saaketham wrote:
I've been following this thread, hoping to see an example of the Unique look myself. I am planning to buy a 35mm f/1.4 lens soon, as I think it just comes down to bright lenses that are 40mm or wider, and sharp wide open, to get that 3D pop. And maybe its easier with a Zeiss or Leica, I don't really know.
Here is an example of 3D pop someone posted on the Nikon forum recently. It was with a Nikon 28mm f/1.4. I love that look .. the dog in front seems to pop out of the screen .. to my eyes. On page 8, the photo of 2 dogs playing in a river, posted by user anitrone
As a Zeiss lens user, I have the following remarks -
I never bought into the '3-D,' 'pop,' 'unique drawing style' or any of the buzzwords. When I use certain (not all) Zeiss lenses I can tell from the results that these are special tools, a pleasure to use in the field and a pleasure to see the output on screen & in prints. They are distinguished from equivalent Canon lenses in most (not all) instances by the 'bite' they bring to the images. It is hard to describe or quantify this but 'I know it when I see it' seems to be the best I can do.
My recommendation: disregard the discussion, rent it and decide for yourself.
Here is an example of 3D pop someone posted on the Nikon forum recently. It was with a Nikon 28mm f/1.4.
For a start, there's mild "nisen" (double-line) bokeh in the background, which will tend to make whatever is in the foreground (in this case, the dogs) stand out. This is generally regarded as a lens defect, but here the photographer has turned it to their advantage.
I love that look .. the dog in front seems to pop out of the screen .. to my eyes
There may be some edge-enhancement (video terminology) or smart-sharpening (stills/Adobe terminology) going on. That might have been a choice of the photographer, or simply acceptance of defaults in post-processing software. I went to some effort to dial that down in my own workflow. I personally can't stand the effect.
Right now, if you want an excellent fast 35mm lens the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II is probably about the best available. I don't have it, because I usually prefer zooms and I have the Mk I. I actually use my Sony RX1 with its Zeiss 35mm f//2 more than my Mk I, for its portability, not its Zeissiness.
Robin Smith wrote:
My Sigma 85 mm f1.4 EX looked like that too. Also a nice lens. It's what a good 85mm portrait lens should look like. Nothing unique to Zeiss.
perhaps but the Zeiss 85mm has more micro-contrast even compared to my beloved EF 135L and you wont really see what I'm talking about in a small res image.
unfortunately I dont have any other 85mm with me although I've shot with the FD 85mm 1.2, EF 85mm 1.8 and EF 85mm 1.4 and none of them wowed me as much as the Zeiss. But I'll check my LR catalog to see if I can offer some comparisons.
Other Zeiss that I could say has the 3d pop?
Zeiss ZM 50mm 2 planar compared to a CV 50mm 1.5 and modern Leica 50mm Summicron.
There's also the Zeiss Loxia 21mm 2.8
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
As a Zeiss lens user, I have the following remarks -
I never bought into the '3-D,' 'pop,' 'unique drawing style' or any of the buzzwords. When I use certain (not all) Zeiss lenses I can tell from the results that these are special tools, a pleasure to use in the field and a pleasure to see the output on screen & in prints. They are distinguished from equivalent Canon lenses in most (not all) instances by the 'bite' they bring to the images. It is hard to describe or quantify this but 'I know it when I see it' seems to be the best I can do.
My recommendation: disregard the discussion, rent it and decide for yourself. ...Show more →
In the film days, I owned Nikon and Contax/Zeiss. I shot the same subjects side by side on both systems on slide film. The Zeiss slides can still easily be identified by how much better they look. I also did a similar comparison with my Contax G system (with Zeiss glass) and a Leica kit I had. There the slides looked pretty much identical.
Nowadays, post-processing can get you that Zeiss look I guess, but it’s not the same as getting it out of camera.
johnvanr wrote:
In the film days, I owned Nikon and Contax/Zeiss. I shot the same subjects side by side on both systems on slide film. The Zeiss slides can still easily be identified by how much better they look. I also did a similar comparison with my Contax G system (with Zeiss glass) and a Leica kit I had. There the slides looked pretty much identical.
