ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
/forum/topic/860134/852

1       2       3              852      
853
       854              1076       1077       end

Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1891
Country: Finland

Rodluvan wrote:
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).

"vignetting" effect would be OK (thou I prefer no vignetting in 90% of cases), but the wide angles shown through very wide lens tend to create almost white spot to middle in those scenarios and mostly it doesn't cause as much "vignetting" in vertical dimension as it does on horizontal. But don't mind my comments, I'm very allergic to these kind of things, most people don't even notice.

Samuli



johnahill
Registered: Jan 08, 2006
Total Posts: 3153
Country: United Kingdom

Lieutenant - Great image
Samuli - Great stuff with the 135 APO
Helimatt - Nice shots with the 25/2



ZE50MP @f11



photoe
Registered: Oct 22, 2010
Total Posts: 47
Country: Germany

Nice pictures everyone.
Helimat - I like the 25/2 colors - are the colors pp?

Some pictures from my recent zoo visit.
The 135/2 is a "zoo" lens.

@f2


Southern Cassowary by photooe, on Flickr

@f2.8


Giraffe by photooe, on Flickr

@f4


Bearded Vulture by photooe, on Flickr

@f2


Sleeping Rhinoceros by photooe, on Flickr



dthrog00
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Total Posts: 409
Country: United States

Samuli,

Thanks for the kind words.

The 135mm appears to have plenty of character both in your pics as well as those others have posted.

Dave



helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3933
Country: Canada

photoe wrote:
Nice pictures everyone.
Helimat - I like the 25/2 colors - are the colors pp?


Nothing unusual for PP, just my usual basic raw conversion in DPP. I am finding the images from the 6D need less work that the 5D2 did though.

BTW; The detail in the rhino shot is very impressive. I am telling myself I don't need the 135/2... But photos like that aren't helping!

Here are a couple more, cross posts from one of the other six Zeiss threads going on.


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


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



akul
Registered: May 30, 2010
Total Posts: 2350
Country: United States

If I use an analogy of brush, 35/2 has broader, stronger stroke. 35/1.4 has more detailed sensitive stroke. They are different and both lovely. However, if one compares the two in a lab, 35 /1.4 would score higher. That is my subjective impression of the two.



akul
Registered: May 30, 2010
Total Posts: 2350
Country: United States

Samuli - thank you for your comment. Great use of 135 sonar. Incredible clarity on those shots.

Lieuetnant - Lovely BW conversion with really pleasing use of OOF area.

Helimat - Beautiful color on the jellyfish. Don't want to get stung by those.



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 712
Country: Sweden

Samuli Vahonen wrote:
"vignetting" effect would be OK (thou I prefer no vignetting in 90% of cases), but the wide angles shown through very wide lens tend to create almost white spot to middle in those scenarios and mostly it doesn't cause as much "vignetting" in vertical dimension as it does on horizontal. But don't mind my comments, I'm very allergic to these kind of things, most people don't even notice.


I would hate to be a mediocre 'most people', but I struggle to understand what, in specifically these photos, is ruined by the CPF. It must be said that I seldom do CPF as I find it distorts most colours and gives off an unnatural looking photo in many cases. Probably because I'm not that experienced using it (sort of a catch 22, due to a fundamental lack of interest I guess).

In these photos I see a silly blue sky and heightened contrast within it (brighter to the left and darker to the right), but not really any artefacts that I can dedicate to the filter. Could you please elaborate on the white sports for instance (besides the occasional flair)? It would be much appreciated.





Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1891
Country: Finland

Rodluvan wrote:
I would hate to be a mediocre 'most people', but I struggle to understand what, in specifically these photos, is ruined by the CPF. It must be said that I seldom do CPF as I find it distorts most colours and gives off an unnatural looking photo in many cases. Probably because I'm not that experienced using it (sort of a catch 22, due to a fundamental lack of interest I guess).

In these photos I see a silly blue sky and heightened contrast within it (brighter to the left and darker to the right), but not really any artefacts that I can dedicate to the filter. Could you please elaborate on the white sports for instance (besides the occasional flair)? It would be much appreciated.

