Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.19 #11 · Zeiss Lens Photos and Discussion | |
Ulff wrote:
Given that the IQ of the CY is very similar from wide open to f8.0, I expect both lenses to be quite comparable at wider apertures, too.
Markus, unfortunately not. MP2/100ZE optimum aperture is f/4 (it's as sharp and has similar contrast at f/2.8, but f/4 will improve vignetting and bokeh quality, while closing to f/5.6 doesn't improve the image) and while you focus S3.5/100C/Y with live view 10x mode you see how it gets sharper when closing to f/4 and then to f/5.6, but not anymore to f/8. Also due to vignetting C/Y bokeh gets worse on corners if both lenses closed down to f/3.5.
AhamB wrote:
After looking a bit more carefully at the 2nd image pair, I agree that the Contax has somewhat richer colours (more reds). I can't figure out why the reflection on the water looks so radically different in the ZE shot though. Unfortunately the shooting times have been removed from the EXIF, so it's hard to tell if lighting conditions could have changed. The higher contrast in the OOF background does take away something from the DOF separation.
EXIF has not been modified. If you can't see time in EXIF do either of the following:
- read shooting date and time from filename (format YYYYMMDD_HH-MM-SS)
- use proper EXIF reader e.g. http://regex.info/exif.cgi
And answer to your next question: Yes I have clocks in both 5DmkII in sync 
In the Contax vs Zeiss shoot, the light was constant (no clouds in close proximity of "line" from sun to subject of shooting), EXCEPT in photo #1, in which I tried to match the lightning, so that similar amount and same softness light was coming to subject. On some photos sun is shining through trees and tree movement of course changes lightning locally in some spots.
philip_pj wrote:
Last Leica image looks quite strange, seemingly with only one (very yellow) hue of green and much less definition than its counterpart. The CY lens shows a lot of identifiable background and that contributes to making this image attractive. It also looks much more authentic. The Leica bokeh is a surprise given the shorter focal length, even though it is probably designed for. You can see the same thing in the flower images, though focal distances are different for each lens.
That day was 100 cloudy and as you all know, whom have tried to shoot comparison shots on cloudy day, the light through cloud layer IS NOT CONSTANT, it changes from second to another, making it really hard to shoot comparison images. I would assume that for Leica shot there was less clouds between sun and subject (or it's background in this case actually, which appear more yellowish), pushing the WB towards warmer/yellower. [alternative: on the other shot all other clouds except the one between sun and subject were thinner making Zeiss shot more blue ]
philip_pj wrote:
Thanks again to Samuli, I find them far from boring ;-).
Good that others didn't find them so boring. To me the test didn't reveal anything new. I have very hard time saying, which I prefer C/Y or Zeiss, but I prefer both over Leica. One very important aspect to me is rendering of different tones of green, since I shoot in mostly in green forest, and due to this I like both Zeiss lenses. Sometimes MP2/100ZE bokeh appears little more rough (overcorrection?) compared to S100C/Y, however in these images there hardly was any difference. Only surprise to me was shot #5, which is very close to optimum range of MP2/100ZE, and there is hardly any difference in images (even 100% real images).
Nice landscape, for f/8 you have enormous DOF.
Next lens test I'm interested to do is Canon 24-70L against C/Y primes in night shooting with difficult lightning. Maybe also 100L against 100C/Y. This is because somebody on some recent thread (I can't remember which and I can't find it) said that for night shooting modern Canon zooms are better due to better coatings. I'm really interested to see how C/Y Distagons 25 & 28, Planar 50, Makro-Planar 60 and Sonnar 100 compare against modern Canon zoom. I have shoot with best Canon lenses including 300/2.8LIS, 135L, 85LmkII, 100L, 24/1.4mkII, new TSE lenses with microcoating etc. and I would not say that the coatings are any better, but I have not tested it, so it's just an assumption.
PS. Most of the times I shoot my targets so that the light source is behind the subject, and very often this means that light source is directly visible to front lens element no matter what kind of hood I have. In these situtions I mostly can fix the situation with hat (or some other suitable device, even hand can be used but it's shape is difficult to match and arm may block the view), by shading the front element from direct light source. Example with Contax Vario-Sonnar T* 4/80-200 @ f/8, 1/8s, ISO 100 - guess which side is with the hat
|
? Do you refer to his recent comments regarding Canon 50/1.4?