Robert, in some of your images (the later, green ones) there's a great feel of depth. That's the "dreamyness" I like so much from this lens. #2, #4 and later.
Samuli, yes all are wideopen. The car did not turn out to what I expected from the scene, it looked perfect on site. Could be the color as it contrasts too much (needed recovey) to the rest, think you're right. It became just a "nice" car image, nothing special with regards to the lens.
Would you like me to send the full sized image to your email? The second you selected has no sharpening in the oof areas to prevent blur sharpening and to aid pop of the focused tree on the left. Maybe this is something you are referring to? The first has nothing special done to it really, just a bit of highlight and whites tweaking and wb adjustment I think.
Ps, your tree shot seems to have a lot of pop from viewing it on my iPad. Great capture as always!
I'm actually interested what happens on few special spots of the images:
1st image: end of the tree trunk laying in ground on left and tree in middle (the one still living)
2nd image: the edges of the tree, which is the main subject of the photo (1/3 image width from left edge) [selective sharpening doesn't seem to affect the edge effect, edge looks same on very bottom of tree where you also have sharpened the background]
What I'm looking after is how light is "bend" on edges. On way back in the history here Alt forum Brainiac explained something from polarization on edges or something else "weird" and these two photos seem to have something what might be something like that. EDIT: This thing what I'm referring is not "pop", and has nothing to do with subject and background separation due to bokeh/DOF.
I hope I didn't get wrong version of 1,4/35, don't know what they changed but the C/Y has something special, what don't seem to be there anymore in ZE/ZF, or then I just haven't yet found a way to get it out from the lens. I'm still not very experienced with the lens, under 800 photos shoot and analyzed with ZE-version this far. So more practice needed...
Yes, although the ZE/ZF 35 f/1.4 seems like a special lens, my dream lens is still the Contax version, and the 100/2 as well. Maybe one day I will try to get them physically, i.e. forcibly converted to Nikon I will keep my eyes open for some clean copies at good prices.
Richard (brainiac) was talking about a slight darkening of edges that some of the Contax lenses would have. His examples were mostly close up portraits, where the jaw edge and similar features would have a dark emphasis/line which was not there in reality. Very special effect, and we were discussing its contribution to 3D ("real" 3D, not perspective or other tricks).
Honestly, I think the C/Y 35/1.4 has a lot more 'wow' than the new Z*. It's also lighter, smaller and cheaper. The only thing I've noticed is that the color of the Z* seems nicer.
I agree that the old one 'pops' more wideopen than the new ZE/ZF, which is quite something.
The bokeh however often looks harsher and I don't know how the old one performs stopped down / at infinity.
BTW, the prices of the C/Y seem to be crazy at the moment... many of them on ebay almost reach the price of the new ZE/ZF.
Seb, love the last one including the vignetting. Was it perfect light or did you add some there?
Jochenb wrote:
BTW, the prices of the C/Y seem to be crazy at the moment... many of them on ebay almost reach the price of the new ZE/ZF.
I paid 55% of a new ZE here. Mint, looks like new but that was only luck as you cant tell it by images on ebay. Box and paperwork included though. But many on ebay lists much higher as you say. I will Leitax mine, add a leather pouch so really mine will get perhaps 100€ more than now..
Check the CY 21/2.8 - it's way more expensive than the ZE. That's crazy, does anyone know the reason?
or is it a guest who frequently comes so close, that you can get it on wide-angles ?
unfortunately my little friend is not alive. he did not survive the portland winter and was found perfectly preserved on his perch on some christmas lights. i've been using him for test shots lately and was considering trying to use him to attract the territorial humming birds living by me into a pre planned shot.
wfrank wrote:
Seb, love the last one including the vignetting. Was it perfect light or did you add some there?
it was sunset, so the light was wonderful and the color is as i saw it. i did do al bit of curves adjusting and the vignetting is (mostly) added.
Sweet images in the thread, I need to get a copy of both version one of these days. With regards to the eBay pricing of the 21. Lots of eBay sellers seem to take the approach of fishing for a gullible buyer now. A search of completed listings often show very different sold prices. The buy it now prices on a lot of lenses are consistently higher than sites like keh who actually bundle a warranty with their stuff . But of course, there is market fluctuations too, for example, the rokkor 58 was in the $600+ range earlier this year but lately prices have for some reason seem to drop back down. Now to buy a copy again for myself
I've been pondering over which version to go for too long and finally went for the ZE version. My main goal was to get that lovely shallow DOF while retaining the 35mm angle of view.That Rollei is really nagging me and you guys are making me drool just like that Paulov's bloody dog.
