wayne seltzer wrote:
A friend and I decided while birding earlier in the day to head to see the peacocks in Ajay's neighborhood. Ajay, maybe we can meet up sometime there to shoot if you like.
Anyway, it was at the end of the day near dusk and no peacocks lifted their plummage for us. Maybe Ajay can tell me the secret command.
No way. I think I might have seen you. I saw a guy with a white lens and another person.. One of them must have been you . I was driving home from somewhere.
When I started looking at the images you posted, I was like wait a minute, who's posting 100% crops of my images .
Yeah, I live pretty close to that hill, down the street. Those peacocks are nice, but they eat all the flowers in the neighborhood, and ohh yes they get very loud.
If you want to test your C/Y 35/1.4 and the new 35/1.4, we could work something out on the weekend. I am sure a lot of folks here would be interested. Cheers.
Sorry, that is all I got for comparisons shots that day for these lenses.
I don't see vignetting, shouldn't be at f11. I do see the exposure difference and there is a difference in focus rolling off faster in the C/Y 35/1.4.
f/11? I thought I was seeing vignetting. Funny. The exposures in the corners seem more different than near the centre. Hmm. How about a wide open comparison?
Thanks for the f/11 comparison, Wayne!
When you say it, and I open the images in two seperate tabs, and switch back and forth many times and peep as hard as I can, then I can see there is a difference in focus rolling off.
Sorry to overwhelm you with requests, but it would be interesting to see these three settings compared:
ZF 35 2 @ f/10
C/Y 35 1.4 @ f/11
ZF 35 2 @ f/11
Ajay C wrote:
No way. I think I might have seen you. I saw a guy with a white lens and another person.. One of them must have been you . I was driving home from somewhere.
When I started looking at the images you posted, I was like wait a minute, who's posting 100% crops of my images .
Yeah, I live pretty close to that hill, down the street. Those peacocks are nice, but they eat all the flowers in the neighborhood, and ohh yes they get very loud.
If you want to test your C/Y 35/1.4 and the new 35/1.4, we could work something out on the weekend. I am sure a lot of folks here would be interested. Cheers....Show more →
Thanks Ajay I will pm you when I know if I can make it there this weekend.
Still have to finish my taxes.
alundeb wrote:
Thanks for the f/11 comparison, Wayne!
When you say it, and I open the images in two seperate tabs, and switch back and forth many times and peep as hard as I can, then I can see there is a difference in focus rolling off.
Sorry to overwhelm you with requests, but it would be interesting to see these three settings compared:
ZF 35 2 @ f/10
C/Y 35 1.4 @ f/11
ZF 35 2 @ f/11
Guys, thanks a lot for the effort and sample pics. Looking forward to the comparison pics.
Basically I am curious about the rendering differences and color palette differences between the new ZE, the old CY and the 35/2 ZE wide-open for objects at short to medium distances [not MFD]. You can use the oak trees as a (nice) reference subject. (Or benches, that ought to make Paul happy!)
Wayne, you seem to have special spatial talent as well You honed in on the test spots LC used to shoot some of his sample images with & now you did the same in Ajay's case as well !!
Ajay C wrote:
I did some portraits with the new 1.4/35. I am starting to wonder if LC got a bad copy of the ZE too for his reviews. All these images were shot at f/1.4 and no sharpening was applied (ie LR sharpness settings were at 0). No PP on these images except for highlight recovery in one of the images.. I am starting to get blown away by this lens. There are JPG artifacts by Flickr / LR JPG converter. On my screen they look very natural..
What do y'all think ?
looks quite good, that first one is spectacular. the third one shows some of that glow of SA in front of the focus plane that is common in under-corrected lenses. in general that tends to annoy me on lenses, but it doesn't look too severe in that picture. i don't remember if you've posted any shots with a lot of oof foreground?
This lens is for those who prefer their portrait shots to be less sharp,easier on people's complexion and have a nice smooth focus transition so there are no abrupt transitions from in focus to OOF. This is opposite to ZE 100/2 MP, 50/2 MP, and C/Y 35/1.4 which are sharper showing every pore in the complexion and can have more abrupt focus transition which can make some strands of hair stand out from the blurred ones. I like the brutally sharp lenses which can be used as is on men to get that rugged look and then on women I would soften complexion in post but keep the sharpness in the eyes. Others like/prefer this softer beauty lens look ie. softar'ish which reminds me of the Leica R 80/1.4.More dreamy look.
sebboh wrote:
looks quite good, that first one is spectacular. the third one shows some of that glow of SA in front of the focus plane that is common in under-corrected lenses. in general that tends to annoy me on lenses, but it doesn't look too severe in that picture. i don't remember if you've posted any shots with a lot of oof foreground?
[Ajay]: very good portraits. Wide apertures seem useful indeed. How easy was it for you to focus? Are you using the Eg-S screen? How about the focusing ring stiffness, compared to say, a 50/2 MP?
Sebboh: OOF foreground, great question. I was reading Dr.Nasse's article and he has written that undercorrected [for SA] lenses have a nicer, gentler background but foreground is not so good and vice versa for over-corrected lenses. So, it will be interested to see this aspect.
