Any chance you've still got your 100/2? Would loved to see head-head comps between the 2.0 and the N 2.8 for 3d-manship ... and if you happen to have access to a Leica 100 2.8 APO Macro as well.
Hey ... a guy can dream can't he?
I actually have the C/Y Planar 100/2.0 ... I just rebought recently....
Samuli, thanks for the explanation. I'm happy with the colors I get. I just assumed you were adjusting colors from what you wrote in your post above (adjusting colors in Aperture).
mortyb wrote:
Samuli, thanks for the explanation. I'm happy with the colors I get. I just assumed you were adjusting colors from what you wrote in your post above (adjusting colors in Aperture).
Ok, sorry for being unclear: I did mean white balance and saturation mainly, I'm not sure if black point, exposure, recovery and hightlights are considered as color adjustments. WB can be typically set same for group of photos, preferably already when shooting the photos. Saturation I set to 1.10 (or vibrancy to 1.15) for all images by default (for winter images - I think I have used 1.05 / 1.10 as standard for summer images).
On my Aperture workflow I stack all images and then score all images to 3 stars, then the ones which have technical failure will get 1 or 2 and then I filter them so that they will be never seen again. Then the ones which are usable for something get 4 or 5 stars. For the 4-5 star images I go through them in fullscreen mode, showing ~12 images at once in 30" screen, very fast. I adjust Aperture to show clipping of dark and bright (shift + alt + h), then I adjust black point (+exposure if needed, very rarely needed) of each 4-5 stars image so that image looks good/natural and there is no clipping. If I have burn hightlights then I need to use recovery and highlight sliders. Then I check if some image looks oversaturated (a widegamut monitor is needed for this) and then I drop the saturationg/vibrancy slider, this I also do so that I have ~12 images displayed in fullscreen mode. 90% of images do not need image by image adjustment of black level, recovery, highlights or saturation/vibrancy.
Cableaddict wrote:
...-but OK, gun to my head, most plasticity to least: 3 , 1 , 2.
(#2 has virtually none. It looks like a Zuiko lens to me, or maybe a Canon with some saturation boost.) #3 has very Zeiss-like 3D, even though it's not Zeiss-sharp. Is that the Nikon 105 Ai-s, by any chance?
#1 has decent plasticity, but that bokeh - egads!
1 & 3 were made with a cheap korean lens. 2 was done with a zeiss. i love that RKN lens bokeh. I'm going to miss it.
Number one has the most to me. It's a toss up between two and three but maybe #2? If you did a selective sharpening operation with a large feather then number #3 would take it for sure!
Cableaddict wrote:
That's odd. #2 is so VERY un-Zeiss like to my eyes.
Which one?
Their 28/2. Really no PP done and shot on a 5D2.
Bifurcator wrote:
Number one has the most to me. It's a toss up between two and three but maybe #2? If you did a selective sharpening operation with a large feather then number #3 would take it for sure!
Hurry people! Get this 3D "gem" before the price goes up!
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Ok, sorry for being unclear: I did mean white balance and saturation mainly, I'm not sure if black point, exposure, recovery and hightlights are considered as color adjustments. WB can be typically set same for group of photos, preferably already when shooting the photos. Saturation I set to 1.10 (or vibrancy to 1.15) for all images by default (for winter images - I think I have used 1.05 / 1.10 as standard for summer images).
On my Aperture workflow I stack all images and then score all images to 3 stars, then the ones which have technical failure will get 1 or 2 and then I filter them so that they will be never seen again. Then the ones which are usable for something get 4 or 5 stars. For the 4-5 star images I go through them in fullscreen mode, showing ~12 images at once in 30" screen, very fast. I adjust Aperture to show clipping of dark and bright (shift + alt + h), then I adjust black point (+exposure if needed, very rarely needed) of each 4-5 stars image so that image looks good/natural and there is no clipping. If I have burn hightlights then I need to use recovery and highlight sliders. Then I check if some image looks oversaturated (a widegamut monitor is needed for this) and then I drop the saturationg/vibrancy slider, this I also do so that I have ~12 images displayed in fullscreen mode. 90% of images do not need image by image adjustment of black level, recovery, highlights or saturation/vibrancy....Show more →
Thanks for the write-up, Samuli! Have to say, your wonderful photos makes all the talk about the 5DmkII giving dull and mushy colors a bit...weird. In the right hands, such as yours, the 5D delievers some very, very nice output.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
So here is real image with no tricks, just resized and sharpened.
