Characteristic to majority of Zeiss lenses, at least before "modern" era of Übersharp lenses (Otus, Batis), is that the boke tends to have smaller contrast than focal plane. This naturally happens in all lenses, but to my eye this is most strongest on Zeiss lenses, specially in C/Y, G and ZE/ZF (excluding MP 2/50) series lenses. For some of my work this lens characteristic is essential, and I very much prefer lenses doing this for nature photos. Of course similar result can be done (or enhanced) in Photoshop, but it takes a lot of time to draw accurate enough masks etc - so I prefer to get it already "done" to my RAW file.
Mescalamba wrote:
I would say that less contrast in "bokeh" portion of image is one of things that enhace "3D" look. Or at least give some sense of depth.
That is what I like after using the old low contrast Contarex Zeiss lenses and it was easier to pp compared to Sony 55mm 1.8:
Test photos this mornings trying the new-to-me ZF.2 35/2 on D800e.
The car shot has minimal LR6 2015CC PP other than Sharpening 70-0.7-35, +20 Dehazing, lens profile, CA correction 2, camera standard profile. (Seems like a lot, when written out! )
The family photo was a 5x7 photo print (from film) in a frame on the mantle, with all the dust showing. Shot wide open, hand-held, with same basic correction as above, plus eyedropper to get neutral starting point for WB. Clarity +12 and Vignetting added -10, etc. Also - cropped and straightened, so about 80% of the original sensor real estate. (I wonder if someone will take the data under the family shot and think that dusty, fuzzy shot was taken with the D800e and Zeiss lens -- without reading that it was the "copy camera and lens" to re-photo the shot? )
Anyhow, nice near wide open performance on the car shot, and nice close focusing on repro family shot.
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Nice Samuli.. didn't know you have Sonnar Zm f1.5
Thanks - nice work with insects and bugs. I still can't figure out how you find them, I rarely see anything else than spiders in my forests and I only live some hundreds of kilometers north compared to you location.
I have been trading some lenses, as I tried to find "good f/1.2 normal" and failed - found lots of lenses which are nice/OK @ f/2-2.8, but in the end for those apertures I will always have Zeiss option, which rendering I prefer compared to these lenses. As I gave away pile of lenses I didn't like (OM 50/1.2, Pentax 50/1.2, Canon FD 50/1.2 L and S.S.C.) and during that process ZM1.5/50 ended up to my hands... I have always been curious how ZM-series lenses are regarding build quality and how they feel to shoot. As G45 and Loxia 50 seem so similar to ZM2/50 I decided to get 1.5/50 as 4/85 is too dark and 2/85 too rare and expensive, and shorter ones don't really work with non-modified A7(r).
Also 1.5/50 being "different" was interesting aspect, but also it seems it's challenging lens to find subjects, which with it works with (works very well for people, but I mainly shoot nature). The rendering style is very different to any other Zeiss I have ever shoot with. For example scenario like below would render very differently with any other Zeiss normal lens I know of; they would have higher microcontrast on subject as well as large detail contrast, and more calm boke and way less contrast on boke. And based on first evening of shooting with lens it's gives more blue white balance than other Zeiss lenses, but that needs to verified by shooting more. C Sonnar @ f/2:
So lots to learn to find out how to get this lens to "sing". I hate central compositions, and this lens needs them, so that is the first thing to "learn".
)
