Yeah, these were the 3-d shots with the ZF 100/2 which I really liked and remembered.
I really like this first picture of the guy with the hat. That is some great 3-d, IMHO.
It would still be nice to see a comparison of this lens with the old C/Y 100/2 Planar.
JimU wrote:
has anyone compared the C/Y 100/2 with the 135/1.8 ZA?
I could do that since I have converted the 135 to Canon but Sony A900 users could convert the 100/2 to A-mount. The 135/1.8 is a Sonnar design instead of Planar and has softer/smoother bokeh and has more contrast when shooting wide open, IMHO. I will see if I can come up with some test comparison shots.
Wayne your third shot both summarizes and epitomizes what I love in Zeiss lenses...in the right hands, of course! I need to know how easy/tough it is to fit that lens on my 5D MkII
Wayne,
The reason they look so different is they were processed very differently although shot at the same time. The second was using Imagenomic Portraiture, the first was redone after going to Scott Kelby's workshop. Apertures were either 2.8 or 4, not sure which. I agree with your comment about the lens being better for outside shots. It's certainly sharp enough for anything but I don't find it easy to use for portraits. I actually liked a subsequent shoot I did with the Planar 85 better for portraits as it's easier to focus and just gives a look that I liked better. Ditto the Summicron 90. I can post a couple of those later if you'd like but I need to reprocess them as well.
philber wrote:
Wayne your third shot both summarizes and epitomizes what I love in Zeiss lenses...in the right hands, of course! I need to know how easy/tough it is to fit that lens on my 5D MkII
Philippe,
Thanks! Its a great lens. It was not easy in that I had to make a new replacement mount out of an old Nikon-EOS profoto adapter by redrilling new holes in the adapter to fit the Sony ZA mount holes. The pain was the countersinking the holes for the screwheads to sink down flush so that they would interfere/damage the Canon mount plate. The metal adapter was very thin and so I could only successfully countersink a few the holes.
It works but I am going to send it to Jim Buchanan soon to see if he can create a new mount plate which also has some external lever to control the aperture lever inside the lens mount. Right now I have to wedge paper against the lever inside to set the aperture.
I will let everyone know how it goes.
Rod,
I am curious to see a portrait comparison shot between the ZE 85 and the C/Y 100/2 Planar if you have one. I would have thought they would look very similar.
Nice shot Rod!
The 85 is little softer and the hair looks much nicer than the first two taken with the 100/2 where the hair is too sharp and contrasty and make the hair look more straw like than soft and silky. I still think the 100/2 Planar could be useful for male portraits where you want to highlight facial features, razor stubble, etc.
I agree Wayne. I'm going to go back and add some blur to her hair. I realized after I did it that her hair was too sharp but hadn't gotten around to fixing it.The original that I did with Portraiture made the hair soft as with the second shot. Unfortunately, it made her face too soft. It's a good tool and is much faster to use but I need to work more with the masks. I think you're right about the 100 for male portraits also. However, my feeling about portrait lenses is that I want as much sharpness as I can get because blur can always be added.
I need to demo the Portraiture software sometime, but I also just took a PS retouching class so I learned some more things which will help. I agree too about getting as much sharpness as I can.
Paul Yi wrote:
I bought it again.....
This is my third reunion....and this time it's for good.
BTW, I personally like portraits from this lens....
I think a good part of the reason I don't like it as well for portraits is that it's not as easy to focus, particularly in lower light. Since I have your old lens, you know what it felt like. I'm curious about how easy the focus action is on your current version?
This lens, after having tried all three I owned, does not have a sample variation.
Each of them gave me faithful results.
Blur, 3-D look, sharpness... You name it, and it will give to you.
As far as focusing difficulty, I actually think it's easier than some other MF lenses I've tried.
I focus wide open, and stop down when necessary or wanted.
Nice image Paul.
Did you get an AE or an MM version this time?
I guess I need to tap into the portrait potential of this lens. I think I might be hard pressed to ever let go of this one.
Nice picture there as well....
i'm not a professional...this is just my expensive hobby....
And, being not paid for my work, meaning I can choose my own preference, I really do not care much for potrait pictures that are perfectly in-focused.
It seems a little boring to me.
It's just my taste....
??