If anyone here with a ZE 100 is near Pasadena, CA, I could supply a CY 100/2 and 100/3.5 for a comparison shootout (along with a Leica 100/2.8 APO-Macro as a "control group," which, IMO, has a rather different rendering style, and nearly no CA). I can also supply CY lenses for comparing 21mm, 35mm, and 50mm focal lengths to their ZE counterparts (along with various "control" lenses). PM me if you are interested in meeting up for a lens comparison shooting session.
EDIT: I reserve the right to turn down any offers that look like this: --- new PM from creepy_muggr666 (0 posts; registered Jun 6 2011) ---
hey, how about we meet in the abandoned warehouse district at 11:30pm?
please bring all ur lenses & lots of cash to.
dont tell ne1 were u r going or they will steal your best shots
Thanks buddy.
I received a 55mm B+W Kasemann CPL that can work on either my Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 or 80-200/4 lenses. Yay! In case you aren't familiar, the Kasemann is a "deep dish" filter with high rim. The really good news is that I can mount it on the 50 and then add the aftermarket screw-in lens hood I've mentioned -- without vignetting on full frame! Double big YAY!
Yesterday, I received a new C/Y to EOS adapter from China with three features: lens and aperture ID, and focus assist.
I immediately slapped in on my Zeiss Contax 50/1.4. At first I was shocked and dismayed to find me test shots about 4 stops over-exposed and the focus well behind the target (when I finally compensated manually).
This morning I thorougly read the technical procedure at the bottom of the eBay auction listing, and with much trial and error, got it all working!
Very nice and at a great price! I highly recommend this. Shipping was about 2-1/2 weeks from the Buy-It-Now auction. I will probably get another one to put on the 50/1.4 for the focus assist and ID.
One good thing I'd like to pass on is that each of the three settings can be done or re-done individually without fear of losing previous work. You can jump in with the beginning f/ numbers "64-57-64" command at any point and move to the subject prefix f/ numbers (2.0, 2.2, 2.5). Hope that saves you some time and effort.
The hardest part was getting the focus zeroed by trial and error. I eventually arrived at "19" as my setting for the 1Ds2. Here are a bunch of my test targets, trophies of my odyssey. Go ahead and laugh! Fancy or not, they get the job done, and keep me entertained.
Canon 1Ds2, Zeiss Contax 80-200 @ f/4 and ISO 400. Processed in LR with no PP other than resize and export as small jpg.
(Yes, Carsten, I did edit them from a larger pool! Ha-ha! )
I'm not trying to claim these are award-winning shots, but after reading some of the scathing anti-Zeiss remarks from a few individuals on the Canon forum with regard to the positive qualities of the Zeiss ZE 100MP (BTW -- thanks for presenting that lens in a terrific way, Lars!), I look at these simple unprocessed shots, and can't help but love the color and soft/sharp contrast areas. How could this not be obvious to anyone else? Don't get me wrong -- I'll never be a bokeh-nut, but these images look great to me even with (or because of?) the vignetting and other attributes of a wide open lens. Just thought I'd comment on the obvious, and I'm probably just preaching to the choir here.
The Sony 85/2.8 is a Zeiss Sonnar design, based on the Contax of the same FL and max aperture. The diagrams look very similar but the spacing of the elements is not the same which means different performance, probably an improvement. However I suspect the only reason why the Sony is not called ZA is because of the build quality and the kind of glass/material used, that obviously are not up to Zeiss standards for the ZA line.
Gunzorro wrote:
(Yes, Carsten, I did edit them from a larger pool! Ha-ha! )
Haha, take your time You are still experimenting and coming to grips with the new equipment, so who am I to be critical A couple of those shots really do show Zeiss qualities though. I am always surprised to see that some people just don't see a difference, but I guess we were all like that in the early days. It takes time to learn how to read a lens, and how to see the qualities and potential. Many of the nay-sayers may end up as switchers later on themselves. I guess it takes a brave heart to admit that owning a few L lenses is not an endstation after all.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The Sony 85/2.8 is a Zeiss Sonnar design, based on the Contax of the same FL and max aperture. The diagrams look very similar but the spacing of the elements is not the same which means different performance, probably an improvement. However I suspect the only reason why the Sony is not called ZA is because of the build quality and the kind of glass/material used, that obviously are not up to Zeiss standards for the ZA line.
I have the 85mm F1.4 ZA so it's hard to justify buying it but man, it costs the same as a good big filter. Hard to resist. And it's so small!
