philber - I was thinking 2 lenses to start, then eventually I'd add a third. My idea was 28, 50 1.4, 100, but you do make a good case for the 35, and you are right I could move onto 4 lenses eventually. I will take a look through my photo library sometime this week, just out of curiosity.
Samuli - Seriously, I'm gonna be broke, thats simply amazing! Oh, BTW since you brought up focusing shift, doesn't the 50 1.4 do that as well? What other ZE lenses have that problem, because I already have a hard enough time without live-view and my z-finder..
RickPerry - Pistachio's are my favorite nut, I totally get what you mean. Honestly though, aside from the autofocus issue, I've owned a lot of Canon gear (everything under 200mm and then some) but I really just like the look of the zeiss lens I picked up. So I think I'm in trouble.
snowboarder - Where do you live? Not because I'm going to come paint red turtles on your door (Asia reference), it's just I'm in Singapore right now, and unless I drive 3 hours plus, I'm not getting anything remotely scenic. To have such views out your back door, fantastic. Oh and yea, listen just send me one of your ZEs and we'll call it square. I already have the 100m so maybe something a little wider will do Honestly though, thats like the best picture I've seen of your 100m yet!
snowboarder wrote:
What have i done? Triple? Seriously?
OK, you deserve a picture. And it must be taken with the Zeiss 100MP ZE...
So just for you, a little shot taken an hour ago
Sorry my first post to this thread is such a throwaway shot (in most respects), but I'd like to ask a question. When I received the lens, I was struck by how much smaller the hood was than the 35L hood. Then I get this today:
I've taken only 50 images or so, and I'm not concerned about the lens being great - it's going to son #1 in the will. I just think that almost perfectly round shadow at the bottom is strange. It looks like a real strong vignette, but this is almost SOOC. Either the shadow on the ground was this way, and I just didn't notice it, or this was an effect of the sun hitting the lens and getting a shadow off the hood or something?
Has anyone else gotten anything like this? Or can someone confirm my thinking or suggest a more likely alternative.
BTW, here is why this shot is not completely throwaway, IMHO. 1) This lens almost effortlessly renders depth. THe 35L wouldn't have done this. 2) I think the colors, as evidenced by the blues in the upper corner, are pretty great. Initial sense is better than the 35L. I like this 35 so much, I'm going for an 85 now. I *knew* this was going to happen, dammit...!
Yah, that's what I am figuring. I just thought it was strange (and maybe this speaks to the coatings or whatever - I'm certainly no expert when it comes to this) that the majority of the image was well exposed, and it was just this part being darker.
Just your usual, everyday, jaw-dropping, mind-blowing stuff, right, Andrew?
Samuli, lovely shot. Regarding ZE 85 focus shift, I find that, at infinity, the focus shift is much less of a problem, since the DOF absorbs most of it.
Talk more about the 85 focus shift, please. I read alot about the supposed "problems" of the 50L, but my understanding was it was only at close range, wide or near-wide open. And that the issue is mostly overblown in real-world shooting.
adamdewilde wrote:
Samuli - Seriously, I'm gonna be broke, thats simply amazing! Oh, BTW since you brought up focusing shift, doesn't the 50 1.4 do that as well? What other ZE lenses have that problem, because I already have a hard enough time without live-view and my z-finder..
I have not yet done systematical tests for ZE1.4/50 but on field it seems that focus shift on medium and large distances is non-existent while with ZE85 it's always there. I'm not sure what I end up doing with ZE85, it gives so nice results, for example at f/4-f/11 the transition from DOF to bokeh is extreme nice. However being tripod bound (it's really difficult to focus the lens with DOF button pressed down while handhold) and "feature" of live view that in bright light it may use smaller aperture (not maximum) while showing live view causes that the usage of lens is really difficult. ZE100 cannot automatically replace ZE85 in all situations, for example the DOF - bokeh transition is very different on the lenses.
joekraft wrote:
I just think that almost perfectly round shadow at the bottom is strange. It looks like a real strong vignette, but this is almost SOOC. Either the shadow on the ground was this way, and I just didn't notice it, or this was an effect of the sun hitting the lens and getting a shadow off the hood or something?
Has anyone else gotten anything like this? Or can someone confirm my thinking or suggest a more likely alternative.
On some lenses when sun hits the lens directly you get this kind of effect. I have seen on my own photos taken with various Canon, Nikon, Leica, Contax, Zeiss and Pentax lenses.
Example of this kind of flare - ZE100 - a little right from center you see large diameter arc going vertically in frame (since it's full frame 36mm x 24mm the diameter of this circle is something like 60-100mm on film plane --> just an arc from circle is visible)
adamdewilde wrote:
I never use lens hoods, so I'm in for a treat then if I get talked into Zeiss wides.
Wow, I would never use lens without hood. Hood is the most important protection for lens. You can avoid most of the dust (less need for cleaning the lens = less scratches), rain drops and direct collisions to lens by using lens hood. Using "protection filters" with Leica and Zeiss lenses really doesn't make any sense to me, you loose so much quality, specially in backlight conditions. These days I rarely even use polarizer, somehow ZE colors get too strong with polarizer, wish they would make one which only would remote reflections from green (plants, grass etc.) but not oversaturate sky...