Martin, I try to explain my best, thou I suck at writing:
The wide angle combined to polarizer causes sky to be either "gradient" (in darkness and saturation/hue) like in the two cases you posted again above OR it can cause darker and more saturated corners and in middle colorless bright spot. Either way the sky doesn't look natural - I guess this is subjective; I find it very annoying when some other people don't.

I think it shows "worst" in this photo, very unnatural low saturation "hot spot" in middle of sky:


Also artistically photographers differ, some prefer natural looks and some prefer not so natural results - there can't be "right or wrong" in this kind of matter, just personal preferences. One of the reasons why Alternative Image Thread and this thread are so marvellous is that we have lots of different kind of photographers here. Also this creates "problems", for example I don't do street shooting or people photography and I find it very hard to comment on this kind of photos - mostly when I find "joy" from this kind of photos it's how the photo has been rendered, rarely from subject/composition/etc.



In all of these 3 photos I enjoyed very much the "non-sky" part, also not natural due to enormous saturation, but very enjoyable combined to Distagon 21 rendering style and very well suited for the subject matter.








Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/250s, 5DmkII@ISO100


Samuli



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 712
Country: Sweden

Samuli Vahonen wrote:


I think it shows "worst" in this photo, very unnatural low saturation "hot spot" in middle of sky:

Samuli


Thanks,

the reason I didn't repost that one and the reason it's the worst is because I added a layered curve right there in the middle to further increase brightness. In doing so I must decrease saturation and mind the gradient to a far higher degree. I feel that photo in particular is botched as well

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 712
Country: Sweden

Thanks photoe for the samples, I'm beginning to come around to the lens more and more. The subtle 3d and tonality looks great and the total absence of abbreviation as far as I can tell.

The rhino one is exquisite imo.



darbo
Registered: Mar 10, 2012
Total Posts: 991
Country: United States

Samuli and Photooe, nice images from the 2/135. The rendering looks very fine - fine microcontrast - very clean and sharp. I am presently evaluating whether to switch from the 2/100 to the 2/135 or just stick with the 2/100, and would appreciate seeing more samples.

Any review/commentary expressing your thoughts about 2/135 as compared with other ZE/ZF.2 lenses - especially the 2/100 - would be much appreciated.



Greggf
Registered: Aug 03, 2011
Total Posts: 2900
Country: United States

john...great shot with the 50MP, and yes it can be used for landscapes!!
Samuli...Great pics with the 135!! Lusting, lusting, wanting....I just have to say NO!! I hate to say it, but your examples of trees are incredible! I would love to see examples of other work, too!!
Helimat...LOVE the Jellyfish...I can reach out and touch it!
photoe...AWESOME shots from the zoo...wow!!

Gregg



Greggf
Registered: Aug 03, 2011
Total Posts: 2900
Country: United States

I was in between doctor appointments for my thumb yesterday, and brought the 50MP out for a little jaunt near the beach. A few taken in bright sunlight around midday.
Thanks for looking,
Gregg



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1891
Country: Finland

darbo, below are some more samples. From most images posted on this and previous pages I have shoot also other apertures. If you wish to see other apertures or bigger size just let me know via PM or this thread (I read this thread usually daily) - and I mean what I say, I have got so much from this forum that I'm very willing to help others if I can.



