You guys are making me jealous. The color, clarity, contrast, sharpness, and subject separation are the best I've seen! You'd expect that from a $3900 lens though right?
magnificent thread - thanks to all and especially for sharing techniques - i never wouuld have thought of using a 580 to paint during a long exposure.
One question - i have noticed that all of the zeiss/1ds(ii) shots have a particular look to them - almost film like. Is this a result purely of the lens, the 1ds(ii), post processing or a combination ?
Guy, I'm not sure.
This has come up for me before with this thread - (https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/209507/0#1717370. Again CZ21 on a 1DSII - so i tend to agree but one day i'd love to see some shots taken of the same subjects to compare look, not sharpness or CA or any of the technical aspects but simply the artistic side. I think the test shots comparing glass have always been of a more functional nature where the look doesn't get a chance to show as much.
Oh it's definitely there - I have been trying to work out what it is. I want to get a 1DS later this year and half the conundrum for me has been whether it is the 1dsII that has that look or whether the 1DS also has it. The cost difference is substantial !! lol
Close-up of the above photo. I took a few photos with the 16-35mm and 17-40mm as well, and they won't come close in resolving power!!! Yes, it does matter even on a 10D
These photos are straigh from the camera and has been down-size to JPEG 40-50% quality, so please excuse! It's not the lens's fault!
There is a quality to the contrast that is really something...on the original pumpkin pic...the fall-off on the roundness of the biggest and orangest pumpkin in the foreground...it jumps out at you!
Re: Sigma 20...I can't wait for it to "turn wide" with any less crop than 1.6...the 1Ds2 is calling me...everything becomes possible when we crawl towards the ultimate goal of being "like film."
Donagh...those are some amazing pics...esp. the Dolls.
It is ashamed that we cannot see these images in large prints where you can see the 3 dimensional looks of these images. Beside the ultra high resolving power, the micro-contrast of these Zeiss lens is the mechanism behind the 3-D looks.
losloslos wrote:
There is a quality to the contrast that is really something...on the original pumpkin pic...the fall-off on the roundness of the biggest and orangest pumpkin in the foreground...it jumps out at you!
Re: Sigma 20...I can't wait for it to "turn wide" with any less crop than 1.6...the 1Ds2 is calling me...everything becomes possible when we crawl towards the ultimate goal of being "like film."
Donagh...those are some amazing pics...esp. the Dolls.
G.
thanks^^ sorry my english is very poor and the conversation is more difficult to me...
yes the zeiss lens have a 3d look fantastic, the color is great is very "real"
ps
in italy is simple find the 28 f2, 28f2.8 , 50, 35-70 like new but the cost is no cheap...
hoppy wrote:
one day i'd love to see some shots taken of the same subjects to compare look, not sharpness or CA or any of the technical aspects but simply the artistic side.
To be honest, I think the "3D" comes out of the sharpness, contrast and colour. It isn't reducible to those three elements, but it's an "emergent property", so to speak.
Neither hydrogen nor oxygen will put out a fire (oxygen will feed it!), but when you combine them to form H20, you get the emergent property of "wetness" which cannot be reduced to the elements. It's real, even if you can't objectively measure it as well.
When packing 8.2 Mega Pixels on a 1.6x cropped chip, 20D's sensor has highest pixel density among all the Canon DSLRs as of today. This, in fact, is pushing the resolving power to their limits of many lenses, but not Zeiss 21mm/2.8.
Here's another comparison -- a comparison between the Contax 50mm f1.4 and the Canon 50mm f1.4.
But I actually can't tell any difference between them, so the T* coating doesn't appear to make a difference at least under these light conditions. (Scroll down for the comparison).
The poster in the thread concluded: "[I] don't find the Zeiss 50mm impressive compared to the Canon. 50mm is a very simple focal length to make and most brands have very good 50mm lenses in their lineup. But once u go below the 50mm standard focal length to the wide angle department, this is where the Zeiss really stands out distinctively over the Canon. The Zeiss 28mm and 21mm simply beat Canon without sweat."
Chris
I do not own a 21 mm Zeiss lens and I am assuming it is being used with an adapter on Canon cameras, but I have used Zeiss optics with a Hasselblad and previously a Contax with Zeiss optics.
In my humble opinion, Zeiss remains among one of the best manufacturer of lenses in the world. Their quality control is simply outstanding and their optics are superb.Their customer service could be No. 1 but it is not because of Leica. To me they are No. 2 in that respect.
Ernst Leitz still has my respect as the best lens maker in the world. You can be sure Zeiss is a very close second.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
The answer to your question about "Why the Zeiss obsession" is pretty simple and expressed in that old saying, "The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys". Very few photographers will be able to take advantage of the quality of the glass in Zeiss lenses. Very few people shoot like Guy where there is time to use the camera manually. I'm guessing that many will buy these fine lenses and when they are shooting they will not have the time, ability, or eye sight to get the shot in focus so they get a sharper image than they would have done had they used a $200 Sigma lens on auto focus.
This must be the first time that I've seen a full rez file from the 1Ds mk II. It is HUGE!! That is needless to say though...