Steve - thanks for the math formula - I copied it to my cheat sheet with the other photography math - :-)
T-walker - thanks for that clearly stated explanation - that's about how I understand the effects of tubes from using them - but never found it in writing.
Now begs the question - is that the same effect when using x1.4 & x2 TC's - tele-converters / extensions - losing 1-2 stops of light but not directly gaining DoF?
Ulff - love the 35-70 shot - beautifully composed - amazing color, clean detail & reflection - I still give some positive credit to the 17-40 for it's price/size vs. performance - I also replaced both the 17-40 & 24-105 shortly after a Zeiss 28/2 & 35-70 purchase - any lens will flare but I did notice the 24-105 to exhibit ugly flare quite easily.
Ulff, that 35-70 VS harbour image really zings! I see what you mean re Canon flare...lights are dull and very intrusive at the same time, they really 'smear' the image content.
Samuli, I tried something similar recently with my 35-70 VS and got something similar to your left one - I had to delete it immediately in disgust! Coatings improved but not enough it seems, and mine is a late release one. I use f8 for all my CY lenses generally, not that much DOF with 100mm but I shoot a lot where I want it all clear.
I also want to say that almost all users love the ZE 100MP, even some with the 100mm Sonnar - it might be subject dependent for it to shine more. Your subject matter is very demanding also.
Ulff -- You know I'm a great admirer of your work, but I'd like to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, with no disrespect intended.
I pretty familiar with taking night shots and how difficult it is to access the perfect and brief window of exposure when the ambient light is balanced against the man-made. I'm also familiar with the time required for changing camera positions, even for short distances, and how it affects a series of exposures. I see changes in position, and I am assuming these harbor shots were all taken on the same evening.
That said, the 35-70 seems to be the earliest exposure with the most balanced tones of the existing daylight and the artificial light resulting in the best color "pop". The 24-105 seems to be taken the latest, with no added sky color or water reflections, making it look the darkest and dullest of the set.
I find it very difficult to compare such images unless they are taken simultaneously with two identical types of cameras (or very close, such as 5DII and 1Ds Mark 2 or 3). Shooting two time-exposure cameras at the same time is a bit challenging with the brief twilight window -- I've tried it a few times with DSLR and 6x7 MF. Busy, to say the least!
I can't dispute your results of flare for the 24-105, as I don't really seem much comparison, but I agree that it doesn't look very appealing.
I don't own the 24-105, so I'm not trying to make a case for it. I just wanted readers to be aware of the more favorable lighting conditions the 35-70 would appear to be taking advantage of. It may be the the best lens of the bunch, but I can't tell from this one study.
Personally, I'm looking forward to this fall to see if my new ZE 21/2.8 has a significant advantage over my 24L TSEII or 16-35LII for twilight city shots. My best hope is that it will provide clean specular lights and details on the edges and in corners a f/8.
I do appreciate your examples and thank you for presenting them.
Thank you Jim for taking the time to comment extensively on the harbor shots. I can only second your conclusion that my sample pictures didn't prove much. My conclusion wasn't based on these pictures anyway. It was a subjective impression from a bunch of night shots I did over the years with these and other lenses without ever comparing them directly against each other. That's why I looking forward to a more controlled test.
The pictures were shown in the attempt to illustrate my impression somehow and I tried to find samples that were shot at least in similar conditions. As I stated in the comments above the pictures weren't even taken in the same night, so a lot of potentially influential factors vary between them. Your guess about different night times is only one these factors (I have to look at the EXIFs for time taken), but additionally the wind differs most proabably between the pictures and therefore the mirroring of the water, etc.. Also: with the exception of the last picture all pictures were panoramas stitched together of 3-6 single captures, which makes things even more incomparable (I'm a scientist btw doing controlled experiments for a living and know very well how hard it is to do proper experiments). But nonetheless: my guess is that even under more comparable conditions the Zeiss would do better for night shots and Samuli may show this to us and I'm also very interested what you will find out comparing your ZE 21 to both Canon lenses.
The last night shots I did were with the ZE 21 and Canons 50L. The ZE excels at this, as expected. The Canon was way better than I expected and showed very interesting differences of specular lights rendering between different apertures. I liked most of them and did choose the aperture setting according to the specular lights rendering I thought was most appropriate. Flare resistance was also very good.
mMontag wrote:
T-walker - thanks for that clearly stated explanation - that's about how I understand the effects of tubes from using them - but never found it in writing.
Now begs the question - is that the same effect when using x1.4 & x2 TC's - tele-converters / extensions - losing 1-2 stops of light but not directly gaining DoF?
Your question is incomplete in a way that the answer hopefully illustrates. If you add a 2x tele-converter to a given lens and keep the same perspective (distance to the subject), the DOF reduces. If you add a 2x tele-converter to a given lens and frame the subject in the same way (fixed magnification), the DOF increases.
Ulff wrote:
But nonetheless: my guess is that even under more comparable conditions the Zeiss would do better for night shots and Samuli may show this to us and I'm also very interested what you will find out comparing your ZE 21 to both Canon lenses.
I doubt I have enough patience for testing these two zooms - I tried in daylight and it was really hard since Canon lens transmits 0.3-0.5 stops less light through (I have noticed same when comparing 50mm, 85mm and 100mm lenses) and matching two zooms (mm setting) is real time consuming, and while fiddling with the settings light will change, and you have to start from beginning again. Also I had extra challenges with very hot day and very bold 20mm (0.8inch) long meat eating horse-flies at the national park where I tried (and failed) to compare the lenses. However what I have seen from the photos 24-70L is definitely best Canon lens between 35mm and 70mm for nature/landscape stuff I shoot. I liked the rendering much more than 35L, 50L, 24-105L or non-L lenses I have shoot earlier (I have shoot with 24-70L earlier a lot, but only wedding/family stuff).
Gunzorro, normally your point is well taken about changing light confounding the comparison, but look closely at the Canon images' colour rendition for very similar luminosity values. And there is no warmth from near sunset to brighten up the CZ image.
What I do see in the Canon shots is a flat, insipid palette with inadequate tonal separation, and poor 'photoreality', a flatness that makes the eye work harder to establish a sense of depth. Highlights are dull, shadow colour detail is muddy.
The buildings and right side boat show a sickly, chromatically inaccurate dull pink rendition. I thought at first it was the lens but sadly both Canon lenses represented here show the same character. Any good CZ lens will, if anything, open the gap if shot in the same light...it seems the colour issues lie with the Canon lenses rather than in-camera processing, as we see few colour issues with Zeiss on Canon bodies.
Samuli, flat lighting is so wonderful for saturation in intimate landscapes, like a giant soft box held overhead. High latitudes don't hurt either.
i dont know if this is the right thread... but im looking to get a zeiss 100mp... where are the best places to look? I have no issues buying online, just prefer to buy from US stores.
