Makten wrote:
Some 35/2 Distagon shots...
Lovely 3D on the first two. SKumar25 wrote:
Some more snapshots with the 50 ZE MP:
Really liked 2nd and 4th. johnahill wrote:
Here's some from the 50/1.4
The subtle colors gave very calm look to your images. philber wrote:
A couple of shots with ZE 85 of a very rare 1937 Georges Irat, one of only 3 still running Nice rendering on 2nd shot - aah wait a minute you have switched back to 85 planar, that is "just" normal rendering oldmiller wrote:
ZF85, f/2.8, D3: Nice B&W work. Ronnie.Frown wrote:
This is my very first post in this Board. Here are some images taken with 35/2 and 50/2: Welcome Ronnie! Liked very much both of the B&W car pictures. And some personal memories; my father used to have this kind of car until he wrecked it at 1979.
oldmiller wrote:
Adam, you will only experience focus shift, when you change the aperture after you have already focussed.
From f/2.8 on (stopping down I mean) I never found focus shift a problem. That meets what Lloyd Chambers says, that focus shift should usually be covered in depth of field shooting at f/2.8.
Any picture I take with apertures opened higher than f/2.8 I always focus at the actual aperture.
Actually what Lloyd wrote is that at f/2.8 there is no longer focus shift compared to smaller apertures. E.g. you focus with f/2.8 and shoot at f/5.6 you have your focus correct. Even at f/8 and A2 print size (in imperial world 16.5" x 23.4") you can see where center of focus has been. So closing down to f/5.6-8 can mitigate focus shift only works at small print sizes and small/medium size digital images. When shooting at f/5.6-8 you definitely get your "target" inside DOF if your criteria is based on CoC = 0.3mm commonly used in many places. Based on this definition we would also need only ~1Mpix cameras...
Correct method to mitigate focus shift instructed by Lloyd and many other sources is (assuming lens doesn't have anymore focus shift at f/2.8):
- focus with actual shooting aperture when between f/1.4-2.8
- focus with f/2.8 when shooting with smaller aperture than f/2.8
Both Z* Planars have worse focus shift when focused close, e.g. at infinity (in practice over 20-30 meters) neither doesn't have focus shift.
denoir wrote:
Here are some attempts to simulate medium/large format by stitching.. I realized that I'm not very good at it as very large parts of the footage were so uneven that it had to be cut away. So I've ordered a robotic pano head now (Gigapan Epic Pro)...
Luka, liked your "attempts" to simulate medium/large format look, this is great technique. When you get the Gigapan Epic Pro please tell us how you like it. Like Makten I find the catseye effect bothering on 2nd photo. When I imitate large format look I try to find subject, which can be shoot from 3-8 meters and then using 100ZE at f/5.6 I get best results - the DOF is so much like large format wide/normal lens. If I would shoot for web then I would shoot at f/3.2 to minimize DOF (f/5.6 gives lame look at websize, great effect on large print) and get rid off optical issues (no cats eye and neither any other problems in bokeh anymore - even at f/2 the sharpness is very homogenous over the whole frame, usually it's the bokeh which is problem with ZE100 and shallow DOF pano). In addition to 100ZE I have only found Canon's 300/2.8L IS as good, it gives usable panos at f/4, however weight and other factors cause some problems using it with panoheads (Nodal Ninja 5 can barely take it, RRS might be better for 300/2.8).
denoir wrote:
Here is a 1.2 Gigapixel shot (50 images). It's nothing special in terms of being an interesting photograph - just my standard test scene shot from my balcony. I think however I got a fair simulation of an LF camera look at least as far as the DOF goes:
Even at f/2 the DOF at websize isn't that narrow, longer lens 200-300mm would be better for this kind of large distance shooting. These are hard images to present in web considering limitations (forum recommendations and small displays people are using).
BTW. Are you sure about your mathematics (or am I the one who can't calculate)? 1.2Gpix is in square format 34500 by 34500. If you managed to do this with only 50 images I'm really jealous for your ability to shoot such small overlap.
Actually checked with calculator and 50 x 21Mpix is only 1.050GPix, so it can't be 1.2Gpix unless it's scaled to larger size.
denoir wrote:
Too bad there is no current Zeiss 200/2... Exactly! (thou I would be happy with anything having 100ZE rendering and focal length from 180mm to 300mm, max aperture from f/2 to f/4 - even f/5.6 would be OK for me as long as the lens barrel would be big enough e.g. not cats-eye.)
johnahill wrote:
St Clement Danes Church, London. Pretty damn good framing considering you shoot handheld (high ISO) and with optical viewfinder (5D).