It's way too early to make any final conclusions, but if comparing to Makro-Planar T* 2/100, which I have shoot as my main tele lens since ZF series 2/100 came available in 2008, later upgrading to ZE. I would say these are main differences I have noticed this far:
1. APO-Sonnar (AS) has always smooth bokeh, where Makro-Planar (MP) bokeh can be very nervous and edgy at widest apertures
1.1 Partly caused by the light distribution in the bokeh highlight "balls" - MP has more light concentrated to edges of the "balls", where AS has even light concentration and softer edges of the "balls"
1.2 MP has huge vignetting at large distances wide open, making effective aperture at corners of the image to be smaller than in the middle = uneven bokeh over the frame. AS seems to have less vignetting (but the price of that is that it's HUGE and weights more).
2. MP has very strong tendency to create bokeh CA, green/magenta in both sides of focus plane. This is very annoying when for example photographing car on top of wet asphalt; there typically is green and magenta "tint" before and after the focus plane. With AS I have not even seen hint of bokeh CA OR CA in focus plane.
3. AS has better contrast and micro contrast wide open than MP. Most of the time when I focus with live view (I have JPG settings so that the sharpening is to the maximum, don't affect to RAW file what I shoot but makes focusing much easier) the image jumps to focus with AS and I have nailed focus in whole frame view about 7 out 10 times = 3 of 10 I needed to focus on 10x magnification view.
4. DOF is much more shorter in AS than focal length difference would make me to believe. With AS I can separate subject from the background very clearly even the subject would be 20meters (~60feet) away and the background is 25meters (~75feet)
5. MP needs to be closed down to f/2.5-3.5 to get the best subject to background separation (contrast plays role as well, not just DOF). While AS gets maximum separation wide open. I don't see much improvement in contrast or micro contrast when closing down the lens.
6. AS seems to have tendency to create "swirly bokeh" from texture/feature rich background - see the 3 last samples below. This may happen with MP, but it's quite rare and I haven't seen it happening many times. Personally I like this kind of bokeh, but I guess it's question of one's preferences again.

For me as "forest photographer" bokeh is one of the most important factors in lenses, this far I see only improvements in AS compared to MP.

Reading above please take into account:
a) I haven't shot any close-ups yet (largest magnification maybe 1:6 in few photos), mostly just the kind of photos you have seen me post here
b) I haven't shot any human made stuff/"urban" stuff, just my usual nature stuff
c) I have shoot the way I shoot; using live view and LCDVF to shoot camera normally despite using live view, haven't used optical viewfinder even once with the lens
d) I haven't and will not shoot any side by side stuff, short spring and summer has begin in Finland and it's priority for me to use all the shooting time for the real stuff, not "lens review/comparison"




Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2.0, 1/400s, 5DmkII@ISO100


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2.0, 1/1000s, 5DmkII@ISO100 - larger


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2.0, 1/1250s, 5DmkII@ISO100


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2.0, 1/1000s, 5DmkII@ISO100


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2.0, 1/800s, 5DmkII@ISO100 - larger


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2.0, 1/1000s, 5DmkII@ISO100 - larger


Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2.0, 1/60s, 5DmkII@ISO100



Tomorrow hopefully it will be OK weather and we may have more samples...

Samuli

EDIT corrected about 20 typos, so 50 more remaining...
EDIT2 added EXIF data (forgot the shutter speeds from original post)



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1891
Country: Finland

Greggf wrote:
I was in between doctor appointments for my thumb yesterday, and brought the 50MP out for a little jaunt near the beach. A few taken in bright sunlight around midday.
Thanks for looking,
Gregg

Liked the last one. Very good work to hide the 50MP field curvature, only little too sharp bottom corners give it away this time.

Samuli



darbo
Registered: Mar 10, 2012
Total Posts: 991
Country: United States

Thank you much for the excellent summary review on the 2/135 Samuli. And you latest photos are beautiful and quite arresting: Excellent subject-isolation with those. The f/2 shots are exactly the aperture I would have asked to see.



Greggf
Registered: Aug 03, 2011
Total Posts: 2900
Country: United States

Thank you Samuli...
The last pic in the series above does it for me!! Incredible separation between subject and background!! Very crisp! And I do like the swirly bokeh, too.
Gregg



Greggf
Registered: Aug 03, 2011
Total Posts: 2900
Country: United States

A recent shot of our dog, Rajah! 50MP
Gregg



nicolab
Registered: Oct 20, 2012
Total Posts: 290
Country: Italy

Rodluvan wrote:
nibutto the 5th (green door) one I like particularly much. Where in italy are those taken?

The lovely place is Isola d'Elba in Italy (Tuscany)
I enjoied going there by bike (950Km trip) (the DSLR and the 21 Zeiss)




















































1       2       3              852      
853
       854              1076       1077       end