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

1       2       3              852      
853
       854              982       983       end

raboof
Registered: Mar 04, 2011
Total Posts: 1485
Country: N/A

2/35









helimat
Registered: Apr 06, 2008
Total Posts: 3736
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: 1584
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: 2983
Country: France

from Provence :



Rodluvan
Registered: Sep 01, 2010
Total Posts: 674
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: 1584
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: 674
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).



Samuli Vahonen
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Total Posts: 1584
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: 2501
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: 45
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: 241
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: 3736
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: 1611
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: 1611
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: 674
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: 1584
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: 674
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: 674
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: 180
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: 1627
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



1       2       3              852      
853
       854              982       983       end