Gary Clennan wrote:
Derek - how are you finding the NEX-7?
so far i'm very happy with it image quality wise (i don't have any rangefinder wides). i need more time with it to decide about ergonomics, i need a better eye cup too. i'll post to the nex-5n versus nex-7 thread when i've got more conclusions, i haven't been able to shoot with it much yet.
Can someone could post landscapes exemples with the 35 1.4 ZF/ZE something with medium distance focusing and 1.4...
I'm still hesitating with this lens. I already have 50 and 100 MP (both ZF) but i'm little bit worried by blurred backgrounds with "ugly" bokeh like Samuli said at mid distances... It seems that there is a bit of outlining with green/magentas hightlights. Is the bokeh as good at mid distances than short distances? Does it have a harsh transition zone like 50MP @f2 at mid and infinity distances?
I have seen some exemples but It's difficult tofind wher is ZE/ZF, HFT, AEG, MMJ...
Samuli if you have new exemples...
Can someone could post landscapes exemples with the 35 1.4 ZF/ZE something with medium distance focusing and 1.4...
I'm still hesitating with this lens. I already have 50 and 100 MP (both ZF) but i'm little bit worried by blurred backgrounds with "ugly" bokeh like Samuli said at mid distances... It seems that there is a bit of outlining with green/magentas hightlights. Is the bokeh as good at mid distances than short distances? Does it have a harsh transition zone like 50MP @f2 at mid and infinity distances?
I have seen some exemples but It's difficult tofind wher is ZE/ZF, HFT, AEG, MMJ...
Samuli if you have new exemples...
thanks,
Vincent...Show more →
I usually don't shoot that much wide open, however I have from the initial shoot some wide open shots (and stupid aperture series as well...) since I needed to learn how the lens behaves and what are it's limits. Personally I'm allergic to ugly edge bokeh and due to this I tend to shoot 1-2 stop closed down with any lens; so I would have not posted these unless requested. Like you see from images ugliness of bokeh is function of focus distance and background distance. I doubt I will user the f/1.4 aperture outside these first test images almost never, but occasionally I may find use for it as well, can't quite yet figure out in which situation I would prefer wide open better. All ZE @ f/1.4:
the bokeh is quite distracting in these conditions between trees and sky, it's little bit like 50MP @f2. I tough the bokeh was considered as very smooth and even better than C/Y version. It seems this is real for short distances and maybe appertures narrower than F2.8.
Like with most lenses, you can indeed get distracting bokeh in some situations (even with the mighty 100MP, which is considered to have the most amazing bokeh by many).
Personally I'm not really bothered by it. I was often more annoyed by the high contrast bokeh of the 35/2.
I still think the 1.4 it has the most amazing bokeh of any 35mm (for a SLR) lens. You should see the alternatives like canons 35L...
What are your first conclusions Samuli? Do you like the lens or don't?
I think my 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 ZE are nice companions.
the bokeh is quite distracting in these conditions between trees and sky, it's little bit like 50MP @f2. I tough the bokeh was considered as very smooth and even better than C/Y version. It seems this is real for short distances and maybe appertures narrower than F2.8.
Most of the "great bokeh pictures" are from scenarios where ratio between focus distance and background distance is large (=very large CoC in bokeh). I'm shooting quite a lot in conditions where this ratio is small, so my test pictures reflect this. People shooting for example portraits or flowers are likely to never see this kind of background bokeh (because of the ratio between distances, not because focus distance).
Jochenb wrote:
Like with most lenses, you can indeed get distracting bokeh in some situations (even with the mighty 100MP, which is considered to have the most amazing bokeh by many). how I see it 100MP doesn't have very good bokeh before f/4, sure if conditions are optimal and CoC large enough in bokeh (ratio between focus distance and fore-/background distance large enough and using large aperture) it has nice bokeh, most people confuse quality with amount... But I agree ugly bokeh is possible with almost any lens, however some lenses are less likely to have bad quality bokeh; if I remember correctly C/Y 2,8/85 does almost always give quite nice bokeh, as well as Zeiss Jena Tessar 50/2,8 (or 55/2,8 I can't never remember which one it was).
Jochenb wrote:
What are your first conclusions Samuli? Do you like the lens or don't?
I think my 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 ZE are nice companions.
