Thank you guys for all the responses! Lots of wonderful images/examples. I can't decide between the 50's and it might happen I will end up buying both eventually - for different reasons (I think is what Zeiss hoped everybody will do ).
Makten - Jättebra! Love the pics you posted here and on your blog!
Lovely shots Charles - especially the 50 MP ones. The 35/2 shot is nice as well, but you had less than ideal light conditions there.
Makten, as always you show that you know how to handle the 50 Planar well
Johnahill - nice shots! It's interesting to see the architectural shots - the 50/1.4 doesn't have the raw sharpness of the 50 MP but it does compensate for it with an elegant DOF falloff.
Since we're discussing the 50 MP, here are some shots taken with that lens. The first two were actually shot with my 7D, which is fairly unusual - I typically prefer to use my 5DII with Zeiss glass.
The three first images were at or near MFD while the last one was from a bit further away. Like the 100 MP, the 50 MP changes rendering style significantly depending on the distance to subject.
Well Philippe, I won't insist on the claim as I don't have the Planar and I only have sample images to go on - and there are a lot of uncontrolled variables there (shooting style, resizing etc). So these are only my impressions. You should be in a better position to judge it - the 50 MP has a very similar style (stopped down) to the 100 MP. Of the lenses that I own, I'd say that the 100 & 50 MP have the best resolution, and the 21 Distagon the best micro contrast. My 35/2 falls behind in both respects. It's still obviously very sharp, but the sharpness is never as expressive as it is with the others.
My impressions from 50 Planar samples is that it's rich in micro contrast but weaker in resolution (my definition of sharpness is resolution + micro contrast), but again, that's just my impression. Supporting that are the impression are the opinions of Adam & Wayne who own both the Planar and the MP. Samuli has both as well, but I'm not sure what his current opinion is now that he has had the MP for a while.
Jeffrey wrote:
Plenty of chatter about sharpness in various 50's, but it's always discussed at wide open or below 5.6. I never shoot portraits and nearly always stay in the f8 range and above. The differences get a lot smaller there.
Yes, the differences are definitely smaller, but still they are there. Here is a shot from my balcony (my standard lens test scene) shot with the Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Zeiss 50 MP - both at f/8. Usual procedure (tripod, live view focus, shutter release, timer, same settings etc).
Luka, I could agree with your definiton, very lightly rephrased. The f:1.4 shots tend to emphasize contrast ahead of sharpness, and the MP's sharpness ahead of contrast. Which doesn't mean that the f:1.4 isn't actually quite sharp indeed, and the MP quite contrasty indeed. The fact that they are both current in the Zeiss line shows that Zeiss themselves feel that there is room/need for both. The same as for the 85 and the 100. Just my $0.02.
Peace?
Another set of classic "Architectural Landscape" images - unbelievable detail in the design and craftsmanship. I just have to be curious if the trades of those projects had to adhere to a budget of sorts - countless human hours to complete such a monumental task. Thanks!
Mark
philber wrote:
Luka, I could agree with your definiton, very lightly rephrased. The f:1.4 shots tend to emphasize contrast ahead of sharpness, and the MP's sharpness ahead of contrast. Which doesn't mean that the f:1.4 isn't actually quite sharp indeed, and the MP quite contrasty indeed. The fact that they are both current in the Zeiss line shows that Zeiss themselves feel that there is room/need for both. The same as for the 85 and the 100. Just my $0.02.
Yes, I agree - we're talking in relative terms here - one Zeiss vs another Zeiss. The whole Zeiss Z* line has a lot in common for all lenses. Compared to Canons, Nikons and whatnot they are all very sharp and render images with high micro contrast.
Peace?
Was there ever anything but peace?
I just have to be curious if the trades of those projects had to adhere to a budget of sorts - countless human hours to complete such a monumental task. Thanks!
Mark
I think that is covered by the Mel Brooks quote - "It's good to be the king". Many of the grand buildings in Paris were royal prestige projects and then pesky little things such as 'budgets' don't really apply.
denoir wrote:
I think that is covered by the Mel Brooks quote - "It's good to be the king". Many of the grand buildings in Paris were royal prestige projects and then pesky little things such as 'budgets' don't really apply.
While it is definitely good to be the King, budgets, unfortunately, do apply to them as well. There are several instances when Kings have gone broke from profligate spending. Henry VIII is one prominent example. The "Dissolution of the Monasteries" was undertaken, in part, to address Henry's budget woes. The Church had lots of wealth, and he needed it.
Well, this project, the Opéra, built by architect Charles Garnier, was not a royal project, it was an imperial one! Towards the top of the building you can see the interspersed letters N, for Napoleon III, and E for Eugénie, his wife.
The 21/2.8 is probably my favorite lens but the 100 MP, which is a close second is the one I find really intriguing. The 21 can do some funky closeups with expressive, almost impressionist bokeh but beyond that it's pretty uniform - regardless of distance or aperture. The 100 MP on the other hand shows a large variety in rendering style depending on the distance to the subject & background and aperture. When you think you have it figured out, it suddenly surprises you. It's really a lens worth getting to know well.
To illustrate what I mean, consider these shots - they were all shot at f/2:
First, what I would consider a textbook 100 MP closeup/macro. Ultra sharp in the focal plane with smooth OOF blur:
Moving away a bit to close portrait distance we get also a fairly Zeiss typical style - the parts in focus melt away out of focus:
Moving away a bit more we get a more conventional rendering. The in focus area is still very sharp but the medium distance OOF region is becoming problematic. Plenty of LoCA in the left lower corner. In this case it isn't very distracting - had there been overexposed highlights it would have been bad:
Moving away a bit further we get a strong foreground/background separation but little 3D to speak of (yes botanists are weird people ):
Then after moving back a bit more suddenly we get something completely different. This is 35/2 style rendering - 3D pouring out of every pixel so to say:
These were all shot with the same lens and aperture and yet one gets all these types of looks. The next step is start exploring the different apertures - the lens radically changes behavior when stopped down and gives you a set of completely different rendering styles to work with.
Makten, nice shots. I do like the way you compose shots from nowhere.
Excellent blog. I do like the English version.
Denoir, Nice portrait shots of your family, even the crazy botanists strolling through the field
I know the 100MP makes an excellent portrait lens, used correctly, albeit too sharp at times, even at f2, but I do really like the 35/2 at f/2, even though it does vignettes. I really the last two shots.
). 
