AGeoJO wrote:
I asked them politely whether I could take a few snaps of them. In general, women feel flattered if some one asks whether it would be OK to take their pictures. Of course, you have to ask nicely and do it tactfully. So, I did and here is one of them. And I will be forwarding a few images to them soon.
Joshua, i've been studying the rendering on this lens and i'm wondering if you can comment on the DoF or what is in focus in this shot - the button on her shirt arm closest to the camera is nearly in focus but her front/center button is very much out of focus - which seems like that would have been closer to her face than the leading arm - maybe it's late and my eyes are shot but it just seemed like in the lower left corner it was sharper than i expected, especially wide-open. the only thing i could think of is that you were above her slightly and angled down - i was trying to think of how you might have been positioned to get the plane of focus to go through her face and leading arm but not the center of her chest - but you seem to be pretty much straight on.
or, could it just be pronounced field curvature? thanks.
ecarlino wrote:
Joshua, i've been studying the rendering on this lens and i'm wondering if you can comment on the DoF or what is in focus in this shot - the button on her shirt arm closest to the camera is nearly in focus but her front/center button is very much out of focus - which seems like that would have been closer to her face than the leading arm - maybe it's late and my eyes are shot but it just seemed like in the lower left corner it was sharper than i expected, especially wide-open. the only thing i could think of is that you were above her slightly and angled down - i was trying to think of how you might have been positioned to get the plane of focus to go through her face and leading arm but not the center of her chest - but you seem to be pretty much straight on.
or, could it just be pronounced field curvature? thanks....Show more →
Eric,
The shooting aperture was f/1.7 and the focus is on the closest eye to me or her right eye in this case. In a few instances, when the shooting distance was further away, the camera switch to the face detection and considering that it is a 50mm, I kept on shooting using that method. When I got closer, I used the selectable focus point (set at medium for that particular occasion) and again, I selected her closest eye to me. To my delight, all images I took, some 20+ shots, not a single image was out of focus. Not all keepers of course but the images were all well focus.
Now as far as selected areas that look kind of blurry where they should be in focus based on the conventional wisdom of depth-of-field concerned, it has to do with my post-processing. I applied a slight dose of one of the Nik's Software filters, called, Vignetting Blur, only the lightest of the 3 default settings but the effect is there.
ecarlino wrote:
he must have been slightly above her angled down, i originally thought it looked like it was more of a straight-on /eye-level shot
the shot and the girl are beautiful and i'm impressed that he gets that sort of response so regularly from the ladies!
Eric,
For that particular shot, since it was one of the first images I took, I held the camera at eye level and I used the viewfinder actually. Later on. I changed the position lower and higher to get different points of view.
Again, I am older and the ladies look at me more a father or uncle figure and I am not only polite but I show quite a bit of sincerity. Actually, I do not have any issue or hesitation asking strangers from both sexes, not only women, although they are my preferred photography objects, to pose for me. If they brush you off, you smile, say thank you and move on. I have been doing that all over the world and so far, I don't remember having my request declined.
GMPhotography wrote:
Joshua AFC or AFS and what size spot
Guy,
AF-C all the time and it was the medium AF point I selected for that.
Here is another image of the same girl but she was standing under, well, more in the front of a plant "arch". I took a few images first when she was directly under but the plants were too clearly defined and as such more distracting. So, I asked her to move forward about 2 steps to render the plant more out of focus. Similar processing as before but I darkened to borders to get some kind vignetting effect in this one.
On a side note, I also have another ZM lens of Sonnar design that day, my 85mm f/2. And yes, I used that lens for a few shots as well. Both lenses have a very similar rendition, I would say. Just a different focal length and all the attributes that come with a longer lens.
Yea I'm just having a little trouble with AFC hunting it maybe I have camera set for release, maybe I should try balanced. When I'm on a target I get very short focus adjustment and nothing is moving. I think what's happening since its on release its jumping. I need to figure this out
Thanks that helped. I'm going to try a few things in the morning
AGeoJO wrote:
Guy,
AF-C all the time and it was the medium AF point I selected for that.
H
On a side note, I also have another ZM lens of Sonnar design that day, my 85mm f/2. And yes, I used that lens for a few shots as well. Both lenses have a very similar rendition, I would say. Just a different focal length and all the attributes that come with a longer lens.
Is the 2/85 Sonnar you have the Zeiss Jena one for Contax RF, that really was based on the 1.5/50 formula, or the recent but discontinued ZM redesign which I thought rendered more like a modern lens?
