The K version has been selling for around the price of C/Y if I am not mistaken. There is an even rarer earlier version (1:2/28) than the one sold yesterday (1:2 28mm).
Nothing special in PP. Minor tweaks in CR and light sharpen & resize script.
Overall the look is a bit too blockbuster for me. Vignette, colors & ca make the images look a bit too vivid.
Hopefully will find older version soon and see the differences side by side
evr1n wrote:
Nothing special in PP. Minor tweaks in CR and light sharpen & resize script.
Overall the look is a bit too blockbuster for me. Vignette, colors & ca make the images look a bit too vivid.
Hopefully will find older version soon and see the differences side by side
If you end up making comparison shots, please post them here.
Vignetting on the Contax version seems to be very similar. The distortion curves look virtually identical. The optical scheme is also very similar, so the new version seems to be a relatively minor update of the same design (with slightly better resolution). The character of the images can still be quite different of course.
AhamB wrote:
No personal experience with the lens but my impression from this forum and the mflenses forum is that it has real mirror collision problems on the 5Dc and mk2, unlike many of the other lenses being marked as "iffy" for the 5D. Also, I had a copy of the 35-70/3.4 that didn't clear the mirror, while that lens is marked green in the Pebbleblace Contax DB, so it's just an limited set of data.
Bummer but thanks, unfortunately I have gotten the same feeling from FM though no tangible evidence yet. I might go for a ZE and that is no bad thing after all, I've seen plenty good with it and it happens to be a favourite focale for me having used the CY 28/2.8 and also the Vario-sonnar 28-85 @ 28 a lot. I'd enjoy F/2 I am sure.
evr1n wrote:
Some test shots from last walk with 28mm f2 ZE:
Nothing special in PP. Minor tweaks in CR and light sharpen & resize script.
Overall the look is a bit too blockbuster for me. Vignette, colors & ca make the images look a bit too vivid.
Hopefully will find older version soon and see the differences side by side
I like several of your shots but do find the sharpening a bit over the top here and there so though it is a matter of taste I'd personally tune down the sharpening in the scripts slightly. What do you mean by too blockbuster, cant help wondering? :-)
The first thing you should be aware of the Contax branded Distagon T* 28mm f/2 is that this lens does not fully clear the mirror of Canon 5D cameras. There are two possible reasons for that - firstly, the adapter thickness and secondly the variance in Canon 5D mirror box size. Two versions of this lens tested on two different Canon 5D cameras produced same results (with four different adapters thrown into the mix) - at infinity the mirror of the camera would lock up, rendering the camera non-operational. A minor focus shift towards the closeup, and everything worked just fine. Interestingly enough, the lens worked just fine on all APS-C/APS-H cameras, as well as on 1Ds MkIII FF camera (although there have been sporadic reports about various issues even on 1Ds series of cameras)....Show more →
AhamB wrote:
It's kind of ironic too because the C/Y 28/2 was nicknamed "Hollywood" because the lens design was originally made by Zeiss for cinematography.
I've heard the nickname, does it mean there were movie-cams with C/Y mount?
Thanks for the link, hope is not totally exhausted yet :-)
wfrank wrote:
I've heard the nickname, does it mean there were movie-cams with C/Y mount?
I would guess Arri PL mount (for super 35 cameras); definitely not C/Y. I'm surprised that Zeiss doesn't have any data sheets on their cine lenses in the download section -- only still photography lenses...
I will definitely post my results here I am also very interested in finding differences if any.
And thanks for the data sheets! I am still not very good in interpreting them but one day I will know
wfrank wrote:
I like several of your shots but do find the sharpening a bit over the top here and there so though it is a matter of taste I'd personally tune down the sharpening in the scripts slightly. What do you mean by too blockbuster, cant help wondering? :-)
Thanks wfrank. My sharpening skills are still in experimental mode. I've learned a lot from this old topic: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/936822/ Thanks a lot to many of FM members!
But to be honest even knowing the basic scripts the results are often far from what I'd like to see.
Those samples from 28mm f2 for example were treated with the script from Denoir Thanks for a lot of knowledge but they came out way oversharpened So i discarded 2x Sharpen step and set the unsharp mask to 77% 0.3p and smart sharpen to 30% 0.2p which I thought was way too low!
