^^^^^^^So you two agree its exceptional performance in another way to say it?!
I will take it as not everyone is capable to do Manyal focus, this lens is just like 24-70-200 Canikon, not for everyone I guess.
But,
The lens is so great that people can't avoid compare this with MF. (I am.)It is offering a window to get a MF look that it is at least bring one stop advantage to most if not all 35mm lens, which MF had.
I thought it is the photographer job to think of a use (or two...) for a lens. Unless you go for the extreme in either end (too long or too wide), you can shoot pretty much any type of subject. I regularly shoot my landscape, portrait, street, etc. at this focal. Heck, it's such a good lens and with a high MP camera, you can shoot and crop all day long or pano stitch that would put any WA to shame. If the technical output is up to my standard, I would enjoy my photography more since I just need to concentrate on my artistic vision.
Toothwalker wrote:
I am not a lens designer, but I think it is safe to say that it helps to have an optical construction with a large ratio of diameter to length. The length is partly determined by the measures taken to control aberrations, namely the number of elements and their refractive properties and spacings. At a given length of the design, vignetting can be mitigated by incorporating large elements near the front and rear ends. A narrow throat certainly does not help to achieve the latter.
The problem increases with an increasing maximum aperture. Consider the light cone which has the lens exit pupil as its base and the image point as its apex. The F-number N of a well-corrected lens is related to the half angle b of this cone by N = 1 / ( 2 sin b). That angle presents a hard requirement to the minimum diameter of the rear element and the throat, depending also on their distance from the sensor. Anything that clips that light cone causes vignetting.
The mirror chamber typically supports lens speeds up to F/1.4. At F/1.2 and larger apertures, it causes extra light fall-off on top of the vignetting due to the lens. ...Show more →
Thanks for the clarification. Certainly the throat size is not the only deciding factor here. The Sigma has a much lower vignette. However, seeing how quick the Otus improve after stopping down 2 stops (it would help more to see the vignette at f/2), one would have expected a better performance WO.
Jorgen Udvang wrote:
Is there any information available about flatness of field for this lens?
At this point, you can only get that from Lloyd blog; he's the only exclusive tester. He thoroughly examined the field curvature issue in real world picture and corroborate that with the specifically made MTF charts by Zeiss to demonstrate the problem (at the focus point, 20 microns behind and in front). From the published MTF charts, you can deduce somewhat about this. There is no wild curve as with the Lux 50 ASPH for instance.
hiepphotog wrote:
At this point, you can only get that from Lloyd blog; he's the only exclusive tester. He thoroughly examined the field curvature issue in real world picture and corroborate that with the specifically made MTF charts by Zeiss to demonstrate the problem (at the focus point, 20 microns behind and in front). From the published MTF charts, you can deduce somewhat about this. There is no wild curve as with the Lux 50 ASPH for instance.
Buying it and trying is probably the way to find out
I'm wondering about the possibilities of stitching photos taken at large apertures. Would be nice.
hiepphotog wrote:
I thought it is the photographer job to think of a use (or two...) for a lens. Unless you go for the extreme in either end (too long or too wide), you can shoot pretty much any type of subject. I regularly shoot my landscape, portrait, street, etc. at this focal. Heck, it's such a good lens and with a high MP camera, you can shoot and crop all day long or pano stitch that would put any WA to shame. If the technical output is up to my standard, I would enjoy my photography more since I just need to concentrate on my artistic vision....Show more →
Sorry, but what are you talking about? Shoot and crop.....I am really wondering how much time you spend travelling and photographing landscapes. I just can't see myself going on a trip to Iceland, New Zealand, Patagonia and take this lens with me. Heavy...will always limit me to 55 mm...
What people use today is 24-70 or 24-105 for flexibility. Then they also use UWA like 21, 17 mm or 16-35 or 17-40 or 14-24 from Nikon. And....in many occasions 70-200 (I used it most of the time in Tuscany).
No, you are super wrong. It is not a job of a photographer to think about a use for a lens. Photographer that is really doing a lot of real life photography knows what tools he needs and will always pick them.
I am 100% certain that what we will see from this lens soon is mostly people photographing cans, books, trees or something else to show how sharp the lens is and how great is the boken.
What you can do is to check threads of Sigma 35 f/1.4 and Zeiss 35 f/1.4 and you will see how different photographs are. Then ask yourself a question why.
zhangyue wrote:
^^^^^^^So you two agree its exceptional performance in another way to say it?!
