Very cool - first one is perfect use of the FL on that subject - I really like the second one - my company fabricates those kind of prototypical exhibit fixtures - outstanding design. Not that it matters for those shots but the distortion is showing up on the rectal-linear planes - do you know if the lens was (somewhat) level? Probably pointing down on the car? Looks good though!
I picked up this lens mainly because of the people on this board so I thought I'd contribute some =]. Thanks to everyone who recommended this lens to me, I love it!
Very cool - first one is perfect use of the FL on that subject - I really like the second one - my company fabricates those kind of prototypical exhibit fixtures - outstanding design. Not that it matters for those shots but the distortion is showing up on the rectal-linear planes - do you know if the lens was (somewhat) level? Probably pointing down on the car? Looks good though!
Thanks. The F1 pict is pointed downwards while the China pavilion pict is pointed upwards. This is a huge pavilion at the Shanghai Expo 2010.
I like using 17 @ 2.8 and leaving in the vignette - on some shots it helps to frame the subject. The pavilion is much larger than the first image (at 17mm) scales it to be - our fabrications are 1/8 (or less) that size. Thanks for the additional pics - it looks like an "Expo 2010" feature - World Class - I've always been a big fan of Asian/Eastern Architecture and design - their disciplines are very high.
I like using 17 @ 2.8 and leaving in the vignette - on some shots it helps to frame the subject. The pavilion is much larger than the first image (at 17mm) scales it to be - our fabrications are 1/8 (or less) that size. Thanks for the additional pics - it looks like an "Expo 2010" feature - World Class - I've always been a big fan of Asian/Eastern Architecture and design - their disciplines are very high.
There are some amazing pavilions/structures at the Expo. The China and Saudi pavilions are said to cost US$30mil each to construct. I am not going to turn this into a Expo thread so this is where I stop on it.
The N17-35 is exhibiting great colours and 3D. There is slight vignetting at 17mm @ f2.8. I also find that I need to compensate exposure by 1/3 to 1/2 stop. Not sure if it is due to the Contax UV filter that I have attached.
In the wake of Zeiss ZE 35mm f1.4, the N17-35 is very capable at 35mm as well. Sharp, 3D and excellent flare suppression. Of course without as diffused OoF areas.
OMG - your using a zoom! - I still have a 24-85 at Conurus - should see it this month - I think I have myself prepared that is is not a prime or the 35-70 for that matter - but for a lot of on the go, can't carry or mess with changing lenses the zooms are the way to go - the 17-35 in the 17-24mm range is very impressive - I've just sent in the 70-200 to convert - it's nice & compact and I rarely shoot that FL.
Love the N.D. shots - need to get there someday to see the real thing.
philber wrote:
I tried a 24-85 today, courtesy of another member. Loved the lens. Light, beautiful, perfect range, fussless AF. IQ is not Zeiss prime though, IMHO. Horses for courses...
Yep. Phiber, you have concluded what I have felt for some time now. Check pages 1~4 of this exact thread to revisit that discussion.
Sorry to disagree, Edward, but IMHO, only based on a short loan of the 24-85, 35-70 is much closer to Zeiss primes in terms of IQ. Usability OTOH is a totally different story, there 24-85 is lovely, and 35-70 a pain...
philber wrote:
Sorry to disagree, Edward, but IMHO, only based on a short loan of the 24-85, 35-70 is much closer to Zeiss primes in terms of IQ. Usability OTOH is a totally different story, there 24-85 is lovely, and 35-70 a pain...
No disagreement Phil. The 35-70 is one of the best zooms ever made. It has been advertized by Zeiss as being equal or better than equivalent primes, a true statement according to my experience. However it is a 2X zoom only, and covers 2 1/2 classic FL. The 24-85 covers 5 classic FL. A fairer comparison would be with the C/Y 28-85, and in this case I believe the 24-85 wins.
AhamB wrote:
Philber said "IQ is not Zeiss prime": not as good as Zeiss primes in the same FL range. (He wasn't saying it's not Zeiss-like in general.)
I am not quoting Philber. I revisited the first 4 pages of this thread. The general impression is that some think that the N24-85 does not display as much Zeiss characteristics as the other lenses.
I did not say "not Zeiss-like", Paul, I wrote that, based on one short test of one sample, it did not yield results as good as those of a Zeiss prime. That is quite different. IMHO it is quite definitely a Zeiss lens in its rendition.
ManWearPants wrote:
I am not quoting Philber. I revisited the first 4 pages of this thread. The general impression is that some think that the N24-85 does not display as much Zeiss characteristics as the other lenses.
Key word there is "some". There is some disagreement here. I would say the performance of the N 24-85 is as good as the 35-70 providing just as much "Zeiss characteristics" (I have both lenses), and a whole lot more convenient. My 35-70 no longer gets used. It is bettered by the ZF primes at all focal lengths and, as stated (for when you don't mind inconvenience), and the N 24-85 is as good and more convenient (when that matters). The c/y 35-70 is a good budget zoom lens but IMHO there are better choice for all situations, provided your budget can accommodate them.
Would you guys be so kind to tell me the minimum focusing distance of these lenses :
50N, 85N, and 70-200N?
I'm kicking around the idea of purchasing either the 85N or 50N but have read that the autofocus of the 50N is a bit lacking in terms of speed. How is it in comparison to the 17-35N as I don't shoot photo often but find that the 17-35 is more than acceptable?
so this is where I stop on it. 