wfrank wrote:
Is the mirror the most likely cause of these marks? If it dont hang shouldt there be another more probable explanation?
the previous owner shot a 5DII, no idea about the owner before that. obviously since i only shoot it on film and the NEX i don't have any mirror collisions.
So three copies with marks at the same spot: perfectly centered (below the mid line in the DOF scale) and a bit up? If so I should be convinced I guess.. need to re-evaluate infinity usage on mine then :S
Love #1 by the way, as typical for the lens as the Ford but analog!
wfrank wrote:
So three copies with marks at the same spot: perfectly centered (below the mid line in the DOF scale) and a bit up? If so I should be convinced I guess.. need to re-evaluate infinity usage on mine then :S
Love #1 by the way, as typical for the lens as the Ford but analog!
thanks. the marks on my lens aren't exactly centered but start near the center of the rear element and radiated upward towards the top. there's lots of possible explanations for them, i was just hypothesizing.
I'm posting a photo of the mark on the rear element of the c/y 35 1.4 MMJ.
I'm sure it was caused by the mirror and more so by the newer 5DMkII I have. No problem with the older body.
Most of the time, I use the this lens to take photos of people around the house. So I dont use a tripod. I've taken a few landscapes and I've used the tripod for those. The 3 photos above are all handheld.
Just to ask a question of my own, how many use a CPL with the zeiss glass for the outdoor shots?
Manoj wrote:
I'm posting a photo of the mark on the rear element of the c/y 35 1.4 MMJ.
I'm sure it was caused by the mirror and more so by the newer 5DMkII I have. No problem with the older body.
Most of the time, I use the this lens to take photos of people around the house. So I dont use a tripod. I've taken a few landscapes and I've used the tripod for those. The 3 photos above are all handheld.
Just to ask a question of my own, how many use a CPL with the zeiss glass for the outdoor shots?...Show more →
I just looked at my rokkor's brassing position (both my cy35 1.4 and rokkor 58 1.2 have af confirm) and I think the nicks on your rear element do coincide with the position of the mirror not clearing. That being said its very odd as old mount aperture lever is a few mm higher than the apex of the rear element...
I use a zeiss CPL with my zeiss glass depending on the sunshine
Those are really nice sebboh! I obviously need to try Tri-X after the TMax. What's your process here, develop yourself (?) and then scan the negative or a paper copy?
wfrank wrote:
Those are really nice sebboh! I obviously need to try Tri-X after the TMax. What's your process here, develop yourself (?) and then scan the negative or a paper copy?
thanks! these are all just developed at the local lab and scanned at the lowest res they offer (i'm posting them at nearly full res). these are still from my first test roll through the aria.
Aha, that is really low-res then. The OOF grain is really film like (no kidding :o) and shines through clearly. A guess is that TMax wont do to get this. Any PP here like vignetting or did you leave the images alone?
wfrank wrote:
Aha, that is really low-res then. The OOF grain is really film like (no kidding :o) and shines through clearly. A guess is that TMax wont do to get this. Any PP here like vignetting or did you leave the images alone?
some of them probably have vignetting added or exposure tweaks.
I've now had the lens for several weeks and I'm very pleased. Initially I shot mostly wide open and it's dead sharp, whatever some people say. Actually sharper than anything else I've tried at f/1.4, regardless of focal length. The rendering is not at all like the 35/2 (which I miss sometimes). More neutral, subtle and elegant, and if you stop down a bit it acts very much like the 50/1.4 Planar except for a little harsher bokeh at medium distance.
Focusing is easy closer than ~1.5 meters, but further away it becomes very difficult even with the Katzeye or Canon EG-S (I have both and can't really decide which is worse). But when you nail it, everything is awesome.
Have a look at the bokeh. Yes, it's a bit harsh, but interestingly the contrast is lower in the blur than in the sharp field. This means you won't notice the bokeh at all until you look for it.
Have a look at the bokeh. Yes, it's a bit harsh, but interestingly the contrast is lower in the blur than in the sharp field. This means you won't notice the bokeh at all until you look for it.
That lower contrast in the blur is a key part of the Zeiss look, IMO. I see it in my Contax G lenses as well.
sebboh wrote:
hmm, don't really notice it in any of my other zeiss lenses. they all seem to have overly contrasty bokeh. alwang wrote:
That lower contrast in the blur is a key part of the Zeiss look, IMO. I see it in my Contax G lenses as well.
buggz2k wrote:
Contax Yashica Zeiss 85/1.4 @ f1.4, portrait perspective 22 item stitch from MS ICE.
Freaky, the background looks totally fake to me.
A stitch probably exagerates all aspects?
Have to find some other single frame ones from this lens, when I had it.
Alas, it is another one of my items stolen. *8^(
I may have to repurchase another copy.