"This new Sony “easy choice lens” is fully built in plastic which means it’s quite light (175g), it is also manufactured in China and it has a pretty affordable price tag at about 249 USD.
It’s safe to assume that its lower price means lower quality and with its plastic shell, people who prefer metal bodies may want to skip this one."...
...and may people might invest a bit more in a longer term lens - the Contax 85mm f2.8 Sonnar. No AF wobble either, smooth focus ring, dof markings, and so on. It's not new, though Maybe life was not meant to be 'easy'.
Philip, absolutely, I wouldn't use a lens made entirely of plastic, even if it was given to me for free.
However one has to admit that the lens delivers very well optically, but one should wonder about the durability and other issues introduced by the use of a plastic mount, and probably mostly plastic optical elements.
As for DXO, I'm sorry but that's another misleading and completely inaccurate test similar to the test of the Distagon 21 and other great performing lenses that are completely trashed by DXO because of their flawed testing method.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Philip, absolutely, I wouldn't use a lens made entirely of plastic, even if it was given to me for free.
I'm about as snobbish when it comes to build quality and materials, but I make a gigantic exception for the current Nikon 18-55 kit zoom. I hate plastic and I hate zooms, but this one is addictive: perfect 3x range for a cropper, sharp, great rendition, VR, decent build (for plastic), and light as a feather. The D3000/D3100 plus 18-55 is a fine walkaround P&S without the P&S headaches. The plastic mount may die with enough swapping, and won't be worth fixing - just throw it all away, and buy a new lens!
edwardkaraa wrote:
You are right, it wasn't the conclusion but what else can it be? To my eyes, this edge effect looks exactly like loca, but it is more grayish than blue, especially if you don't crank up saturation. On my ZA 85, the effect is rather bluish gray. I myself am very convinced, but I understand there is no consensus on this issue.
I have seen this outlining effect in many close-up shots with different lenses, but the strongest example I have is from the Distagon 28/2.8 that I mentioned. I'll try to post it today. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with LoCA, but it looks to me like it's light bending around and blending into the blurred edge of the subject.
Look, I appreciate what Sony is doing and full power to them - a great performing, very useful 85mm lens, light as a feather..I guess I am just against less well-made lenses. And maybe thinking of what they will do for the A77. I think maybe they lean on Tamron and the aftermarket (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) a bit much at present. But, hope springs eternal.
Sony are doing a good thing with their entry level emphasis on excellent quality at a good price, considering their market and how they seem to want to grow it from the base upwards.
Would like to see the Distagon image, AhamB, if you can find it.
A bit too contrasty for my taste. Detail from the center of the flower is lost. I think that in this circumstance, the Leica 28 Elmarit v.2 would acquit itself better. Just my personal opinion, having shot the Nikkor 28/2, ZF 2/28 and Leica 28 Elmarit for comparisons like this. The decreased contrast and increased resolving power of the Leica shines in lighting like that seen above.
j.liam wrote:
A bit too contrasty for my taste. Detail from the center of the flower is lost.
I hear this time and again, and I still don't think it's true. Low contrast lenses don't record images containing more information. The results of a low contrast lens can be duplicated in post by working on a file from a high contrast lens, while the reverse isn't possible.
In fact, I have "recovered" shadows with a double exposure, with the second shot being uniform "stray light" from an image of the overcast sky. Stacking just a uniformly exposed frame on top of a RAW should yield the same results. I don't think anyone would argue that this procedure yields any true additional information from the shadow areas.
That being said, if low contrast results are desired all of the time OOC, it is certainly more convenient to use a low contrast lens in the first place.
I wouldn't quite describe the Leica 28 Elmarit v.2 as low contrast; it's just that the Leicas tendency to render with slightly lower contrast but higher resolution creates a certain look that preserves shadow detail without the need for extensive PP recovery.
j.liam wrote:
A bit too contrasty for my taste. Detail from the center of the flower is lost. I think that in this circumstance, the Leica 28 Elmarit v.2 would acquit itself better. Just my personal opinion, having shot the Nikkor 28/2, ZF 2/28 and Leica 28 Elmarit for comparisons like this. The decreased contrast and increased resolving power of the Leica shines in lighting like that seen above.
I didn't really put attention on processing here. I could have easily processed it to show more detail in the centre of the flower, but then the sky would have been blown out (or at least brighter than I wanted). I used the Camera Standard profile in LR3 and this often causes posterization in the shadows, but the Adobe Standard profile does other unwanted things.
Anyway, this was merely an example of the edge outlining/contours that I was discussing with Edward. The Leica might not show that effect so strongly.