Having said that, I don't notice the SA glow that much. Certainly not until you mentioned it and I had to look for it specifically.
wayne seltzer wrote:
This lens is for those who prefer their portrait shots to be less sharp,easier on people's complexion and have a nice smooth focus transition so there are no abrupt transitions from in focus to OOF. This is opposite to ZE 100/2 MP, 50/2 MP, and C/Y 35/1.4 which are sharper showing every pore in the complexion and can have more abrupt focus transition which can make some strands of hair stand out from the blurred ones. I like the brutally sharp lenses which can be used as is on men to get that rugged look and then on women I would soften complexion in post but keep the sharpness in the eyes. Others like/prefer this softer beauty lens look ie. softar'ish which reminds me of the Leica R 80/1.4.More dreamy look....Show more →
Wayne, good point. Generally that has been the comments of sharp macro primes w.r.t portraits,(too sharp). I find it easier to soften detail later on rather than bringing back detail post capture.
A sharp but soft look (!!) wherein you have a sharp layer underneath but a haze over it is useful to some people not just for portraits but also for some landscapes where it can make the overall highlight palette easier on the eyes.
Marc Adamus and several others have claimed to have tried this in the field (partially fogging up the lens for a fractional time of the exposure) and also in post [select highlights and run a mild gaussian blur and overlay it on top of a sharp layer underneath].
wayne seltzer wrote:
This lens is for those who prefer their portrait shots to be less sharp,easier on people's complexion and have a nice smooth focus transition so there are no abrupt transitions from in focus to OOF. This is opposite to ZE 100/2 MP, 50/2 MP, and C/Y 35/1.4 which are sharper showing every pore in the complexion and can have more abrupt focus transition which can make some strands of hair stand out from the blurred ones. I like the brutally sharp lenses which can be used as is on men to get that rugged look and then on women I would soften complexion in post but keep the sharpness in the eyes. Others like/prefer this softer beauty lens look ie. softar'ish which reminds me of the Leica R 80/1.4.More dreamy look....Show more →
Wayne, agreed. I think the point I was trying to make was that this lens is pretty sharp at f/1.4, even though not as contrasty as the MPs, captures quite a bit of detail. 1k (long edge) images are not the greatest to show that fact, the second image shows a great bit of detail on my monitor. Having said that, I prefer shooting portraits with the 100 MP than with the 1.4/ 85
abhijeeth wrote:
Guys, thanks a lot for the effort and sample pics. Looking forward to the comparison pics.
Basically I am curious about the rendering differences and color palette differences between the new ZE, the old CY and the 35/2 ZE wide-open for objects at short to medium distances [not MFD]. You can use the oak trees as a (nice) reference subject. (Or benches, that ought to make Paul happy!)
Wayne, you seem to have special spatial talent as well You honed in on the test spots LC used to shoot some of his sample images with & now you did the same in Ajay's case as well !!
Thanks Abhijeeth! For the LC test shot recreation I took special care to memorize some key points on the outer edges of the field of view in his shot so I recreate as close as possible. But when I got there I quickly realized that my smaller tripod that I had with me was not going to be able to shoot over the top railing like LC must have and thus had to shoot between the top railing and the cross wire. Unfortunately I could not recreate Ajay's beautiful peacock displaying its plummage in the air shot with C/Y 35/1.4.
Ajay C wrote:
Wayne, agreed. I think the point I was trying to make was that this lens is pretty sharp at f/1.4, even though not as contrasty as the MPs, captures quite a bit of detail. 1k (long edge) images are not the greatest to show that fact, the second image shows a great bit of detail on my monitor. Having said that, I prefer shooting portraits with the 100 MP than with the 1.4/ 85
Maybe you could do a portrait comparison between 100MP and ZE 35/1.4 to show the differences between the renderings?That would be intereresting to see.
Your 2nd portrait shot shows how well this lens handles bright OOF areas which would not have been handled so smoothly by other lenses.
In the last shot I think I see the glow that Sebboh is talking about on the woman's face and hand which is in front of the focus plane.
thanks for the crops, I never get those results with my contax. maybe I had a defective copy or the ring was tick. I hope that with the new zeiss there will be no problems of aberration and fringing. I hope that quality control is severe at zeiss...my biggest fears are two:
1) the lens can not reach focus on the first shot (my contax often did)
2) spherical aberration and haze
wayne seltzer wrote:
Maybe you could do a portrait comparison between 100MP and ZE 35/1.4 to show the differences between the renderings?That would be intereresting to see.
Comparing the rendering of a tele lens with that of a wideangle one doesn't really make sense to me Wayne.
They give a very different look.
I'm mostly interested in a comparison with the 35f2.
What do you owners of the new 1.4 ZE think of the size and weight? Doesn't it bother you?
I currently have the f2 and so far I like what I'm seeing from the 1.4
abhijeeth wrote:
[Ajay]: very good portraits. Wide apertures seem useful indeed. How easy was it for you to focus? Are you using the Eg-S screen? How about the focusing ring stiffness, compared to say, a 50/2 MP?
It's fairly easy to focus. Nothing different from 2/35, the focus throw is a little longer though. Yeah, I have the Eg-S focusing screen. I would say stiffness is about the same, if not less, as the 50 MP.
Jochenb wrote:
Comparing the rendering of a tele lens with that of a wideangle one doesn't really make sense to me Wayne.
They give a very different look.
I'm mostly interested in a comparison with the 35f2.
What do you owners of the new 1.4 ZE think of the size and weight? Doesn't it bother you?
I currently have the f2 and so far I like what I'm seeing from the 1.4
The comparison with 35/2 had been done by LC in his pay website zeiss review. The difference between the two has been summed up by some in the other 35/1.4 thread.
How a lens behaves as far as falloff focus rate, bokeh characteristics, and sharpness are all independent of focal length and are interesting to me at least to compare.
Size and weight seem to be a personal decision. It is what it is and what bothers one might not bother another.
.