That is a sensational example of why I prefer neutral bokeh and the Zeiss style. The background takes on a life of its own but still complements the focussed subject matter. It makes the picture more complex and sophisticated than a creamy background. Just beautiful.
Thanks. I'm glad you like this one, brainiac. I wasn't sure how people would react to it. I agree about the Zeiss style and bokeh. I'm finding myself using the 85mm as a walk around lens, and I'm really hoping for a ZA 50 to come. The Sony 50 1.4 is a pretty good standard lens, and I use the SMC Tak 50 as well, but I'm defaulting to this Zeiss more and more, and I'd like a 50mm option with AF. I'll try to make a point of taking some shots with the ZA 24-70 to see if it has these bokeh characteristics. -douglas
I Think Any Lens Is Capable Of Rendering A 3D Look.
I Believe Resolution Is The Key To Consistent Achievement.
But DOF And Distance, To Background Elements, Are Also Factors....
Contax/Zeiss Seems To Have The Essentials To Render The Combination
Of Things, Most Offten....
But Here's A Lens That Does It Also, Quite Easily ....
Not In The Range Being Disuussed, Though It Shows The Look ....
douglasf13 wrote:
I'm really hoping for a ZA 50 to come. -douglas
Douglas, sorry to disappoint, but I asked Zeiss directly about a ZA50, because I was considering transferring over to Sony to get more Zeiss glass than with Canon, plus zooms and AF, but would hate to lose my favorite lens, the planar 50. Zeiss answered that Sony didn't want it in the line because they already had their own 50mm f:1.4...
brainiac wrote:
That is a sensational example of why I prefer neutral bokeh and the Zeiss style. The background takes on a life of its own but still complements the focussed subject matter. It makes the picture more complex and sophisticated than a creamy background. Just beautiful.
Very interesting Wilfredo, thanks for posting. I think you've provided a great illustration of how some Leica lenses excel in every way except 3D effect. In particular the piano shot, while beautifully rendered, has no 3D at all for me. Of course, people often say I imagine it, but I think I could spot the 90 Elmarit more often than not on account of this flat quality. It certainly is just a matter of taste though, and many people seem to love the 2D picturesque style which many Leica lenses have.
In my view the popularity of some of the flatter Leica lenses is a category error. I think people get off on the bokeh, the colour, the detail et cetera, and forget to check whether the lens draws a believable picture. There are so many qualities to check for when examining a lens performance that it's often hard to stand back and respond to presence of the whole scene. That's why for me, 3D effect is one of the first things I check for: I ask myself does this lens make me feel like I'm there. I think the answer to that question is a big difference between the two German lens makers. One lens style offers you a beautiful painting. The other offers you a window.
Spyro P. wrote:
Couldnt tell similar lenses apart to save my life
You guys make me feel retarded
Don't feel that way. If we had more examples of bokeh you would begin to see the difference. I never paid much attention to this until the last few years when the folks on the Leica User Forum began posting examples of exemplary bokeh. One of the top lenses for bokeh is the Leica Noctilux, granted I wouldn't pay thousands just for the bokeh it offers but some do. Those guys shriek when they see Zeiss bokeh.
Here's another example using the Elmarit. On the second Seagull shot I intentionally softened the image in post-processing. Although I softened this shot the bokeh would have still been harsher around the edges if shot with a Zeiss. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/821326
I wouldn't go so far as saying that Leica lens images are flat but Zeiss almost always offers crisper contrast, which does play a decisive factor in the 3D effect, IMHO.