DavidBM wrote:
Is the 2/85 Sonnar you have the Zeiss Jena one for Contax RF, that really was based on the 1.5/50 formula, or the recent but discontinued ZM redesign which I thought rendered more like a modern lens?
David, mine is the redesigned German made ZM 85mm f/2.0 lens and yes, it renders more like a modern lens and similar to the C-Sonnar 50mm, which is the center of thread.
The 85 sonnar is extremely sharp from wide open but suffers from purple fringing at wide apertures. I'm not sure I agree about the similarities with the 50 sonnar.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The 85 sonnar is extremely sharp from wide open but suffers from purple fringing at wide apertures. I'm not sure I agree about the similarities with the 50 sonnar.
Yes, purple fringing issues are noticeable but only at high contrast edges and on out-of-focus areas. Based on the way I am using the lens, it doesn't pose any issue whatsoever, at least to me.
I'm a big Sonnar fan (S100 C/Y in particular) and was excited when the S85/2 ZM was announced, but CZ really came off the rails with that lens. I remember it being announced, being delayed for months due to manufacturing problems, and finally being released with those chromatic errors. It was also heavy for an RF prime. As an (expensive) Oberkochen-built technology demonstrator, it was a complete failure. It remains the only discontinued ZM product.
AGeoJO wrote:
Yes, purple fringing issues are noticeable but only at high contrast edges and on out-of-focus areas. Based on the way I am using the lens, it doesn't pose any issue whatsoever, at least to me.
To me neither. It's easy to avoid such situations. The 85 Sonnar is still my favorite lens.
rico wrote:
I'm a big Sonnar fan (S100 C/Y in particular) and was excited when the S85/2 ZM was announced, but CZ really came off the rails with that lens. I remember it being announced, being delayed for months due to manufacturing problems, and finally being released with those chromatic errors. It was also heavy for an RF prime. As an (expensive) Oberkochen-built technology demonstrator, it was a complete failure. It remains the only discontinued ZM product.
I don't think it was a failure at all. It remains until today easily the sharpest 85mm ever made for the 35mm format. It is superior to the 90 cron in its focusing mechanism that allows consistent and precise focusing at all distances while the cron is notorious for its inconsistency. The only problem it has is purple fringing. Everything else is top notch. By the way, Zeiss also discontinued the ZM 15, also made in Germany. The reason for both is that sales were too low as most people prefer to buy Leica glass when they have to pay Leica prices.
ecarlino wrote:
Joshua, i've been studying the rendering on this lens and i'm wondering if you can comment on the DoF or what is in focus in this shot - the button on her shirt arm closest to the camera is nearly in focus but her front/center button is very much out of focus - which seems like that would have been closer to her face than the leading arm - maybe it's late and my eyes are shot but it just seemed like in the lower left corner it was sharper than i expected, especially wide-open. the only thing i could think of is that you were above her slightly and angled down - i was trying to think of how you might have been positioned to get the plane of focus to go through her face and leading arm but not the center of her chest - but you seem to be pretty much straight on.
or, could it just be pronounced field curvature? thanks....Show more →
GMPhotography wrote:
Right arm is on the same plane as the eyes as the right arm is pointing in same direction and on the same plane. This is normal
AGeoJO wrote:
Now as far as selected areas that look kind of blurry where they should be in focus based on the conventional wisdom of depth-of-field concerned, it has to do with my post-processing. I applied a slight dose of one of the Nik's Software filters, called, Vignetting Blur, only the lightest of the 3 default settings but the effect is there.
Joshua - thanks for the explanation - i might not be a pro but my spidey sense told me something was up (i.e. not "normal") - it's a beautiful effect, but for someone studying the rendering, it threw me for a loop. Thanks again, eric.
Question. I remember someone mentioning this lens is optimized for 2.8 and you can have Zeiss change it for 1.5. Has anyone done this and provide more details about it. I'm thinking about it if this is the case.
GMPhotography wrote:
Question. I remember someone mentioning this lens is optimized for 2.8 and you can have Zeiss change it for 1.5. Has anyone done this and provide more details about it. I'm thinking about it if this is the case.
i thought that was only if it is mounted on a rangefinder
but my spidey sense told me something was up (i.e. not "normal") - it's a beautiful effect, but for someone studying the rendering, it threw me for a loop. Thanks again, eric.