Nice shot, Jim! I also agree with your (and Samuli's) way of putting things. Some lenses make us work really more than others to give us a 3D result. And it has nothing to do with shooting wide open. I almost never shoot wide open, and a number of my shots (thanks Zeiss) still have been labeled 3D by this august body.
Samuli, I am working off of cropped bodies, so even a 58mm R72 worked for me without vignetting back before I got a camera converted. My 17-40 has been great with IR, but I too have not used it much for normal vis spectrum. Not sure why it would perform so much better with IR (even false color IR) than it appears to with normal color.
Clearly, I need to move to FF so that I don't have to use that lens on its wide side and can use others to get the most out of my shooting. Hmmm....let me try that argument on the wife....
Ummm. Nope. Some kind of logic about needing to find new employment prior to buying expensive camera bodies. Oh well.
Jim
Burningheart, what constitutes a "Zeiss ZF-IR lens"? How does that differ from a ZF 85? Front element replaced with a filter? Or are you just saying that you used an IR filter with the ZF 85? If so, which filter? Looks like you got really dark skies. Did you use a far IR one?
OK. Where did you get those? I wasn't aware that they ever became available, outside of a few prototypes. The last I checked there was no information on any potential release date.
Grenache wrote:
Burningheart, what constitutes a "Zeiss ZF-IR lens"? How does that differ from a ZF 85? Front element replaced with a filter? Or are you just saying that you used an IR filter with the ZF 85? If so, which filter? Looks like you got really dark skies. Did you use a far IR one?
Puzzled.
Jim
They are exactly the same lens, just a different coating to eliminate hot spots. On the 85 shot I used a Heliopan RG1000. On the 50 shot I used a B+W 093 and both were shot on my 5D MKII modified for Full Spectrum by Life Pixel.
Lotusm50 wrote:
OK. Where did you get those? I wasn't aware that they ever became available, outside of a few prototypes. The last I checked there was no information on any potential release date.
shphoto-gmbh on ebay. If you search Zeiss IR you will find 3 listed. I have all three(25,50 and 85). I've had mine for well over a year. They could be prototypes, came fully boxed and identified as IR version, the lens themselves are marked as IR. Everything was included as if it was a regular Zeiss ZF lens, except no hoods. I'm not sure shphoto-gmbh got all the prototypes or they are getting zeiss to special make these, as from what I read Zeiss does do IR lens on special request only. I have only seen them available directly from this ebayseller.
Havent really tested to any extent but no color cast but there is a slight loss of sharpness due to the different coating. One day I may a indepth test.
Oh. Those guys. One of the biggest rip-off shops around. If you don't mind me saying so. Their prices for stuff are usually 50-100% higher than everyone else.
burningheart wrote:
If you search Zeiss IR you will find 3 listed. I have all three(25,50 and 85). I've had mine for well over a year. They could be prototypes, came fully boxed and identified as IR version, the lens themselves are marked as IR. Everything was included as if it was a regular Zeiss ZF lens, except no hoods. I'm not sure shphoto-gmbh got all the prototypes or they are getting zeiss to special make these, as from what I read Zeiss does do IR lens on special request only. I have only seen them available directly from this ebayseller.
I have seen these before. They must be prototypes, they seem to have a way to get prototypes out of Zeiss -- early number ZF's, etc. I also considered these to be way overpriced, and little more than collector curiosities. But, if you've got deep pockets and absolutely must have them, feel free to make this guy (his name is Boris) rich. At the very least, you have a few rarities. I'll have to ask Zeiss (or Cosina) about their anticipated availability of these lenses.
I have bought a few lens from Boris and in all cases I have never overpaid a reasonable price. When I bought the Zeiss-IRs they had a small markup above the price of regular ZFs (about $50-$100). Since then the price has increased by a few hundred dollars and there is no way I would pay that much. When I bought my Oly 250 F2 it was lower priced than what other sellers were selling for.
So Boris has treated me good pricewise, but I agree a lot of their stuff is priced way too high and I won't pay those prices. Give me reasonable prices I'll buy from you, start to inflate I'll go elsewhere.
Wow. Then you must have got a pretty good deal. They are currently asking $1234 for the ZF 50/1.4 in IR form, when the regular ZF costs $550. Similar examples abound. The one I most recently noticed is something they are charging $298 when there are at least a half dozen sellers around the internet selling the same exact item for $115-125. So maybe Boris likes you. ;-)
burningheart wrote:
I have bought a few lens from Boris and in all cases I have never overpaid a reasonable price. When I bought the Zeiss-IRs they had a small markup above the price of regular ZFs (about $50-$100). Since then the price has increased by a few hundred dollars and there is no way I would pay that much. When I bought my Oly 250 F2 it was lower priced than what other sellers were selling for.
