jfreak wrote:
One question out of curiosity, Do you talented guys - denoir, Makten, Adamdewilde and others I can not remember right now who have posted some amazing pics on this thread, sell your pictures on microstock websites? Just curiosity sake?
I'm flattered by being mentioned in this context, but no, I don't earn a nickel from my photography. It's only a hobby, albeit a very serious one. I can't really see who would want to pay for the kind of photos I take.
Makten wrote:
I'm flattered by being mentioned in this context, but no, I don't earn a nickel from my photography. It's only a hobby, albeit a very serious one. I can't really see who would want to pay for the kind of photos I take.
Seriously
I think the shots you guys show here are professional shots.
jfreak wrote: Makten wrote:
Wow, you can't mean that? You need to visit the Landscape and Nature forums more. Sure, there are some pro quality images in this thread, but many people are just taking pictures of whatever is in front of them to demonstrate the lenses.
I'm with Jeffrey here. The majority of shots in this thread has a very good image quality; "professional" to say the least. But very few of them have anything important to tell, mine included.
I just read a couple of pages back from here, and the only pic I'd think someone would pay for is from Jeffrey himself:
Interestingly enough, this image wasn't commented by anyone exempt for a "wow" from AhamB. I should have commented, but I didn't.
Thanks for the kind words, people. Regarding the 28, it is clearly a good lens, though it has just a tad more CA than I'd like, and more than the 21 or the 35, but it is possibly the one I have found the hardest to come to terms with of the 9 Zeiss lenses I have owned. It is not as easy as the 21, where the huge DOF makes every shot interesting. It is not as crisp as the 35, where sharpness is all over every shot. The 28 is not going to help you make the picture interesting, or arresting or spectacular. I suspect it may be, for this very reason, spectacularly neutral (!). But easy, it ain't, at least not for me. And, now that he pushed me to get one, I know that Samuli Vahonen feels more or less the same about his. Your thoughts/comments would be welcome.
Philber, you might have to reverse your thinking: What other 28 mm lens would be better? I see the Zeiss look in every one of your recent shots, and it looks very good. Sure, some aberrations visible, but it doesn't matter much.
----------------------
A 35/2 shot from today, wide open. Nothing spectacular, but the pop makes it work even though it's "nothing" when it comes to content.
I think I'll have to start using the Distagon more at f/2!
philber wrote:
Thanks for the kind words, people. Regarding the 28, it is clearly a good lens, though it has just a tad more CA than I'd like, and more than the 21 or the 35, but it is possibly the one I have found the hardest to come to terms with of the 9 Zeiss lenses I have owned. It is not as easy as the 21, where the huge DOF makes every shot interesting. It is not as crisp as the 35, where sharpness is all over every shot. The 28 is not going to help you make the picture interesting, or arresting or spectacular. I suspect it may be, for this very reason, spectacularly neutral (!). But easy, it ain't, at least not for me. And, now that he pushed me to get one, I know that Samuli Vahonen feels more or less the same about his. Your thoughts/comments would be welcome....Show more →
Liked your shots, the 1st was best.
How I see it 28ZE's "special characteristics" is on medium distance large aperture shots providing subject to background separation, what is not used to be seen from wide angles + Zeiss kind of bokeh (less contrast on bokeh than in focus) + excellent microcontrast on focus plane. But you have to find composition in which the larger DOF and uglier bokeh in corners won't ruin the whole image.
I really would like to shoot like this (shot below) but the corners ruin almost all this kind of images, and this was shot at f/3.2 which improves bokeh significantly (sorry about re-post of same image) - the f/11 version is a little boring, having the main subject (trees in front) having as big contrast in bokeh:
Claude, ZE 21/2.8 and the 100MP, are exceptional lenses, second to none.
I know when you first start looking for lenses, there is array of pictures taken with a variety of lenses, and it is hard to draw any initial conclusions. Once you have tried one of the golden bunch, 21, 100MP, 35 or 50MP, for the style of photo you prefer to shoot, you are hooked. Well at least I am
Philippe, excellent shots! Enjoying the ZE 28/2 shots of yours. It is interesting how well it renders wide open also. I am finding for landscapes, that colours are somewhat flatter, than the 21 or 35.
Makten, nice shot and feel.
Yes, Jeffrey is right. Some amazing images by talented people, have been presented here, but the focus and accent is a stong technical one, albeit a very important one, rather than the landscape, nature or people forums where the type of equipment and gear is not a consideration, just the artistic quality of the photographs.
charles.K wrote:
Yes, Jeffrey is right. Some amazing images by talented people, have been presented here, but the focus and accent is a stong technical one, albeit a very important one, rather than the landscape, nature or people forums where the type of equipment and gear is not a consideration, just the artistic quality of the photographs.
Charles, don't believe anything this guy is telling you.
Landscape forum used to be good, but recently there's been so much cr@p there
and all the comments are always the same - "amazing", "wonderful" etc.
I think there is much more valuable pictures here in this thread
than any other place. Sorry, but landscape forum is nowhere near
what it used to be. Almost all the really good guys are gone.
Don't give up, please keep posting those great Zeiss shots guys
charles.K wrote:
Claude, ZE 21/2.8 and the 100MP, are exceptional lenses, second to none.
I now know what you mean.
I have now look at more than a few dozens photos, and clearly I am ordering something in the coming weeks. Most likely the ZE 21 that will go with my 5D to replace my EF-S 10-22 on my 7D.
But are all those great lens all MF including the 100MP?
Claude Cormier wrote:
But are all those great lens all MF including the 100MP?
Yes, manual focus, but ZE has automatic aperture. If you want Zeiss with autofocus, you get Contax N lenses and have them converted to EF-mount by Conurus. Check out the Contax N thread if you want to spend more money.
Claude, with a Zeiss 21, you get so much depth-of-field that you hardly ever have to focus, unless you are (1) inside a dark building, or (2) shooting close up. When I am outside, I set the lens at f:5.6, and everything is in-focus from about 8' to infinity. It is like having a FF, 22MP point-and-shoot...
Oh so thats philber's secret, now all we need to do is fly to France and he'll be redundant
Come on philber, your landscape photos are way to nice to be point and shoot shots!
Very nice Philber, but I really wonder why you are using f/2 for those indoor shots. I mean, you could easily crank it up to ISO 800-1600 and stop down a bit instead. The increased noise will probably affect the image much less than the softness at f/2.
I see the Zeiss look in every one of your recent shots, and it looks very good. Sure, some aberrations visible, but it doesn't matter much.
