy with it, unless 35 is the FL choice for that person (Like some people have many 50mm lenses, even I have 3 ), f2 would do just good. Then, there is the lovely bokeh of 1.4 .. ha ha you can't win.



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 702
Country: Sweden

regarding 35mm's
In a pinch I'd sell the 1.4/35 as I'm working predominately stopped down. However not being in a pinch I like having both for the portrait like situations where I need 1.4.

I don't consider the 1.4 as an upgrade, it's another lens.

edit: upgrade



twoeye
Registered: Jan 14, 2011
Total Posts: 648
Country: Norway

Rodluvan wrote:
regarding 35mm's
I don't consider the 1.4 as an update, it's another lens.


+1
I agree, I just "upgraded" to the 1,4/35 and allready miss my 2/35. I think I need both



rji2goleez
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Total Posts: 5689
Country: United States

Interesting to hear these views on the 35/1.4. I thought I was alone but many times I really miss the 35/2. I love the 35/1.4 as well but thought the rendering of the 35/2 was outstanding. It is a different lens for sure and one that I miss. I wonder if I were to sell my 35/1.4 and pick up the 35/2 if I would feel the same way.



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 702
Country: Sweden

There is another consideration as well, the 1.4 is not 'only' one stop faster, the difference is imo way larger than that due to the 2/35 heavy vignetting at 2-2.8 which the 1.4 doesn't have to the same extent. effectively you'll gain almost 2 stops in shutter-speed. Beyond that the weight and thus inertia of the 1.4 makes it less prone to shake, at least if you take advantage of that with some success



rji2goleez
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Total Posts: 5689
Country: United States

I actually like the vignetting of the f/2 lens . . . part of it's character that I miss in the 1.4.



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 702
Country: Sweden

rji2goleez wrote:
I actually like the vignetting of the f/2 lens . . . part of it's character that I miss in the 1.4.


well there's always the option to add vignetting, never to losslessly remove it. And at 1.4 it has about as much as the 2/35 does @2 so it's not that it's totally absent, it's just that it's another distribution and fades quicker down the apertures



rji2goleez
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Total Posts: 5689
Country: United States

Rodluvan wrote:
rji2goleez wrote:
I actually like the vignetting of the f/2 lens . . . part of it's character that I miss in the 1.4.


well there's always the option to add vignetting, never to losslessly remove it. And at 1.4 it has about as much as the 2/35 does @2 so it's not that it's totally absent, it's just that it's another distribution and fades quicker down the apertures


But don't you find the rendering of the 35/2 somewhat different and pleasing versus the 1.4? I do. I'm not sure how to explain it but IMO felt that that the 35/2 had more classic Zeiss character than the 1.4.



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 702
Country: Sweden

rji2goleez wrote:
But don't you find the rendering of the 35/2 somewhat [different] and pleasing versus the 1.4?


Well, yes (not necessarily more pleasing though), I said as much earlier, but I don't attribute that to the vignetting although maybe [in part] it is.



rji2goleez
Registered: Jun 24, 2003
Total Posts: 5689
Country: United States

Rodluvan wrote:
rji2goleez wrote:
But don't you find the rendering of the 35/2 somewhat [different] and pleasing versus the 1.4?


Well, yes (not necessarily more pleasing though), I said as much earlier, but I don't attribute that to the vignetting although maybe [in part] it is.


Oh I agree . . . it is much more than the vignetting!



Gunzorro
Registered: Aug 28, 2010
Total Posts: 8055
Country: United States

I got rid of the ZE 35/2 in large part because of the excessive vignetting. As Rodluvan says, you can always add vignetting later, but you can't losslessly remove it. The vignetting goes hand-in-hand with other aberrations that I prefer to live without. I did like the lens near f/5.6 and beyond, but I like the cheaper Samyang at those smaller apertures too (and the Canon with AF). I do miss the lens, but not so much that I will repurchase. I don't need three 35mm primes (plus six zooms that include this focal length!).



raboof
Registered: Mar 04, 2011
Total Posts: 1908
Country: United States

2/35









helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3896
Country: Canada


New-to-me ZE 25/2:


Canon 6D + Zeiss 25/2 by helimat, on Flickr


Canon 6D + Zeiss 25/2 by helimat, on Flickr



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1831
Country: Finland

Few weeks out and so many pages behind...