EDIT: And also in some situations hood will prevent flare as well, almost forgot to mention...
@Phillipe: Seems with the highest magnification, you should have the hightest keeper rate with the 85.
40%, because of the focus shift issue?
That is pretty high, at any rate. Maybe this lens is a mistake.
philber wrote:
To give you some point of reference, j4ake, I almost only shoot handheld-and-viewfinder. With my ZE21, my OOF rate is maybe 5%. With ZE35 10-15%. With ZE50 f:1.4, say 25%. With ZE 85, maybe 40%.
philber wrote:
Just your usual, everyday, jaw-dropping, mind-blowing stuff, right, Andrew?
Samuli, lovely shot. Regarding ZE 85 focus shift, I find that, at infinity, the focus shift is much less of a problem, since the DOF absorbs most of it.
+1 (Andrews photo)
joekraft wrote:
Talk more about the 85 focus shift, please. I read alot about the supposed "problems" of the 50L, but my understanding was it was only at close range, wide or near-wide open. And that the issue is mostly overblown in real-world shooting.
Is that not the case with the 85?
Like Philippe says it's mostly problem on close-ups and middle distances. At infinity it's mostly covered by DOF. Also focus shift is pretty small at infinity - lens has least amount of aberrations at infinity - uncorrected aberrations are partial cause for focus shift according to Lloyd and some other sources, specially uncorrected spherical aberrations - I'm sure if I explained this incorrectly then optics guru mr. Toothwalker will correct me...
In practice if I shoot three/fence/other-thin-object 9 meters (27feet) away from me at f/2.8 the tree is barely in edge of DOF if focused at f/1.4, so in practice I have found out that I'll always focus with aperture f/2.8 (when shooting aperture is f/2.8 or smaller). In practice I keep aperture f/2.8 on Av-mode and use M-mode for the actual shooting --> focusing with live view & DOF-button pressed down in Av, switch to M to take the actual photo. Sounds very cumbersome, but in tripod it goes pretty easily. I anyway shoot almost always in M-mode. It would be easier to use C/Y lens (ZF is not usable - it focuses to wrong direction) since it has aperture ring and you could focus easily by twisting it to f/2.8 and then twist it to shooting aperture, also making it possible to use M-mode much easier.
All of this also depends what you shoot and how you use your images. If you print constantly A3 or watch images in 2560x1600 screen like I do, you will notice that even something being in DOF according to calculators it does not appear that way in real life, maybe in 15cmx10cm (6"x4") prints watched few meters away :-) I have set my expectations pretty high and for me to DOF never compensates bad focusing - therefore I may do things more complicate than other photographers - please keep this in mind when reading my posts, I'm sure there are a lot of people who are perfectly happy with their Z* 85 and they don't even know what is focus shift.
I'm not sure does 50L have electronical focusing like 85L - if it does then it's impossible to use since electronical focusing is turned off when you press the DOF button. That would make the lens impossible to use except when wide open.
No, Joe, I rather think that it works this way: the longer the focal length, the thinner the DOF. On a wide angle like the 21, I hardly ever focus, because so much DOF is available. With the 85, OTOH, it is "nail it or trash it"...
There is another reason IMHO: with a wide angle, I tend to shoot large vistas, whereas with the 85 I do many more shots where details are very visible, like portraits. That means it is much easier to detect OOF on a 85-shot portrait than on a 21-shot landscape.
This is one reason while I am holding off on the 100 ZE Macro...
But then, when I do get it right, the 85 is such a fine, fine lens...
Beides, how many of you have no OOF shots with AF? My OOF count include not only mis-focused shots, but also those where I am not happy with the focus (wrong place)...
philber wrote:
Beides, how many of you have no OOF shots with AF? My OOF count include not only mis-focused shots, but also those where I am not happy with the focus (wrong place)..
With AF it was always lucky to get exactly correct focus. I think I would get about same number of OOF shots what Philippe mentions if I would use viewfinder. For some reason I have hard time focusing with viewfinder and my eye gets tired easily when trying to manual focus accurately all the time (something to do with Canon viewfinder/S-screen - I have tried with my old Pentax from 1970's and I have absolutly no problem except I don't have any film for it...).
About a month ago I did get my LCDVF and for me this makes huge difference, now I'm again really enjoying handheld shooting (first time in years). Compared to earlier results I get OOF only due to subject moving out from focus distance or myself moving, so my OOF percentage with LCDVF is extreme low. From tripod & live view the OOF percentage is naturally close to zero, excepth some focus shift cases agains, which I have not acted properly (e.g. shooting bright object at f/1.4 but 5DmkII uses aperture f/4 on live due to subject being too bright - I have not confirmed this by systematical tests but indicated by focus shift direction on pictures when watching at computer etc.).
, hahahah.....
Honestly though, thats like the best picture I've seen of your 100m yet!