Nowadays, post-processing can get you that Zeiss look I guess, but it’s not the same as getting it out of camera.
The colors, contrast and sharpness of my Zeiss lenses leave very little to do in post. People who never use Zeiss lenses tend to say they are like other lenses…people who use Zeiss glass know better and just quietly smile.
In my time zone I never saw Dan's questions. I assume he deleted that post while it was still the last one in the thread.
BTW I did the same when there were still just two replies in this thread. (It was just a much shorter version of one I did eventually make and which got likes.) I was afraid the thread would go the way it has, and didn't want to wade through toxic posts. It seems I didn't wait long enough for it to happen.
The problem with that is you don’t have the Zeiss look and color as a reference point. Sure, you can alter the color and contrast in post any which way but you may never get to that Zeiss look if you don’t have a reference point. Speaking of the Zeiss look, I really loved the rendering of the Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar SL Macro lens … but MF on a Canon DSLR was too difficult and tiresome for me. With a mirrorless camera it’s so much easier to use a MF lens, so I thought about getting this lens again but damn, a used copy is still very expensive - more than twice the original price of this long-discontinued lens.
johnvanr wrote:
Nowadays, post-processing can get you that Zeiss look I guess, but it’s not the same as getting it out of camera.
Interesting discussion .. People whose skills I respect, posting above that there is such a thing as the Zeiss look, is enough to convince me. As Rajan suggested, maybe renting one is a good idea to see for myself.
When the Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses appeared to be at their most popular (early 2010s) was a time when the Canon/Nikon lenses were not as strong. Canon in particular did not have a strong wide lens line up at that time.
That has changed. Computer aided lens design has resulted in much better lenses. Lenses released in the past few years are outstanding across the major manufacturers and the Zeiss lenses do not look as special in my opinion as a consequence.
The Zeiss lenses still have a signature very constrasty look, but when you're looking at the image thread keep in mind that these are very skillful photographers who are outstanding at post processing. There's no guarantee your images will look like that, especially if you lack the computer skills.
I've owned the ZE versions of the 50 f/1.4 Planar and 35 f/2 Distagon. Both are nice lenses for sure, but are not without their faults (especially the 50).
dthrog00 wrote:
When the Zeiss ZE/ZF lenses appeared to be at their most popular (early 2010s) was a time when the Canon/Nikon lenses were not as strong. Canon in particular did not have a strong wide lens line up at that time.
That has changed. Computer aided lens design has resulted in much better lenses. Lenses released in the past few years are outstanding across the major manufacturers and the Zeiss lenses do not look as special in my opinion as a consequence.
The Zeiss lenses still have a signature very constrasty look, but when you're looking at the image thread keep in mind that these are very skillful photographers who are outstanding at post processing. There's no guarantee your images will look like that, especially if you lack the computer skills.
I've owned the ZE versions of the 50 f/1.4 Planar and 35 f/2 Distagon. Both are nice lenses for sure, but are not without their faults (especially the 50).
curious to hear the fault on the 50mm Planar?
been tempted to get that and the 28mm Biogon for a MF Zeiss trinity kit.
I would like to compare the 50mm 1.4 Planar with my RF 50mm 1.8 to see how the modern lens fare
cityhunter2501 wrote:
curious to hear the fault on the 50mm Planar?
been tempted to get that and the 28mm Biogon for a MF Zeiss trinity kit.
I would like to compare the 50mm 1.4 Planar with my RF 50mm 1.8 to see how the modern lens fare
It is kind of a split personality lens. It is really sharp at distance from f/2.8 down. The behavior close up and near wide open are different though. Bokeh can be funky near wide open and close up, I think you either like it or hate it. It can have a painterly look near wide open at distance.
I'm not as gifted a photographer as many here. The ZE/ZF thread will have more information, but I can share what I have and you can take a look. Most of these are from the 6D.
