Samuli Vahonen wrote:
About 28mm; one thing to take into account is that your 28mm shots seem to be slightly overexposed, which results less saturated and flat (in terms of colors and contrast) images.
Samuli
Samuli, you are right (what else is new!), I am having trouble with overexposure with the 28, and now I apply exposure compensation more than with any other lens I have. So hopefully the problem will son be under control. Still, that is the second 28 I played with, the first one having so much CA that I sent it back. This one seems also a bit "off", yours has bad bokeh. Could it be that Zeiss are not producing it to the same quality standards than their other lenses? I know it doesn't sound likely, but who knows?
Nice shots Peire - I especially like the last one.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Denoir, waiting for your photos - I did wonder the weird colors on some of images you posted in past few weeks, but uncalibrated laptop and images without profile kind of explains most of the weird things I have been wondering.
Yes, the question is where to start. I don't want to repost the same images with color correction but I have similar ones. I suppose I could start with the lightning storm series as the colors were badly mangled there and I'll move along in a semi-chronological order.
21 Distagon:
This is what the sky looked like the evening before the storm. I managed to miss the high point of the sunset but you'll still get the idea: (100 MP)
One question: why select f:11? One comment: it seems to me that your image is ever so slightly tilted upwards to the right. Is that only an illusion?
Good question, I know the peak performance is around f5.6 but I wanted a little more motion blur on the river, so decided f11 should still be good. Yeah I think it's tilted a bit and I even had the spirit level on, ill correct it in ps
Luka, amazing shots of the lightning storm! I noted the shots before, and the colours are excellent in the above shots now. What a difference a well calibrated monitor can do
Great photos Luka, my favorite is the first photo. One question though, where does the light in the front, lower part of the frame, come from, is it also lightning? I find it a little distracting.
johnahill wrote:
I drove into London today with the possibility of nice sunset, well that didn't happen but I got this in the twilight about 20 minutes after sunset.
5D + ZE50/1.4
Good photograph John. Out of curiosity, do you use ISO 50 a lot? Any impact on image quality?
denoir wrote:
I was armed with a tripod this time and was hoping to get some HDR material.
Sorry to pick out this one phrase, but it shocked me to read this. Why would anyone hope to use HDR? That's like saying that I hope to get a flat tire because I want to use my repair kit! It's a technique used to save an image that can not be made within the dynamic range of the scene, in one exposure. It's a tool to help you work around unmanageable light. You only use it if your equipment is inadequate for the job. The best images are made with one exposure.
Jeffrey: The reason is quite simple - I had already scouted the place and knew the lighting situation. The only hope of capturing both the interior of the cathedral and the stained glass windows was by using HDR. A single exposure was an impossibility. Sorry for reposting the same image with messed up colors but I'm not at my computer right now:
As it turned out even getting adequate HDR material was difficult. I got lucky the first time with handheld bracketed exposures.
Martynas: The 50/1.4 Planar is great stopped down and near infinity while not very good up close, wide open. The 50/2 MP on the other hand is excellent at all apertures and distances. The 50/1.4 Planar is a very special lens and one that I would recommend only to people that really know what they are getting into.
Anyway, since I re-posted that HDR image, I might as well post images from the second series from the cathedral - where I had the tripod. The 21 + HDR are an interesting combination, but not quite my cup of tea really...
I do think however that gothic & baroque churches are fair game for HDR. They are typically decorated in such bad taste that a bit of HDR kitch fits the general style
Nice HDR pictures Luka! Well suited for subject matter
Martynas, I have both 50MP and 50 Planar. Unless you need the f/1.4 get the 50MP. It is an excellent lens. Sharp wide open, macro, and does everything. It is probably the best 50mm MF lens available.
For low lighting, you do have other choices. Thinking rationally and outside of this thread, there are excellent low light lenses if you feel the need to be shooting at f/1.2 - 1.6 range for portraits, or the insatiable need for narrow DOF. I still have the 50L, which is excellent at f/1.2 and AF if needed.
The size and weight of the 50/1.4 Planar is great, as it makes for a great carry around lens. Usually you would use it stopped down, but you have ability for f/1.4, when the light is low. Wide open is not as sharp as the canon 50L or sigma 50/1.4, but this may not be an issue.
denoir wrote:
Martynas: The 50/1.4 Planar is great stopped down and near infinity while not very good up close, wide open. The 50/2 MP on the other hand is excellent at all apertures and distances. The 50/1.4 Planar is a very special lens and one that I would recommend only to people that really know what they are getting into.
charles.K wrote:
Nice HDR pictures Luka! Well suited for subject matter
Martynas, I have both 50MP and 50 Planar. Unless you need the f/1.4 get the 50MP. It is an excellent lens. Sharp wide open, macro, and does everything. It is probably the best 50mm MF lens available.
For low lighting, you do have other choices. Thinking rationally and outside of this thread, there are excellent low light lenses if you feel the need to be shooting at f/1.2 - 1.6 range for portraits, or the insatiable need for narrow DOF. I still have the 50L, which is excellent at f/1.2 and AF if needed.
The size and weight of the 50/1.4 Planar is great, as it makes for a great carry around lens. Usually you would use it stopped down, but you have ability for f/1.4, when the light is low. Wide open is not as sharp as the canon 50L or sigma 50/1.4, but this may not be an issue.
Thank you Charles for such a detailed answer! I have EF 50 F1.4 and I am not too happy about it. It is soft wide open as well and built quality is lousy. And even I managed to get pretty decent shots out of it (I attached two at the end) I am looking for something sharper and with better built quality. So now do you think 50mm MP is sharper than 50L?
Excellent portraits! You obviously won't be limited your lens choice.
Definitely, the 50MP is sharper than the 50L, but this may not be the desired effect for portraits. I have used the 50MP for group portraits and horse shots, and I love it. For portraits, I am preferring the 50MP as I use it more. I am sure Adamwilde would agree.
The 50L is also, an excellent lens for portraits. I find even with AF, I now use the MF with Eg-S screen to make sure I have the target in focus.
And sometimes it is the rendering that comes with the zeiss, and again very personal, maybe is what you prefer, and the ZE 50/1.4 is great in that respect.