Blackout, I went to B&H but forgot to buy the 500D I'll try to remember next time going to New York or some other place where prices are reasonable.

Rodluvan, really intensive colors with polariser, but sky looks weird with this wide lens.

Dave, the wooden well lifting mechanish is rather nice at larger size (in Flickr)

Fverburg, where in USA those were shoot? Quite similar sceneries as we have here in Finland. Liked the best "tree corridor" with 85P.

darbo, liked the beetle shoot with 2/100, great scene - almost all colors browns, yellows and greens.

akul, 3rd photo on page 851 has great light, so smooth but still having clear shadows.

Taylor, great "cloud scape" with ZM 2/50







I have been trying to learn new lens during this week. It seems great choice to use Sonnar design in 2/135, no matter how I have tortured the lens there is no way of getting bad bokeh from it - also bokeh has very subtle colours and contrast. Also I haven't yet been able to lure out any other ugly stuff e.g. CA in bokeh (or focus plane). All apertures between f/2 and f/11 seems to easily beat the old sensor of 5DmkII - actually with 5DmkII there doesn't seem to be any other quality defects @ f/2 than vignetting compared to f/4-5.6. Time will tell is this "only good" lens or will it have any character as well.

Unlike my usual style I have been enjoying (maybe too much) shooting wide open, many photos would be better when having more DOF, but I think I'll calm down at some point and start using my brains again


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/30s, 5DmkII@ISO 100


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/200s, 5DmkII@ISO 100 - larger


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/60s, 5DmkII@ISO 100


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/4, 1/6s, 5DmkII@ISO 100


Samuli



Lieutenant Z
Registered: Nov 21, 2010
Total Posts: 3470
Country: France

from Provence :



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 702
Country: Sweden

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Rodluvan, really intensive colors with polariser, but sky looks weird with this wide lens.
Samuli


Just a quick q, how does a wide make the sky look weird? do you mean how the clouds stretches towards the edges? I thought 21mm was considered pretty moderate for a landscape lens (I don't do many of those).



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1831
Country: Finland

Rodluvan wrote:
Just a quick q, how does a wide make the sky look weird? do you mean how the clouds stretches towards the edges? I thought 21mm was considered pretty moderate for a landscape lens (I don't do many of those).

Wide doesn't but wide + polarizer. Most photography books and courses tell to avoid polarizer with wider than 28mm lens due to uneven skies. In my life I have seen ONE 21mm photo, which I know polarizer was used and it was not ruined by it. That photo was posted here within ~month (subject was some sort of deep valley in jungle where sky was not at all visible).

21mm is in the "ultra wide"-category and by most standards it's VERY wide. Sure many people shoot landscapes with 18mm and 15mm as well, but if one would analyse for example all Flickr photos the number of wider than 24mm (in FOV, the crop people need to convert their mm...) would be very marginal. I have 67mm Zeiss polarizer for 2/25 but in most cases 25mm is too wide and I have got uneven skies, thou it has worked few times when other side of the photo has been filled with clouds etc. obstacles. Even with 28mm lens I have had issues from time to time, but 35mm is "narrow" enough to render skies in even blue.




Lieutenant Z; nice taxi with 85P, liked also the B&W conversion "tones" of the car.

Samuli



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 702
Country: Sweden

AH, you mean the polarization stretched over so large an area isn't even and this creates funky looking cloud and exposure differences?
What I was thinking was that the [polarization] in those photos almost added a vignetting which I thought was kind of nice (not if one wants ultra realism, mind).



1       2       3              851      
852
       853              1068       1069       end