Here's a double post from the Zeiss thread, a 1964 Volvo P1800. Probably the best looking car in the world ;-) IMG_9747 1280 by Wilhelm Frank - Stockholm, on Flickr
Picked up my lens last night... first shot is the first one I took with this lens... moving car at night XD
Even with MF it's a beautiful (and easy) lens to use... makes my 5D mark II feel very flimsy XD 1st shot! by Dreams Of Whimsy, on Flickr
I was worried the move from a 35ZE f2 to the CY was going to be a mistake for car photography, but that shot is even better than the first!! The clarity and detail is fantastic.
I have been struggling to learn ZE version, and it seems that in order to get the drawing style I prefer I need to be quite close to the subject, maybe 2-3 meters being the optimum. With C/Y version it seems to be that the same look I'm searching can be achieved much larger distances, somewhere between 4-7 meters (as shown by Wilhelm's Volvo shots).
Few photos, which I think are OK from rendering point of view - having "presence" and feeling of "being there":
A. f/3.5 (with ZE) - larger
This must be the most frustrating lens ever invented. I still don't know should I get C/Y version or just try to learn this one more. If I forget the "zeiss look", this is marvelous lens; extreme good colors and very little aberrations when closed down. Very smooth and usable bokeh under any circumstances starting from f/2.8.
Samuli
EDIT: Corrected misspelling on URL of the images --> needed to edit the post.
Samuli, that Duett seem to be in really good shape. The Amazon to the left have the same original paint as the P1800, "Grafit-grå" which goes absolutely great together with chrome.
I really like the rendering of the CY but could honestly not say that it - in my eyes - looks very different from some examples I've seen with the ZX 1.4-versions. And Samuli since you have the 5D2, why not let the ZE go and get a mint CY. As far as I know, the MM versions does not hassle with the 5D2 - mine is an MMJ. You'll even make a profit and can forget about annoying things like focus shift while doing it. And possibly - but just possibly - get a little more isolation/pop of the main subject.
Robert, it's 1.4 or 2. I am increasingly gaining confidence in using less DOF than theory allows. I'm not too much worried when lacking per-pixel sharpness in parts of the main subject, as the car in this case. Historically I've been striving for very good sharpness for all of the 21MP in the 5d2 that covers the main subject, but not anymore. It's the isolation that makes the image for me, not the absolute resolution as such. (mind you, this is not valid for landscaping/stopped down shooting of course)
What adapter are you using Wilhelm? I can't quite get infinity wide open so am not sure if I should spend more on a better adapter or not. I don't like the idea of spending £50+ and it still not being guaranteed.
I also am not sure if I will really see any benefit in stopped down landscape shots, I'm sure the hyper focal distance at f8 still covers infinity but it would be nice to have the option of landscapes at 4-5.6 if the light was too low and I'm without a tripod.
Samuli, I'm also with Wilhelm, I'm not sure I see the ZE lacking anything the CY has. I would love to do a side by side test, or even send you my lens. But I'm also happy to believe the CY is more special and don't necessarily want to find out its not. I'd also love some rounded blades...
One of our members did a side by side test and IIRC the C/Y has a less uniform bokeh than the Z*, looking softer in the center but a but more "busy" in the corners. Personally I liked the rendering of the C/Y more. I imagine that for Samuli's use, he would have more trouble with bokeh in the corners with that lens, but probably slightly more central "pop", giving more presence to the in-focus subject.
TBH, I don't like so much how the C/Y looks in sebboh's shots with it in the NEX thread. The astigmatism/swirliness and bokeh fringing are a bit disturbing for me. I never noticed this in the shots from denoir and Anden and others on FF.
AhamB wrote:
One of our members did a side by side test and IIRC the C/Y has a less uniform bokeh than the Z*, looking softer in the center but a but more "busy" in the corners. Personally I liked the rendering of the C/Y more. I imagine that for Samuli's use, he would have more trouble with bokeh in the corners with that lens, but probably slightly more central "pop", giving more presence to the in-focus subject.
TBH, I don't like so much how the C/Y looks in sebboh's shots with it in the NEX thread. The astigmatism/swirliness and bokeh fringing are a bit disturbing for me. I never noticed this in the shots from denoir and Anden and others on FF....Show more →
yeah, i was wondering about whether mine my defective when i first got mine and saw the astigmatism. i did a bunch of shots to bring it out more once i noticed it. having gone back through luka and anden's shots though, i can see it in them as well (well at least luka's) though in most cases they have composed well so that it is not as visible. it also seems less visible in my FF shots, so it is possible that the increased enlargement of crop plays a role or that the NEX sensor toppings increase the astigmatism more than the 5D's. most likely it is just my compositions though. the bokeh color fringing is obvious in all the FF shots as well (though it is obviously smaller on FF).
wilhelm fantastic car shot, i might try to use adobe's new tools to get rid of the purple/green bokeh fringing though.
Robert, I currently use two adapters from ebay.co.uk. They have a AF-confirm chip (programmable, but I havent bothered yet). I get infinity focus on all CYs, I have five now including the zoom (28-85). The width of the adapter makes the difference (of course), mine appears to be narrow. That could (for some CYs) mean mirror problems but I have none, including for the 35 which is called "iffy" on pebbleplace. I only have MM versions which sometimes makes a difference from what I've read.
I will Leitax some of mine as a start, just havent had the time. The 35 and 100 are first in line, 3-4-5 if I get a good deal. On a specific question about the 35 to David Llado at Leitax, he says that "The infinity focus is achieved" which is enough for me. Leitax involves 3 or 4 screws and is fully reversible if you (for some unknown extraterrestrial reason) decide to sell them off. On the other hand it probably increases these lenses value.
While on the subject of CY's, my copy (MM) of the 50/1.4 is a bit iffy with the Contax aperture lever. It sometimes refuses to stop down. This is easily solved with grinding that lever, just parts of millimeters. It would still work on a Contax body (in case that is important).
The more I think, the more I feel that the 5D2 is the ultimate FF alt lens house. EG-S and flange distance makes it even more attractive than before - given the "improved" alternatives 5D3 and D800's.
Tbh I never shoot the 35 for landscapes, at least not as much as I should. I found that compared to the 21ZE, the 35 f2 ZE wasn't that impressive, a little crunchy. I find the CY is pretty much the same, but have never obviously been able to reach true infinity so it's probably not a fair comparison. Maybe a better adapter would unlock a bit more resolution for landscapes.
@sebboh: Wow, great pano!
I agree with your comment that it's your compositions that make the astigmatism more noticeable.
The C/Y 35/1.4 is one of the few lenses that I'd still really like to have as a part of my kit.
About adapters: the last one for C/Y that I bought from big_is (well known ebay seller) was too thick (not reaching infinity with several lenses and difficult to mount). It was the type with the EMF chip.
These work with infinity. Oddly, some CY's require the end position while some others is slightly before the stop (checked and confirmed with LV). I dont find the logic in that. Perhaps the Contax bodies varied some - and the lenses needed some slack.
sebboh thanks. I dont see that purple/green fringing - but I did a very slight color balance in post to make the color of the car to be true. Or it could be the red in the granite cobble, or else I simply dont have the eyes. Like the depth in that pano!