So Boris has treated me good pricewise, but I agree a lot of their stuff is priced way too high and I won't pay those prices. Give me reasonable prices I'll buy from you, start to inflate I'll go elsewhere.
burningheart wrote: Grenache wrote:
Burningheart, what constitutes a "Zeiss ZF-IR lens"? How does that differ from a ZF 85? Front element replaced with a filter? Or are you just saying that you used an IR filter with the ZF 85? If so, which filter? Looks like you got really dark skies. Did you use a far IR one?
Puzzled.
Jim
They are exactly the same lens, just a different coating to eliminate hot spots. On the 85 shot I used a Heliopan RG1000. On the 50 shot I used a B+W 093 and both were shot on my 5D MKII modified for Full Spectrum by Life Pixel.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Thanks. How bad was the hot spot on an original ZF 85?...Show more →
Jim I can't say for the 85 as I don't have a ZF-85 ( I know complete the collection) but here is some tests results I did on the Zeiss lens I have. Its not fully scientific so there is room for error.
Aperture with filter when a hot spot starts to show - LifePixel is on IR only camera that was modified for IR, the other two were filters on lens.
Zeiss ZF 21
LifePixel 715 - 5.6
B+W 093 850 -unable to filter
Heliopan 1000 - unable to filter
Zeiss ZF 50 (1.4) IR
LifePixel 715 -None
B+W 093 850 - None
Heliopan 1000 - None
* There was one set of tests that had the 850 and 1000 show a hot spot at F8, but I haven't been able to duplicate it.
Thanks for the fantastic rundown. I have used but do not yet own a ZE 85. I never got to test it for IR when I rented it. I also intend to pick up the new 21/2.8, but I am on the fence between that and a 24mm TSE.
The ZE100 would also be on my short list, but I am likely to pick up a 300 prime from an as yet undetermined vendor and a 200mm f/4 micro Nikkor.
That is the rough scheme for the next year or two, but given that I get laid off in Feb and do not have a new gig lined up yet, this plan is somewhat academic.
Not that such info is politically correct on this forum, I have had good IR success with the following lenses, none of which have a hot spot unless you are unlucky enough to have the sun somewhere in the edge of the frame. In that case, I have often seen a fogged center hot spot even though it would seem more like flare based on sun requirement.
Canon 17-40/4L
Canon 24-70/2.8L
Canon 100/2.8 macro
Canon 200/2.8L II
philber wrote:
Jeffrey, I got my ZE 21 yesterday, and enjoyed good light today. You will not be disappointed, it is a great lens!
If someone doesn't see the 3D in his shot at the top of page 8, then you may want to consider having a brain scan. Your spacial recognition might be a bit off... Wires crossed, you know all that technical brain stuff..
Anyway, I'm not saying that it was the lens that caused this look, it's probably the FOV the perspective distortion and the angle in which he took the shot. BUT what I will say is, that had he used an inferior lens, the microcontrast wouldn't have been as great, the color rendering wouldn't have had the depth, and the details would have been blurred. All that was from the lens. And it ADDs to the 3D package. Had I taken that shot with a 16-35L you would have had the drama in the perspective, and you would have had the converging lines to add to the sense of 3Dness, but you wouldn't have had the full package, so it would have just looked like a photo of a 3D object, rather then looking like you are standing next to the actual building....
Thats what 3D is, it's not seeing a picture of a 3D object, it's feeling as if you're standing next to what's being shown in the photograph..
I see many samples with leaves and flowers, and honestly it's because people are looking for elements of 3Dness to complement the lenses ability to render 3D, but if you can take real world shots with real world composition you may not get the look. You do need a 3D situation in order for the lens to render 3D, but you need a good lens to get very lifelike colors and details to complete the 3Dness..
Philber's image is the whole package...
Others images are as well, but honestly I have an image I've taken with a leaf, and the leaf looks like it's popping out of the background, but I could get the same image with a canon lens and a bit of photoshop.. The point is, the Zeiss lenses can take you there faster from what I've been seeing... Although for all I know, you all are photoshopping your images, I'm only going by samples I've thus far taken with my 100MP