I will take it as not everyone is capable to do Manyal focus, this lens is just like 24-70-200 Canikon, not for everyone I guess.
But,
The lens is so great that people can't avoid compare this with MF. (I am.)It is offering a window to get a MF look that it is at least bring one stop advantage to most if not all 35mm lens, which MF had.
Exceptional performance and practical use are 2 completely different things.
Light_pilgrim wrote:
Sorry, but what are you talking about? Shoot and crop.....I am really wondering how much time you spend travelling and photographing landscapes. I just can't see myself going on a trip to Iceland, New Zealand, Patagonia and take this lens with me. Heavy...will always limit me to 55 mm...
What people use today is 24-70 or 24-105 for flexibility. Then they also use UWA like 21, 17 mm or 16-35 or 17-40 or 14-24 from Nikon. And....in many occasions 70-200 (I used it most of the time in Tuscany).
Okay, now I have to ask: what are you talking about? When I travel, my 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VRII are staying at home, and depending on where I go, I will pack 2 or 3 of my ZF.2 lenses: 21, 35, 85 or 21, 50P, 100, or similar.
Light_pilgrim wrote:
I am 100% certain that what we will see from this lens soon is mostly people photographing cans, books, trees or something else to show how sharp the lens is and how great is the boken.
You missed the obvious cats, dogs and brick walls!
carstenw wrote:
Okay, now I have to ask: what are you talking about? When I travel, my 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VRII are staying at home, and depending on where I go, I will pack 2 or 3 of my ZF.2 lenses: 21, 35, 85 or 21, 50P, 100, or similar.
Where and how do you travel and also what do you photograph? What camera you have for these lens? I do not want to come across as not nice, but can you share your work? I just want to see what kind of photography you do when you travel.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
You missed the obvious cats, dogs and brick walls!
Just a matter of time, it will all be there.
The thing is....I really do not have to argue with anybody. I am sure people will purchase this lens. There were so many jokes on tours I have been going about people who are really not so much into photography and are not the most skillful to say the least...but they always come with RRS, 1Dx and etc:-)
As long as I can justify RRS and 1Dx, I can't the new Zeiss 55 with MF on a Canon body. Will work fine for bricks, books, charts, trees, walls, houses, cars....
Light_pilgrim wrote:
Where and how do you travel and also what do you photograph? What camera you have for these lens? I do not want to come across as not nice, but can you share your work? I just want to see what kind of photography you do when you travel.
I guess photography just doesn't exist before AF. I am with my kids in the park at the time of writing, I don't have a single case miss AF. Hi, you need understand phitogrpher's need are not universal.
As for sigma vs Zeiss, sorry, I don't know what difference you are talking about, BIF, DIR(dog in run)? I see as much of 'bottle' or 'wall', maybe more in those thread.
Yes, photography existed before AF. I hope you are wise to understand that the whole package, the system was designed to work together - a MF body with a MF lens.
I have no problems with my eyes, but I just can't see whether eyes are in focus when I use Zeiss 35 with my 5D MKIII. I can perfectly photograph a sharp brick or wall....or book....I can do this without any problem.
Leica is what I would do if I want MF. MF body and a MF lens. Canon does everything possible to make people stop using Zeiss lenses - they even no longer allow to replace a focusing screen.
zhangyue wrote:
I guess photography just doesn't exist before AF. I am with my kids in the park at the time of writing, I don't have a single case miss AF. Hi, you need understand phitogrpher's need are not universal.
As for sigma vs Zeiss, sorry, I don't know what difference you are talking about, BIF, DIR(dog in run)? I see as much of 'bottle' or 'wall', maybe more in those thread.
AF vs MF doesn't really matter to me, I miss with both equally! The truth is, to use either one skillfully requires experience and practice. I think a lot of folks start using AF, miss a lot of shots and generalize "AF sucks"! To use AF correctly is just as much a skill as using MF IMO. AF does not equal "auto pilot" or something.
zhangyue wrote:
I can tell you I will miss a lot more shots if I use AF, if you broad the 'miss' as quality of image, then even more.
Sure....I just came back from Iceland. I never used AF for landscapes....always used MF to make sure that I really have what I need. I have all the time in the world to fine tune the focus and do it right.
I tried doing it for people and portraits with 5D MKIII and it is not going to work. Why suffer if I can use the advanced AF system body with the AF lens. Rangefinder is the only thing I would understand when talking MF for people and portraits.
