Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.94 #20 · Zeiss Lens Photos and Discussion | |
wfrank wrote:
Samuli, I thought focus shift was an issue with ZE lenses with electronic apertures (always measuring wideopen whatever the set F is). Not with manual ones such as the CY (given focusing through VF, not LV) - probably giving away my ignorance here?
 Focus shift is caused by optics, it has nothing to do with how aperture is controlled (EF electonically, C/Y manually) - I did not comment on that on the "mitigation instructions". It's just easier to do with C/Y lens, which has manual control for aperture. With ZE lens you have to use live view in movie mode OR DOF-button to focus with shooting aperture.
wfrank wrote:
In my case shooting is wideopen (or close) with fairly close subjects - or the opposite infinity focus and F/8 (if light allows and ISO doesnt rocket). Rarely in between. As a happy coincident the lens/adapters infinity focus stop is perfect. Hope that will be the case for the incoming 85/1.4 and 50/1.4 as well. Maybe I was just lucky.
Infinity focus and focus stop. Wow. I have never used and will never use. Any lens I have seen this far (specially with adapters) will not be at infinity stop/mark (typically infinity little before infinity). Also what is the point focusing to infinity if you are not doing astronomical stuff (based on f/8 you are not...)? Please don't use this technique, it even sounds horrible as an idea (assuming one is trying to achieve some quality). Also all lenses I have tried have variance in "position of the infinity" between -30C (really cold) and +30C (hot for Finnish weather), and that is the variance of temperature I shoot in, so if I would use infinity stop for some weird reason it would have to be calibrated for the shooting conditions.
Forgot to mention that both 1.4 planars are pretty low quality wide open in close-ups. You see when you shoot but you can start from assumption:
- close-up: aperture f/2.8 may work, but f/4 might be safer
- large distance: around f/2.2 it starts to work and before f/2.8 should be almost "full quality"
wfrank wrote:
What's with the shape of the aperture mid value?
I can't remember, and don't have energy to google how many blades the aperture has. I would assume same as other C/Y lenses, 6 aperture blades, so it's the thing which has 6 sides (I can't remember the name for it, from UFC I remember octagon and it has 8 sides - and square has 4 sides...I hope you already figured out...). The ZE lenses have 9 blades (I think, not sure), but anyhow the roundness of aperture in mid apertures is the main reason why I shoot with ZE-lenses. To me it's worth all the extra trouble caused by electronically controlled aperture (of course some other minor things are better in ZE e.g. I prefer the ZE lens hoods, saving of the aperture to EXIF data and T* coating is better than it was 20 years ago)
wfrank wrote:
How would you characterize the difference between the 50/1.4 and 50/1.7?
1.4 is better in bokeh and overall quality (at same apertures). There is also some sample variation on the 1.4 versions, I tried multiple copies, and all were slightly different.
wfrank wrote:
Is this an example of presence, "3D", despite being gray concrete art ..? If so, is it the bokeh, the size (I know perhaps a bit big), or the sharpness or what?
I have to give politically correct answer, since I don't want to start discussing about this topic AGAIN - I have absolute zero interest to discuss with these people who want their scientifical definition what it is, even when we are talking partly subjective thing inside artform called photography. Use the search and read tens of pages worthless discussion, it still should be in master database. In archive database you can find the earlier discussion about topic - I'm pretty sure the most recent thread contains link to old threads as well.
But I can answer to different question, what you didn't ask; your image doesn't appear flat to me. Your subject has shape, volume (some call it depth) and texture AND you (or website where you load the photo) haven't skrewed up the image in downsizing and you present it in size that texture can be still barely presented --> to me they don't like cardboards, into which someone has printed concrete pattern. Effect could be stronger, you have had it much stronger on many of your other shots to my eyes. This time your subject is rather small in the image, which I think makes the effect less effective (there is lots of empty space around which doesn't add anything to image). To me effect has nothing to do with bokeh, but can be enhanced good use of bokeh, you can have same effect in photo in which has everything in focus (as long as diffraction doesn't ruin textures). To me sharpness (which by definition means ability to resolve small details but doesn't take into account contrast of that small detail, just that it can be resolved) is the least useful factor creating anything good in photography or for this particular topic. What I find typically helpful is micro contrast (contrast for very small detail 40lp/mm in MTF charts). To me your image is small webthumnail like most of the stuff we post here; it can barely cover 1/4 of my monitor, even when viewing from television (1080P) it won't fill the whole screen.
Lars Larsen's building, Henningsvær, Norway - Contax Planar T* 1.7/50 @ f/2.5, 1/125s - larger
|
the burden of being 150+ pages behind in Z* thread kind of hold me reading FM and then I happened to check this thread, since I was only 20-30 pages behind in this one. Kind of almost lost hope (didn't get the inspiration I was hoping for - doesn't mean that there was something wrong of pics shown in this thread, just that I didn't get the "right" spark to fire my inspiration) but then I got to page 77, where you got 28-85 and then 
