Samuli Vahonen wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Samuli - I'm courius to hear how things are going with the Sonnar 50/1.5. I'm considering one as I'm very pleased with my Zeiss lenses. Like you I'm rarely using central compositions, but unlike you I'm mostly shooting portraits. Do you find that the lens is sharp enough a little outside centre (like rule of thirds composition)? I will also use it for an A7 and it seems to make a nice and tiny package.
Marve Almar wrote:
Samuli - I'm courius to hear how things are going with the Sonnar 50/1.5. I'm considering one as I'm very pleased with my Zeiss lenses. Like you I'm rarely using central compositions, but unlike you I'm mostly shooting portraits. Do you find that the lens is sharp enough a little outside centre (like rule of thirds composition)? I will also use it for an A7 and it seems to make a nice and tiny package.
Well in my opinion it depends; for my kind of shooting, which usually involves subjects requiring good rendering of textures to get feeling of volume and shape of subject, this lens doesn't work very well with rule of thirds composition. However I like this lens for people as subject. For most people I prefer slightly less Zeissy rendering style, as I shoot ordinary people and not models with their faces full of make-up.
In any case if you get this lens, be prepared to accept that it's not traditional Zeiss rendering (=like ZE, ZF, other ZM, Contax C/Y, Contax G, CZ medium format (Contax and Hasselblad), which all share similar rendering style in my opinion).
out last night with my a7 + contax 28mm f2 + shift adapter. it was a nice clear night on a bridge i pass everyday on the way home, always wanted to make these pictures
banpreso wrote:
out last night with my a7 + contax 28mm f2 + shift adapter. it was a nice clear night on a bridge i pass everyday on the way home, always wanted to make these pictures
Fantastic. How much shift can you get out of the 28?
I've got a ZS Distagon 25/2.8 coming to test out on my M42 tilt/shift adapter. I'm hopeful that, stopped down to f/8 or 11, it'll have enough usable IC for a decent amount of shift.
