What I wanted to know are the subtle differences between these lenses in regards to 3-d producing capabilities.
Differences such as how fast the lens transitions from the detail in focus to the OOF details and how much the OOF detail is blurred.
For instance I have the ZA 135 1.8 and it seems to transition very fast between in focus areas and OOF areas so that I think there is a smaller window of opportunity to get 3-d images, (ie. the slightly OOF background object needs to be close to the subject to get 3-d otherwise it gets blurred too much) than what I see is a larger window of opportunity of 3-d with the C/Y images I have seen posted here.
PebblePlace has some Contax N 100 Makro shots which show it to have a slow transition from focused to OOF. Is it different from the C/Y Planar 100 f2 in these regards?
Are there any differences between the C/Y Planar and ZF Planar with regards to 3-d rendering potential?
I suppose I should chime in here as I have 2 of these lenses. I have the Zeiss Contax N 100/2.8 Makro-Sonnar and the Zeiss ZF 100/2.0 Makro-Planar.
So, a quick trip out to the garden for test shot. Nothing fancy. Shot at f2.8 and it turns out at around a 1:10 magnification ratio. Light was pretty consistent from one lens to the next. No guarantee that they were focused to exactly the same spot, but it's reasonably close. These were a straight default RAW conversion in DPP, and then reduced in size and converted to jpg in CS4. Nothing was added or changed. No added sharpening. Now these are fairly different designs, but can anyone see a significant difference, outside a slight color difference? Can anyone tell which is which?
edit---> Note, the following images were flawed. WB issue. Please see subsequent post below for the proper images to compare. http://boncratious.com/images/Zeiss-100MP-a-28.jpg http://boncratious.com/images/Zeiss-100MP-b-28.jpg
The second one has neutral bokeh with sharp edges whereas the first has softer bokeh. Most people will probably prefer soft (1) but I prefer neutral (2) because I think it makes bokeh more interesting and 3D.
First image captures more yellow and has a more pleasing bokeh. Too much blue in the second shot. Strange to see so much color variation between two similar Zeiss lenses. (Was there variable cloud cover at the time?)
brainiac wrote:
The second one has neutral bokeh with sharp edges whereas the first has softer bokeh. Most people will probably prefer soft (1) but I prefer neutral (2) because I think it makes bokeh more interesting and 3D.
+1
The second shot also seems to have a bit lower contrast in the blur, which is nice.
Lotusm50 wrote:
I suppose I should chime in here as I have 2 of these lenses. I have the Zeiss Contax N 100/2.8 Makro-Sonnar and the Zeiss ZF 100/2.0 Makro-Planar.
So, a quick trip out
Which one? Hmm... OK, I'll play. My uneducated (never having used any of the lenses) is that the second image is the Contax N version. I'm saying that only because the top image feels a bit more familiar. I wonder if comparison images like this one should be presented with any color difference compensated in PP?
And yes, I'm among the crowd asking for smooth OOF background. That was how the "Admirable" blur -thread started btw; Brainiac asked for something I couldn't deliver.
EDIT: I must be the slowest typist. Lol, I see several replies in between now. So, ripo, do you mean the new lens has a warmer tone to it?
Jonas B wrote:
So, ripo, do you mean the new lens has a warmer tone to it?
I think that's what he means, but I would rather say the Contax (second) is too cold. It has exactly the kind of blue greens that some people dislike about Contax lenses. I'm surprised it is that evident in the N line as well. Or, is this color due to a WB issue, Lotus?
Thanks alot for the N 100 vs. ZF 100 comparison shots.
Was the same WB used for both shots? The color variation looks too much.
Anyway, I agree with Brainiac that the 2nd one is slightly sharper but the 1st one has slightly smoother bokeh. I am guessing that the 1st one is the N and the 2nd one is the ZF.
I think the 2nd one pops just a little more and seems just a tad more 3-d.
Cavewalker,
Sure lets include the Biotar 75 since it has good 3-d quality, is in the range between 75-135mm, and I like the lens.
h_rearden wrote:
I think that's what he means, but I would rather say the Contax (second) is too cold. It has exactly the kind of blue greens that some people dislike about Contax lenses. I'm surprised it is that evident in the N line as well. Or, is this color due to a WB issue, Lotus?
Mea culpa, and sorry. It was indeed a WB issue. Thank you. Auto WB on the Canon treated both differently lenses differently even though they were within seconds of each other and the light didn't change. I didn't even consider this as a possibility -- I was just trying to not interfere and by doing so let the camera interfere. Maybe I should stop trying to do these things quickly. I have processed the images again, this time with WB set to "daylight" in DPP. Accordingly, they much more similar in color. Here are the revised images. Again, nothing was added or changed in processing and both were treated exactly the same. http://boncratious.com/images/Zeiss-100MP-aa-28.jpg http://boncratious.com/images/Zeiss-100MP-bb-28.jpg
Daniel Heineck wrote:
Still prefer the latter to the former. Nice lenses though, wouldn't kick either one out of bed.
D
I've been kicked out of bed more than once for buying expensive Zeiss lenses. (and it was worth it every time......) Maybe when I fessed up and admitted I was spending a lot of money for some nice bokeh, she got pissed thinking I was talking about flowers or something.
Maybe it's a sign of aging, but for some time now I have preferred a fast aperture over a fast woman. And don't even think that a long focal length will cause her to react otherswise, it won't. At the end of the day, a photographer may just have to settle to be off by yourself trying to find satisfaction with some hand held images. Photography can be a very lonely endeavor at times.....
ps: I got a little side tracked, sorry. I like image number two better by the way especially once that funky color thing got corrected.
I'm interested in knowing the same ... love that 3D 