There is still loads to improve!
And by too blockbuster i meant the overall look of the image with high vignette, higher contrast and vivid (unrealistic) colors.
evr1n wrote:
Thanks wfrank. My sharpening skills are still in experimental mode. I've learned a lot from this old topic: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/936822/ Thanks a lot to many of FM members!
But to be honest even knowing the basic scripts the results are often far from what I'd like to see.
Those samples from 28mm f2 for example were treated with the script from Denoir Thanks for a lot of knowledge but they came out way oversharpened
I think Photoshop introduced different bicubic resizing alternatives recently, and if you use the Bicubic Automatic resizing the result is way oversharpened, the standard Bicubic (best for smooth gradients) is the one to be used. Still I often find Denoirs script to give a little too much sharpening, and I tend to reduce the amount of sharpening in the different steps.
twoeye wrote:
I think Photoshop introduced different bicubic resizing alternatives recently, and if you use the Bicubic Automatic resizing the result is way oversharpened, the standard Bicubic (best for smooth gradients) is the one to be used. Still I often find Denoirs script to give a little too much sharpening, and I tend to reduce the amount of sharpening in the different steps.
Thanks for the tip, didn't know that. I used the bicubic automatic thinking that was the standard setting. Will try those settings soon!
evr1n wrote:
Thanks wfrank. My sharpening skills are still in experimental mode. I've learned a lot from this old topic: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/936822/ Thanks a lot to many of FM members!
But to be honest even knowing the basic scripts the results are often far from what I'd like to see.
Those samples from 28mm f2 for example were treated with the script from Denoir Thanks for a lot of knowledge but they came out way oversharpened So i discarded 2x Sharpen step and set the unsharp mask to 77% 0.3p and smart sharpen to 30% 0.2p which I thought was way too low!
There is still loads to improve! ...Show more →
Right, got you. Depending on image all those scripts can produce very varying results. Lots of foilage can take less compared to e.g. a human face. And you can use masks as long as you make sure each down-size step makes a new layer. More easy than many thinks. Or even simpler, use the transparency slider to reduce the top layer impact partly or remove it completely.
Personally I use downsizing nowadays heavily influenced by FM member Phillip Reeve, and with layers each step to be able to reduce the "full" result as it often otherwise goes beyond what I like.
evr1n wrote:
And by too blockbuster i meant the overall look of the image with high vignette, higher contrast and vivid (unrealistic) colors.
Aha. That's what I like though I would characterize it differently. Vividness is closer the real scene as opposed to a flat tepid image, the better (macro-) contrast cause realistic "presence" and I often add vignetting to emphasize any subject in the image if the lens provide too little
I like the first one. I am not sure the field curvature is working to your advantage for some of the landscape shots though, the corner of some of them are a little distracting. Are they stopped way down?
aleksanderpolo wrote:
I like the first one. I am not sure the field curvature is working to your advantage for some of the landscape shots though, the corner of some of them are a little distracting. Are they stopped way down?
EXIF say's they were all shot at apertures between f/2 and f/4. It explains the soft, low contrast corners in the foreground in some of them, but in others the field curvature does help the corner sharpness.
aleksanderpolo wrote:
I like the first one. I am not sure the field curvature is working to your advantage for some of the landscape shots though, the corner of some of them are a little distracting. Are they stopped way down?
aleksanderpolo wrote:
Q: Does field curvature always bend the corner's plane of focus away from the camera? Or is it different in different lens?
It can be different. There can be curvature to the front or the back of the focus in the center anywhere in the image field. I believe that the Leica Summilux-M 35/1.4 asph has a zone somewhere at ~2/3 of the frame where it tends to be soft but I don't remember if that was because of field curvature or just astigmatism. Astigmatism is related to field curvature though -- it means that the best sagittal and tangential focus are not in the same plane, so they have different curvatures. Anyway, I think that lens manufacturers probably try to avoid that their lens designs have field curvature that makes it impossible to get the entire field into proper focus at infinity.
Thanks for a lot of knowledge
So i discarded 2x Sharpen step and set the unsharp mask to 77% 0.3p and smart sharpen to 30% 0.2p which I thought was way too low!