morpheus2891 wrote:
1 Does it go to 1:1 without any adapters and 2 how is it at portrait and infinity as compared to upclose ( I guess what I'm asking is how is it as a non-macro lens)?
Yes - it goes to 1:1, and I think it's a fantastic portrait lens, as long as you like your portraits really really sharp and 3D. I don't think I've ever used it at infinity, but I'm sure it's at least adequate.
brainiac wrote:
Yes - it goes to 1:1, and I think it's a fantastic portrait lens, as long as you like your portraits really really sharp and 3D. I don't think I've ever used it at infinity, but I'm sure it's at least adequate.
It's outstanding at infinity as well. Great at any any focus distance.
awesome...thanks! Now to pinch my pennies.... I saw one for sale recently but I just can't swing it even if I sell my Vivitar 1 90/2.5 bokina..... oh well, patience, right ? :P
brainiac wrote:
OK - but I am curious whether these edge effects, on a smaller scale than you see on that jawline, are the reason that some lenses seem to be able to cut out a subject against a focussed background, i.e. produce 3D where there is no focus differential. Altogether, on the very small scale, that edge information could be the reason why objects and spaces appear to have depth in themselves. That's my point earlier in the thread: the quest for smoothness in boke might have interfered with the superposition of (more polarised) light coming off surfaces, thus robbing the image of subtle data that our brains normally interpret to build a 3D picture. I agree that stereo is probably not the only way that we compose 3D, and the way light reflects off surfaces is also an important cue. But those diffraction effects happen all over everything that isn't flat, and so I think it's possible that those correctly handled edge diffraction and polarisation effects are part of the brew that ensures convincing 3D in 2D images....Show more →
Looking closely at my photos with strong 3D, and I do have quite a lot, having used Zeiss lenses exclusively for several years, there are 2 things that are consistent in all the photos. One is subject delineation you are talking about. It is visible in each and every photo. The second will be difficult to describe with my english limitations, but it is some kind of distortion (I would call it sphericity if this word exists) in the center of the image that makes this area stand out or even bulge. The closer the subject to the center, the stronger the effect.
Probably these 2 are probably considered as imperfections in controlled tests as the first one could be some kind of CA, and the second some kind of distortion. I remember in one of hubsand's comparisons (can't remember which one) between a Zeiss WA and a Nikon I guess, he was criticising the Zeiss for having this kind of spherical distortion while the Nikon (or whatever brand it was) was completely linear (and flat).
While processing summer holiday photos found one photo which to me re-presents the Zeiss look. I had different compositions which work better "artistically" but didn't presented the Zeiss look as well as this exposure.
Contax Planar T* 1.7/50 @ f/2.5 (between 2 and 2.8), 1/640s, ISO 100:
I just can't help it thinking, a lot of these images are great because of the moment, location ...
I just wish you could see these ones taken at the same time, with a "common" 35 1.4 or a 85LII ... just to be able to compare and get a real good idea about the difference.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
While processing summer holiday photos found one photo which to me re-presents the Zeiss look. I had different compositions which work better "artistically" but didn't presented the Zeiss look as well as this exposure.
If you are right, Velu, why did I sell my Canon lenses to replace them with Zeiss?
But even if I got my hands on a Canon prime and did the comparison you suggest, the choice of subject would bear an influence on the result. If I chose a brick wall, for example, which is good to compare sharpness, it would be very difficult to prove that the Zeiss had any more 3D effect than the Canon . It would take quite a few different shots to approach a balanced view of how these lenses stack up.
Samuli: oikein hyviin! That shot is right on the money for me with contrast, Zeiss colors and pop. It is a little on the warm side - just as I want it. It is not over the top in any way. Great shot.
The Zeiss/Contax lenses won me over many years ago and for me the "peak" in analog photography was with the Contax G lenses which all were stunning; sharp, superb contrast and color and matched with Fuji Reala performed well in all types of light; flat, contrasty etc.
philber wrote:
If you are right, Velu, why did I sell my Canon lenses to replace them with Zeiss?
