DannyBurkPhoto
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, I need to shoot the C/Y 100/2 at its natural MFD – using the extension tubes (a few posts above) tends to equalize the bokeh from all these lenses at short distances to the background. Strangely so far on the extension tubes I like the rendering from the GF 45 or C/Y 45 with the 45G with or without the 1.4x for painterly bokeh and the Minolta 58 1.2 for a painterly-glow to the entire image. If you haven't already, you should try all your 50mm and up ZE lenses with the extension tubes – it gets rid of the vignetting and changes the character of the lens quite a bit (for the better I think). For example, the bokeh from the GF 45 + 45G + 1.4x reminds me of the ZE/ZF 50 1.4 bokeh. When I did have the ZF 50 1.4, I tried it with the 18G: at f/2 the sharpness blew me away, and working distance was nice.
For your ZE 28/2, have you tried removing the vignetting in C1? I've found as long as there are no hard corners, even heavy vignetting can be removed with little-to-no ill effect on the image. The Minolta 58 1.2 at 1.2 is very heavy, but once removed, it's difficult to tell it ever had any.
I'm hopeful for the C/Y 28/2 since so far all the C/Y lenses vignette much less than I expected based on feedback on their ZE/ZF counterparts. I don't think this is due to the optical design, since many of them stayed almost the same when they moved from C/Y to ZE/ZF – perhaps it's changes to the mechanics of the ZE/ZF lenses. I'm not sure what it meant for the ZE/ZF designs, but they did go from one flange distance of 45mm for C/Y to two flange distances either direction, 44mm and 46mm. Perhaps this introduced some mechanical changes since the arrangement of the optics would have to shift some between ZE and ZF versions. One thing is for sure, the overall sizes of the lenses from C/Y to ZE/ZF increased noticeably. And since it's been noted by users here that the move from ZE/ZF to the larger Milvus mechanics has introduced some additional vignetting, perhaps that's something to consider regarding image circle (Zeiss improving the manual focus experience each time could be at the expense of image circle/quality outside of the 135-format frame). Might be worth me sending an email to Zeiss to ask about C/Y to ZE/ZF transition with regard to image circle....Show more →
That's very interesting about the bokeh change when using a tube with the GF 45 (and others). I need to try that. I played with MFD and a tube indoors when I got the 45 and 63, just to roughly familiarize myself with MFD both ways, but haven't taken any actual shots with a tube. I do like the look of your Minolta 58/1.2, but......how many ~50mm lenses do I need? 
I've used the ZE 50/1.4 lots of times with a tube, but that's a Canon 12mm. I haven't tried the GF 18mm since 12mm has been enough, and I don't usually do tight closeups. But now that you've mentioned the bokeh differences, of course I have to try it with a longer tube. I once used a Canon 25mm tube with the Otus 55, and IIRC, I thought the result was noticeably soft, probably because it was going quite a bit beyond the extension for which it was designed. I'll play with various combinations and then post samples of my findings. Weather this spring sucks big time - my plans for the tulip farm in Holland, MI were foiled again, for the third year in a row, thanks to never-ending rain and wind.
No, I didn't actually try removing vignetting on the 28/2. Once again, I need to retest. I looked at it in the EVF, it looked bad, and I didn't go further. Ditto with some others, e.g. Milvus 25/1.4, Canon 180 macro, etc. Maybe more lenses will be usable after all!
|
It happens to some degree even on the native smaller format, if the lens is very fast and of a simple design. It also happens on film, so it's not because of the sensor stack. 