That looks very much better! But quite a bit oversharpened to my eyes.
In your image I find it distracting that due to field curvature top corners are sharp, and bottom corners extra soft; almost any distractions/unnatural thing prevents me seeing any 3D. I see some subject separation but I don't see any shape - I assume the rock with red paint was completly flat? Very difficult lightning to bring out the shape and texture on the rock, but in our countries this light is the "standard" light too often...
Yeah, the drawing of this lens made me sell it. It is the Nikkor 35/1.4 @ f/2.8. I'm not sure I understand all of this "3D" discussion, but in this one I think there's a depth and texture that is a bit special. The rock "stands out" very much even if DOF isn't very short. Too bad the image circle wasn't a little bit larger, because as you say, the corners are ruining the picture.
Edit: However, I find the bokeh very pleasing in the middle of the frame.
Makten wrote:
That looks very much better! But quite a bit oversharpened to my eyes.
Hmmm, interesting - this might be matter of personal preference. As long as there are no halos or other artifacts and sharpening doesn't cause depth of field to look enormous I can't find photo oversharpened.
In this particular photo I used "trick" already when I shoot it - the sides of snowshoes are black and they reflect white snow, I did know the effect this will create before I shoot the photo. If you look at the 100% size original image (link posted earlier) without any sharpening you see what I mean. Of course with bad resizing and sharpening method one can loose this kind of effects and for that matter big part of realism of any image.
Makten wrote:
Yeah, the drawing of this lens made me sell it. It is the Nikkor 35/1.4 @ f/2.8. I'm not sure I understand all of this "3D" discussion, but in this one I think there's a depth and texture that is a bit special. The rock "stands out" very much even if DOF isn't very short.
Yes rock stands out, there is separation from background. However there is no shape seen in the rock, either because it doesn't have any shape or then it's not rendered to photo.
Makten wrote:
Too bad the image circle wasn't a little bit larger, because as you say, the corners are ruining the picture.
This is not problem of image circle size, there is no vignetting. If you look at your photo the top corners very far away are in focus, similarly front corners are blurred. This is because this lens does have field curvature, meaning that in different parts of image circle are focused to different distance. There are many wide angle lenses suffering from this problem, even some tele lenses suffer from this problem.
Makten wrote:
Edit: However, I find the bokeh very pleasing in the middle of the frame.
Yes not bad, the actual bokeh is nice and smooth, some people prefer that kind of bokeh. The transition from focal plane to blur could be better thou. What I have learned in this forum that there is no "good bokeh", majority of people consider "butter smooth bokeh" as good, while other want some character to be present in bokeh. From big masses point of view the bokeh in middle of the frame is pleasing = smooth.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Hmmm, interesting - this might be matter of personal preference. As long as there are no halos or other artifacts and sharpening doesn't cause depth of field to look enormous I can't find photo oversharpened.
To my eyes, a picture can very well be "too sharp" on a monitor even if there's no halos at all. A very high sharpness "reveals the screen", since you can see the pixels to clearly.
Yes rock stands out, there is separation from background. However there is no shape seen in the rock, either because it doesn't have any shape or then it's not rendered to photo.
I think you're right on that one. The picture is old, and I probaly used severe local sharpening with a quite large radius.
This is not problem of image circle size, there is no vignetting. If you look at your photo the top corners very far away are in focus, similarly front corners are blurred. This is because this lens does have field curvature, meaning that in different parts of image circle are focused to different distance. There are many wide angle lenses suffering from this problem, even some tele lenses suffer from this problem.
There IS vignetting, but not clearly visible in this particular shot. About the image circle; I meant that if it was larger, the extreme curvature of field would not have been visible. I actually beleive that the extended DOF is not only due to curvature of field, but also because of the iris being smaller ("cats eye effect") in the corners. You can see that sharpness is alot better radially than tangentially in the grass infront of the stone.
Yes not bad, the actual bokeh is nice and smooth, some people prefer that kind of bokeh. The transition from focal plane to blur could be better thou. What I have learned in this forum that there is no "good bokeh", majority of people consider "butter smooth bokeh" as good, while other want some character to be present in bokeh. From big masses point of view the bokeh in middle of the frame is pleasing = smooth.
