philber wrote:
Martin, I understand your point, and, obviously I fall under your category of "know nothing about PP".
I just edited to a less unkind description.
That said, there are lenses that do not present such a PP challenge to the likes of me, including, in my case, the FE35 f:2.8. Unless you tell me that, to you, they are one and the same, color-wise. In which cse, I need to get back to the drawing board.
Haven't tried the FE 35 (yet), but compared to my other lenses I actually think the FE 55 is very contrasty and gives nice colors without too much effort. The Planar 50/1.4 (which I think I remember that you like?) is "flatter" than the Sonnar, for example.
Try it again! I doubt that your Summilux fares much better at the same PP level. Perhaps it was just an occasion that you shot at very dull light when testing the Sonnar?
Martin, your pp illustration destroy the fairy tale of fancy lens You could have beat people with otus with crappy $50 lens. Of course the same apply with many capable people in this forum
Having said that, I have said and want say it again I feel the FE55 is extreme contrast lens, almost brutal IMO. It can be used for Landscape right from WO, it also perfect for your urban project. But I don't really feel excited to use it as a portrait lens, especially having strong background: contrast and color can be very intensive and distracting, not busy at all just not beautiful IMO. I can do a selective editing in LR for softer background, but still I don't really like what I see from it.
Personal opinion? maybe. It is really don't have the Bokeh magic I occasionally see from Planar50 or the DOF transition I see from Leica R.
Nevertheless, this is a extreme good lens. a bargain for its specialty.
Keep in mind, I say this based on experience with many Zeiss and Leica lens on different system without really A/B testing to backup. It could be very subjective opinion. I might need a different work flow to adjust myself between Nikon/leica and Sony.
Zhangyue, I agree with everything you wrote. There's not the same "magic" as with the Planar, but on the other hand, you get sharpness to die for straight from wide open, and a sort of medium format look because of the smooth bokeh when shooting distant stuff. For portraits, I'd choose the Planar without doubt.
I decided to keep the Lux 50 due to its drawing style for portraits and lovely and better corrected OOF highlights. The FE 55 is a great lens, however, and it will be in my bag whenever I do urban landscapes or regular landscapes (or need autofocus). Never tried the Zeiss 50 planar however, tho I used to have the ZE 50 MP, which was terrific on my 5D Mark II tho I think the FE 55 may be a bit better across the frame from wide open than the 50 MP, albeit without the same macro capability.
philber wrote:
Adam, I tried the lens, and, while I felt it has many virtues (sharpness, 3D, close-up performance), I also saw washed-out, dull colors, and I did not buy. It could be my sample, and of course, great photographers can make great pics with it, like Martin, but alas, not me.
Philber, it's interesting that you say that. I seem to remember you liking the 50 1.4 ZE a lot, and I could never get use to it.. Aside from the medium distance subject shots that seemed to have a bit of magic, I wouldn't use it for anything else. I'm more of a 50 MPZE guy if you remember. The reason your statement surprises me is because I remember thinking the 50p was "washed out" compared to the other ZE lenses I owned.
Makten just posted a PP and a non-PP shot in which the difference is night and day.. I don't know if my PP skills are up to the task now
Makten wrote:
I do have the ZF 50/1.4 Planar, which of course also is interesting to compare with. In that case the difference might be even greater. While the Planar kind of sucks wide open and close to MFD, it's incredibly sharp and detailed from f/2.5 and a few meters away. I think "detail" is the key word here, because the Sonnar is more coarse and brutal than the delicate Planar. Bokeh is worlds apart between them and I like both.
I'd say that comes from people that should try to learn more about PP. You can make the best lenses in the world look like shit if you stick to "straight out of camera" (or even worse; "straight out of raw converter") and downsample in one single step without sharpening at all.
Just to make you see what I mean, this is what one of my images would have looked like with "no PP" or simply raw:
Looks good, no? And the same photo PP:d (and a bit oversharpened by Flickr at the same size)... ...Show more →
Hi Makten,
Really good stuff with the PP, I do love your quirky composition, and eye for fun details.. Can you make a post about your PP workflow for every day shots?
Curious though, lets say you looked at the boot shot, and in your mind you had an idea of how you wanted the final result to look. Do you think it's possible that you could have adjusted the camera (WB/exposure) to get a lot closer to your final result in camera? I know that PP is half the battle, and what you see in real life, might not be what you want to portray in the final result (I PP all the time for my wedding work, simply because it's not possible to do everything in camera). But I'm only asking because I'm curious if someone like myself who isn't overly good at PP could make good use of the lens, or if it's one of those lenses that you really have to work at as you and I know, some lenses take work (example: 21 ZE can't take a bad shot if you know the basics of what a proper exposure should be in a given situation).
Interesting to see the talk about the 55 FE vs the 50/1.4 planar, because I was also thinking about it yesterday. The planar is my favorite 50, it has a certain look. Shoot it wide open to get a character. Want smoothness? Stop it down to around f2.8 and you'll get great bokeh. Want fine detail across the frame? Also no problem.
To my eye shots from the FE look ok, but more contrasty and agressive. Less subtle. Shots from the planar look more 'real' to me. When doing good PP there's a clarity I just haven't seen from the FE yet.
Interesting discussion. The nub seems to be that the 55 FE is a contrasty lens (brutal, I like that ) and more suitable for landscapes than for the traditional uses for fast lenses. In which case, why the need for speed? - it sounds like the FE 35/2.8 might substitute better for landscapes (better focal length too) with a Planar or Summicron-R for portraits, etc.
Perhaps it was just an occasion that you shot at very dull light when testing the Sonnar?
And the same photo PP:d (and a bit oversharpened by Flickr at the same size)...