Based on the amazing samples in this thread (I don't know whether it is due to postprocesing or not) the Rollei seems to have more pop at close distances, whereas the new ZE seems to have smoother bokeh and better corner-to-corner performance. Do they complement each other? If so, that's an expensive match indeed. The equation can get even more complex. Let's see.
I also got a Zeiss 35mm Flektogon 2.4 MC and it is annoyingly irritating how such a "lesser" lens can make its more expensive and snobber sibblings have a really bad time. Mr Flek can be amazingly sharp, and above all, it focuses at 19cm, and that is a heck of a difference. The Fleck - with a scale of 1:2,4- can get there where neither the ZE nor the Rollei/Contax can even touch. Bear in mind that Zeiss labels their lenses as "macro" when they are able to reproduce an scale of 1:2. That makes the Flek enter into the realms of nearly-macro work.
Surfing the Internet (bloody Internet) I found a way to calculate a lens magnification. Just take a photo of a ruler at MFD, count how many milimiters you get at MFD, and finally divide that number by 36 for a FF body. The Flek can take 87mm at MDF and 87/36= 2,4. That's the power of the Flek
As you can see, there is a huge difference in magnification. Just play with the Flek CR2 file. Isn't it amazing for a 150$ lens?
Sorry if my comments on these lenses are not accurate, but this is the feeling which is growing on me: I wish my ZE 1.4/35mm did it all, but it simply doesn't. I wish it had the pop of the Rollei at 1.4, the macro capabilities of the Fleck, and retain what makes the ZE stand out, which is its smoother bokeh and better corner-to-corner sharpness.
Zeiss at 35mm can be a bitch. There are plenty of options, and all of them are just great
Could you Rollei/Contax guys do me a favour? Could you spare a couple of RAW samples and fuel my obsessions? ([email protected])
Thanks from Spain, and sorry for my rusty English
Joaquín
Folks, I need some help here with this image. Details on the flower are completely gone and it looks like the red color is burned, but the histogram looks perfect. It was taken wide open. Everything except for this flower looks appropriate. Any idea why details are gone?
By the way, what is MFD? Malaysian Federation of the Deaf? Mauritius Freeport Development? My Favourite Doll? Manufactured Food Database?
I found many examples via Google:-)
Light_pilgrim wrote:
By the way, what is MFD? Malaysian Federation of the Deaf? Mauritius Freeport Development? My Favourite Doll? Manufactured Food Database?
I found many examples via Google:-)
The 'Minimum Focus Distance' of the lens. The point of focus looks to be on the back end of the flower so the Depth of Field drop of from shooting so close would blur any detail. Also bokeh can tend to look a little wonky when in the front of the plane of focus.
Yes, the upper rim of that poppy seems to be in focus. Therefore, the very top of the flower is closer to your lens resulting in that blur. The world is that narrow wide open. I might be wrong, though. Crazeazn may be right. Both the ZE and Rolei/Contax versions have a MFD of 30cm, so judging from the scale of that poppy on the frame, you must have gotten close to MFD
a lot of the flower looks oof to me but it also looks like there is color clipping as well (could just be the crappy monitor i'm looking at it on now). i find that when shooting deep orange, yellow, red, or purple going by the histogram in lightroom isn't enough, colors are clipped long before the histogram says they are. i need to underexpose significantly when i shoot and then pull the exposure up in post to avoid this. i don't shoot canon, but this has been true on for every camera i've used. not sure why, i seem to remember somebody talking about it recently here though.
This is my biggest concern.My experience with this lens is not huge, but I notices that there is color clipping especially with red and orange....the rest looks good. Not sure why :-(
sebboh wrote:
a lot of the flower looks oof to me but it also looks like there is color clipping as well (could just be the crappy monitor i'm looking at it on now). i find that when shooting deep orange, yellow, red, or purple going by the histogram in lightroom isn't enough, colors are clipped long before the histogram says they are. i need to underexpose significantly when i shoot and then pull the exposure up in post to avoid this. i don't shoot canon, but this has been true on for every camera i've used. not sure why, i seem to remember somebody talking about it recently here though....Show more →
I will keep my eyes open for some clean copies at good prices.