I like both smooth and harsh bokeh, depending on how you use it. I'm well acquainted with the different drawing styles of lenses when it comes to bokeh. And as you say; "good bokeh" can be anything, depending on who's judging. Buttery smooth isn't my favourite, but sometimes it's very nice. Especially when DOF is fairly large, since it gives a nice separation from the background without being distracting. At shorter DOF, i prefer a less smooth bokeh.
--------------------------------
Now, how about this for 3D? I bought a Distagon 35/2 ZF yesterday, and I think it is outstanding!
That looks like a fantastic lens. -and the very definition of plasticity.
Well, I have barely had time to use it yet! And so far it acts fantastic. The CV Ultron that I've been praising is sooo good, but the Distagon is better. No surprises, I guess.
Edit: The first one is restituated, so sharpness is much better in the original. Still it stands out from the background very well even though DOF is quite large.
Makten wrote:
There IS vignetting, but not clearly visible in this particular shot. About the image circle; I meant that if it was larger, the extreme curvature of field would not have been visible. I actually beleive that the extended DOF is not only due to curvature of field, but also because of the iris being smaller ("cats eye effect") in the corners. You can see that sharpness is alot better radially than tangentially in the grass infront of the stone.
That could explain the top corners, but bottom corners are less sharp than surroundings - if the cats eye effect/vignetting would be cause of having larger DOF in top corners why the bottom corners are out of focus compared to their surroundings? You are right that this kind of problems are more likely on edge of image circle.
Makten wrote:
Now, how about this for 3D? I bought a Distagon 35/2 ZF yesterday, and I think it is outstanding!
Yes there is 3D, Distagon 35Z* is typically good in making it. I have waited 35ZE for over month already (have to get it from local store since I'll exchange some ZF glass and Canon stuff to ZE) and I'm really waiting to do some handheld shooting, which stopdown metering of ZF+adapter has prevented me to do. I know I know some people do it very successfully, and some people even prefer stop down metering/aperture rings etc. but I don't - well aperture ring I would prefer but not if it means stopdown metering. Be careful with Zeiss, they are very addictive...
I liked the other photos as well - thou the orange Volvo in orange light is a little too orange (why they have to use that damn ugly light, have ruined many of my photos...)
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
That could explain the top corners, but bottom corners are less sharp than surroundings - if the cats eye effect/vignetting would be cause of having larger DOF in top corners why the bottom corners are out of focus compared to their surroundings? You are right that this kind of problems are more likely on edge of image circle.
I'd say it's a combination of the two. Curvature of field only would not be enough to make the corners that sharp in the background.
Makten wrote:
Yes there is 3D, Distagon 35Z* is typically good in making it. I have waited 35ZE for over month already (have to get it from local store since I'll exchange some ZF glass and Canon stuff to ZE) and I'm really waiting to do some handheld shooting, which stopdown metering of ZF+adapter has prevented me to do. I know I know some people do it very successfully, and some people even prefer stop down metering/aperture rings etc. but I don't - well aperture ring I would prefer but not if it means stopdown metering. Be careful with Zeiss, they are very addictive......Show more →
I believe you! But I'm not a collector. I'm about to sell a good bunch of MF Nikkors, and the Voigtländer. The 35/2 will be my main lens for a while.
I liked the other photos as well - thou the orange Volvo in orange light is a little too orange (why they have to use that damn ugly light, have ruined many of my photos...)
Congratulations on your new lens, Makten! You have barely got it, and your shots already make it sing... and Samuli is right, Zeiss is addictive. But of couse, your character is too strong to ever let you fall victim of this addiction...
philber wrote:
Congratulations on your new lens, Makten! You have barely got it, and your shots already make it sing... and Samuli is right, Zeiss is addictive. But of couse, your character is too strong to ever let you fall victim of this addiction...
I actually bought it to "be able" to get rid of some other lenses. I have way too many, and I'm aiming at only having four. 20 - 35 - 85 & 75-150. The three other are very cheap too.
Cableaddict wrote:
That is some nice lens. - although do I detect some barrel distortion on the edges?
Indeed, there is quite some barrel distortion, mainly at shorter distances. The first shot from the gasstation is corrected for distortion, so that's not a fair one.
Another one to put one my list. (well, hoping for a ZE)
There IS a ZE!
Good thing I have no kids. They would never be able to go to college!
Sigh.
Nor do I, and probably never will have. So I can spend my money exactly how I want!
I think I'm getting the hang of this. I've been VERY sceptical to all this 3D talk, but the rendering of some shots I've got with the Distagon is very special. Infinite DOF, but still "depth".