But even if I got my hands on a Canon prime and did the comparison you suggest, the choice of subject would bear an influence on the result. If I chose a brick wall, for example, which is good to compare sharpness, it would be very difficult to prove that the Zeiss had any more 3D effect than the Canon . It would take quite a few different shots to approach a balanced view of how these lenses stack up.
Phil, guess you did replace your Canon lenses because you are convinced that Zeiss ones perform better ?
Guess you came to that descision after checking pictures on the internet, discussions on fora and, last but not least, experiencing yourselve.
It's just that I'm not sure if that kinda 3D effect is a "Zeiss-effect" or not "just" a using-quality-lenses-at-wide-open-aperture-thing ?
I did read somewhere that (certain?) Zeiss lenses appear to give less contrast to the out of focus areas, which results in overal picture with more "depth" ( 3-D).
Now those things you can only compare on the spot, exchanging lenses (only).
Guess the reason that I'm discussing things, it's just that I own too much Canon glass !
Rgds
Velu
PS. Let me state as well that I frequent this part of FM only VERY recent so I have a lot to read and see
Velu01 wrote:
Guess you came to that descision after checking pictures on the internet, discussions on fora and, last but not least, experiencing yourselve.
I'm not philber but I had a lot of Canon glass and definitely would not have sold* based on discussion forums/internet. I had lenses what majority of people consider "great", e.g. 85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8IS, 180/3.5, 17-40 + pile of non-L primes. I wasn't very happy with any of the Canon's except 300/2.8, which is way too big to carry just for fine art photography. So I sold all of them.
At least I made decision based on own experience with Zeiss (Contax and ZF), not based on undersized 1000pix web thumbnails. I constantly print my work to A3+ size and I prefer to base on my decisions to the prints, not to any size images in screen.
* = take the hit compared to price what I paid and what I got on 2nd hand market
Velu01 wrote:
It's just that I'm not sure if that kinda 3D effect is a "Zeiss-effect" or not "just" a using-quality-lenses-at-wide-open-aperture-thing ?
Zeiss look is not depth of field dependent. Thou it's typically most easiest to see in images with shallow depth of field, it can also be present in photos in which everything is in focus. As an example (not my photos, forum member foxbat owns these) one of the most famous examples:
Velu01 wrote:
Guess you came to that descision after checking pictures on the internet, discussions on fora and, last but not least, experiencing yourselve.
It's just that I'm not sure if that kinda 3D effect is a "Zeiss-effect" or not "just" a using-quality-lenses-at-wide-open-aperture-thing ?
I did read somewhere that (certain?) Zeiss lenses appear to give less contrast to the out of focus areas, which results in overal picture with more "depth" ( 3-D).
Velu, I would never sell anything based on Interet fora. I bought my first Zeiss lens before I knew this corner of FM. I wanted something better than my EF 50 f:1.4, but was not ready for 50L with its high price and mixed reputation. I tried it, loved it, and now, 18 months later, my lineup is at last all Zeiss.
Jim, nice shot from 17-40. There edge of the roof and forest background shows something looking like 3D.
I don't have IR camera but I have taken IR photos with Hoya R72 filter, which I have at 67mm size. I tried it with 17-40 and liked results but 67mm vignetted too much, but center of image looked very nice, I have never liked 17-40 results in normal color, or at least after getting Contax Distagon T* 2.8/28 I didn't even want to use 17-40.
Grenache wrote:
While I think that a 3D look can be achieved at least to some extent with any lens, some lenses clearly have a better shot at it than others.
I have randomly got success with Canon lenses to get 3D look to photos, mainly with 85/1.2mkII stopped down to f/2.2-2.5 and with 135/2 stopped to f/3.2-4, few times even with 50/1.4 stopped down to f/2.8. But the major difference is that with Canon I really had to try and still success was random. Also even if I got decent 3D to Canon photo it may not look "being there" as large print, which I think is because lack of micro contrast.
With Leica Summicron 50/2 & Elmarit 90/2.8 I have not got much success on 3D, I think I have ONLY ONE photo showing some 3D. But 80-200/4 zoom is in different league, from 80mm to 135mm it has strong tendency to produce quite strong 3D and it does it pretty often.
. It would take quite a few different shots to approach a balanced view of how these lenses stack up. 
