OIC, cool. Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they rendered the same. Rather they produce about the same amount of goodness - IMO anyway. Sorry about that.
cogitech wrote:
Ahhh. You didn't just go there! The bluey greens? The yucky orange? The overall poopiness? The unsettling bokeh?
People really do see things differently. [Deep breath]
the colors look like they just need a white balance adjustment, i like the unsettling bokeh (in this instance).
cogitech wrote:
Ah ha! The Samyang. I bought a Rokinon (same) and shortly thereafter I sold the FD. Perhaps you have seen the test that helped me make that decision?
I might use the Zeiss at f8 for landscape, but that's as far as I could go...
yes, your comparison is what made get the rokinon instead spending more money on one of the other two. i really like it, but occasionally think the bokeh is too boring, or what's edwards word? to sissy.
cogitech wrote:
Just having some fun. But seriously, I do think it comes into play in a significant way.
Just like one can't take my FD photos with the Zeiss, one can't take them with 4/3rds (and either of these lenses), either.
Bifurcator wrote:
Thus why I specified a preference for critiquing them on the basis of their use on a crop camera for those with that experience. I think crop can't compare exactly to FF either but any two lenses will render with about the same amount of difference on µ4/3 or APS-C as they show between them on a FF.
cogitech wrote:
I am not an expert on the smaller formats. In fact I am not an expert on any format.
However, I have shot enough FF vs. 1.6x to know that the "character" of a lens is on fully realized on FF. There are hints of it on crop, and things like sharpness and contrast are relatively comparable/scalable. Character, however, is only fully revealed only on FF.
"Character" is much more important than many of the other individual, empirical, measurable qualities of a lens. (IMO)
I get you. I don't think I agree that it's a less/more relation tho. Then again, I hadn't really thought about it all that much. "Character", as I think Ed was pointing out at leas indirectly, when he said "if you own one long enough, you will learn how to use it to the best effect [of it's character]", needs a bit of practice to optimize. It's different, yes, but more/less? Mmm <scratches head> that doesn't sound right anyway. <shrug>
Sebboh,
Same here. I actually didn't know he was using it as a "bad" example at first. When I looked at it I went: Oooo, sweet!
cogitech wrote: Bifurcator wrote:
Sebboh,
Same here. I actually didn't know he was using it as a "bad" example at first. When I looked at it I went: Oooo, sweet!
It's the crack. Mat was right.
Mescalamba wrote:
Try STF.
Only problem with that lens is that people soon think you are doing it in PhotoShop.
....but what about the overall poopiness? You don't see it?
nope, that poop just doesn't stink to me. unless you mean spherical aberration?
incidently, regarding the onion rings – the only aspherical lenses that don't have them are the hand ground ones, but even those have their own kinda weirdness in oof highlights (if you do everything right to provoke them).
carstenw wrote:
At least some Leicas also have it.
I've provoked it in rare cases with the 50 Lux ASPH, but the point light source had to be extremely small and very bright. In contrast, the CV50/1.5 ASPH will onion ring much more easily.
And continuing off topic..
JohnJ wrote:
I really like the images there but you can only attribute so much of that to the lens and the rest to the photog. The way the lens stamps it's own aesthetic to the image is very impressive and is a fair example of how to use this kind of lens (ie why would you use it stopped down?). This lens says 'look at me', onion ring bokeh or otherwise. I like it muchly. What can I sell...
The mirror box blockage bugs me in the way a lot of the peripheral OOF speculars are chopped. I'd really like to see those images done with the 50/1.0 Nocti to give the background rendering a bit more character.
BTW, I also like the rendering of that CY85 sample image and agree it probably needs some WB tweak.
cogitech wrote:
I have never had a client complain about "boringly smooth bokeh."
I have had clients comment on "the busy-ness of the background... can you do something about that?"
As I said, I'm talking about my own personal taste. I don't shoot for clients anymore. But everytime I see samples from the Canon 1.2L (any version) or the Samyang 1.4 or the Sigma (or some Leica lenses), I think to myself, not again.... I really have a dislike for the overly smooth bokeh and I think the effect has been overused. I much prefer my backgrounds to have some sort of distinct details, and for this reason, I have been shooting portraits at f/4-5.6 recently. So basically maybe I can't do anything about it, but the question is, do I really want to
Fair point, but it has to be said that having textured blur and less blur are not the same thing, so stopping down might not solve the problem satisfactorily.
I'm surprised at some peoples comments on these lenses. Smooth bokeh is suddenly out of fashion for portraits?
I had the Zeiss 85/1.4 for a week before I sold it. I'm a huge Zeiss fan, but I just couldn't get a decent shot with this lens. Maybe I had a bad copy, or maybe its character is better suited for FF (I shoot APS-C).
The FD 85/1.2 I can point at anything, and it simply turns it in to a magical photo. The fact that it's razor sharp at f1.2 is also unique. The Zeiss isn't anywhere near as sharp at f1.4 or even f2.
I've had many FD lenses, but I've only kept two, the 85/1.2L and the 300/2.8L. These two lenses I regard as top of the FD line, and the best (manual) lenses available for their purpose, I have never considered selling them.
I have other comparable Zeiss lenses such as the Contax 645 80mm f2 and the Contarex 85mm f2 and I much prefer these over the 85mm f1.4.
Here are some with the FD. I really need to use this lens more.
Very nice shots Briantho!
I have both lenses as well and in the case of Zeiss I much prefer the Planar 100/2 (more punch)
Actually I can't and wan't choose. But I am a lens omnifoor
I like smooth as well as restless bokeh.
I haven't shot either of these lenses, so take this with a huge grain of salt, but from observing photos on this forum I think the FD is great for portraits including doing very well at short distances and wide open. The Zeiss does well espeically stopped down and at medium distances to infinity. Paul (Cogitech) and others (including the shots above by briantho) have some great example of how to make the FD shine, but think of some of philber's shots (including his wonderful portraits from India) and you can get an idea of how to make the Zeiss shine--I know philber shoots with a ZE, but I think the Contax has a lot of similarities. I think this makes sense with the design of the lenses. The FD has an aspherical element which likely help with wide open sharpness and it has a floating element with likely helps with performance close in. The Zeiss has no special glass and no floating elements, but does great where these don't matter. I think they are both great lenses, but will get optimal performance when used in different ways.
carstenw wrote:
Fair point, but it has to be said that having textured blur and less blur are not the same thing, so stopping down might not solve the problem satisfactorily.
Perhaps you have seen the test that helped me make that decision?