Haven't shoot much (too much pollen in air, I have tried to keep inside over the worst weeks). So I have not formed yet "final conclusion", but it's obvious I'll don't anymore use 2/35 anymore for anything unless I need small size lens or some other non-optics related reason. I have no issue with the bokeh of 1,4ZE; part of my process of getting used to lens is using it in all kind of conditions, including shooting wide open midrange subjects with difficult background (would have to be quite stupid to do that as actual use for the lens...for any retrofocus wide angle...), so I'm used to getting really ugly bokehs as part of my testing and "getting used to"-process.
Like other Zeiss 1,4 lenses there is practically no vignetting @ f/2.2-2.5 and also otherwise bokeh quality at those apertures becomes rather smooth. Very usable lens and rendering style point of view I would assume suits well together with 1,4/85. I'll report back, but depending on pollen situation and other things it may take a while.
bokeh looks very good for a 35/1.4 wide open, meaning all the other 35/1.4 lenses look worse, not that there isn't a fair amount of bokeh funk. the c/y version seems to have smoother bokeh (close up or at a distance) in the center but much worse in the corners (greater field curvature?). i have to say samuli's shots look better than i expected for the subject and background distances and i actually like the look. all wides i've seen and many telephotos would do worse.
Finally I will join this thread, just called in a minty Contax MMJ from ebay!
So now for the key-question, does anyone know if I should expect any problems with a MMJ on a 5D2? The Contax DB calls the 35/1.4 "iffy", but if I am not mistaking this combo should be good, fingers crossed.
No mirror issues with my mmj but my fotodiox adapter doesn't give me infinity at 1.4. Have to stop down to 8-11 to really get infinity sharpish. Might have to invest in a happypagehk adapter or whatever they are called but they are £56 and still not guaranteed.
Could try and change infinity but the screws are so tight I'm worried I might strip the heads trying to undo them. Then of course it would go past infinity on my contax camera... Ugh
wfrank wrote:
Finally I will join this thread, just called in a minty Contax MMJ from ebay!
So now for the key-question, does anyone know if I should expect any problems with a MMJ on a 5D2? The Contax DB calls the 35/1.4 "iffy", but if I am not mistaking this combo should be good, fingers crossed.
congrats, i'm excited to see what you do with it and what you think of it compared to your samyang.
R.Young wrote:
No mirror issues with my mmj but my fotodiox adapter doesn't give me infinity at 1.4. Have to stop down to 8-11 to really get infinity sharpish. Might have to invest in a happypagehk adapter or whatever they are called but they are £56 and still not guaranteed.
Sounds strange Robert - or perhaps it isnt(?). I have the 85/1.4 and it passes infinity @ 1.4. Not that I use it as such but to me that should mean that with the same adapter it should really reach infinity on the 35/1.4 as well (I use fairly cheapo adapters always - the CV ones I actually get from the UK as delivery is just a few days comparing to Hong Kong etc. EMF chip included which can be handy in some situations).
sebboh wrote:
congrats, i'm excited to see what you do with it and what you think of it compared to your samyang.
Thanks! Yes, around this time last year I got the Samyang and it stayed on the camera for 3 months or so. I will do some (non scientific) comparisons to try to see if I can substantiate that mythical OOF-transition advantage. Or whatever it is.
Got the Contax 35/1.4 this morning, a MMJ seemingly in excellent condition. Looked like new on inspection but did need to go to the streets to try it. Exceptionally bad weather for early June, rain allover and 8 Celsius which is really bad for patience when shooting.
Still, time for the first post in this thread that I have been lurking for quite some time since discovering some unusually good results from this lens despite harsh competition from plenty threads here at alt-FM.
All shot wide open, that's why I got this lens. On the Canon 5D2.
Tiny dragon threatening the Viking god Thor (thunder guy) to the left. He's the origin of the weekday name Thursday in case you wonder IMG_9532 1280 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
how I see it 100MP doesn't have very good bokeh before f/4, sure if conditions are optimal and CoC large enough in bokeh (ratio between focus distance and fore-/background distance large enough and using large aperture) it has nice bokeh, most people confuse quality with amount... But I agree ugly bokeh is possible with almost any lens, however some lenses are less likely to have bad quality bokeh; if I remember correctly C/Y 2,8/85 does almost always give quite nice bokeh, as well as Zeiss Jena Tessar 50/2,8 (or 55/2,8 I can't never remember which one it was).