-------------------------
From 2009 - Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF @ f/2-2.8 (used adapter which recorded just fixed aperture), 1/50s, ISO 100:
joakim wrote:
bigkidneys:
Maximum filesize is 350 Kb (and 800 x 800 pixels I think) so you have to size your image to 800 on the widest side and the lower jpeg quality until file size is less than 350 kb
It can be a bit wider (or taller): 900x600 works too. Just watch the JPG compression ratio/quality setting.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Luka, liked your "attempts" to simulate medium/large format look, this is great technique. When you get the Gigapan Epic Pro please tell us how you like it. Like Makten I find the catseye effect bothering on 2nd photo. When I imitate large format look I try to find subject, which can be shoot from 3-8 meters and then using 100ZE at f/5.6 I get best results - the DOF is so much like large format wide/normal lens. If I would shoot for web then I would shoot at f/3.2 to minimize DOF (f/5.6 gives lame look at websize, great effect on large print) and get rid off optical issues (no cats eye and neither any other problems in bokeh anymore - even at f/2 the sharpness is very homogenous over the whole frame, usually it's the bokeh which is problem with ZE100 and shallow DOF pano). In addition to 100ZE I have only found Canon's 300/2.8L IS as good, it gives usable panos at f/4, however weight and other factors cause some problems using it with panoheads (Nodal Ninja 5 can barely take it, RRS might be better for 300/2.8). ...Show more →
The longest lens I have is a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS MkII. With a 1.4x teleconverter it becomes an f/4 and I'll be sure to test it with the Gigapan.. but while it's a nice lens, it's no Zeiss. The image quality is OK with the converter on the 5DII but if I mount it on my 7D (448 mm in 35mm equivalent) the image quality suffers beyond what I find acceptable.
I'm looking forward to the Gigapan, but I'm a bit worried about its size. It doesn't look like something you'd bring along when backpacking. I don't care too much about massive zoomable panoramas - my primary use will be to simulate larger format camera images. I'm also a bit curious about 360 degree panoramas in combination with stereographic projections:
(Photo by Alexandre Duret-Lutz, CC license, taken from wikipedia)
Even at f/2 the DOF at websize isn't that narrow, longer lens 200-300mm would be better for this kind of large distance shooting. These are hard images to present in web considering limitations (forum recommendations and small displays people are using).
Yep. I think that a 400/2.8 or 600/4 would be nice for landscape photography, but they are simply too heavy and bulky to be practical. I would love to have subject isolation at a great distance (100+ meters), but then we are really talking about 600+ mm.
You are quite right about image size. A large portion of the effect is lost when showing it web sized..
BTW. Are you sure about your mathematics (or am I the one who can't calculate)? 1.2Gpix is in square format 34500 by 34500. If you managed to do this with only 50 images I'm really jealous for your ability to shoot such small overlap.
Actually checked with calculator and 50 x 21Mpix is only 1.050GPix, so it can't be 1.2Gpix unless it's scaled to larger size.
The problem is not in your math, but that you are overestimating my ability That image was a crop from a 1.2 Gpix image. As you point out, 50 images are less than 1.2 Gigapixel.. so what's the explanation? This is the full uncropped image, just resized:
As you can see, a lot of those 1.2 Giga pixels are just black where I failed to capture a shot that would cover it. In my defense, this was shot handheld.. but generally speaking, I really suck at panoramas. Hence my purchase of an automated system..
Exactly! (thou I would be happy with anything having 100ZE rendering and focal length from 180mm to 300mm, max aperture from f/2 to f/4 - even f/5.6 would be OK for me as long as the lens barrel would be big enough e.g. not cats-eye.)
There is of course the Contax Zeiss 200/2 Aposonnar.. or the 300/2.8 APO Tele Tessar.. but both are very heavy, rare and expensive.. The Contax Zeiss 300/4 is relatively cheap but from what I understand not very good...
Nice macro shot by the way - I like how the green hues melt together..
love your large format attempts tough in this one i donīt see the isolation of the tree from the background( what you want to get i guess)
this one is simply gorgeous and wallhanger:
i prefer this one to the hundreds of "perfect lanscapes" in these forum (with all due respect)
what i see in this image is something that simply do not exist in the "canon ef" images
congrats Denoir
philber wrote:
This one, with 85 f:1.4, in homage to Makten
Oh dear, getting homaged to isn't an everyday experience! I bow with humility.
And, great shot there Philber! I'd probably crop it more, but that's a matter of taste.
-----------------------
Since the film thread seems a bit dead, here's a film shot for you all. ZM 35/2.8 @ f/2.8 and 1/8 second. Tmax 100 developed in D-76 1+1 by the way.
bluetsunami, philber, desinteresadam, denoir, charles.K, adamdewilde, cgiff, johnahill, Samuli Vahonen - thank you for alle the nice comments.
denoir, the isolation-potential of the 100/2 is really impressive. Your latest shots look totally threedimensional. Even over such a long distance the background is still blurry.
The funny thing about the BMW-picture is that this was actually one of my very first shots with my first Zeiss, the 35/2. And after dozens more I still like this one most.
Thanks, desinteresadam. Here's one more on the nautical theme:
bigkidneys: Nice shots, but I think they would benefit greatly from some sharpening - especially the last one. Zeiss glass is capable of really extracting fine detail from a scene but it gets destroyed if you use a standard bi-cubic resize.
denoir wrote:
The longest lens I have is a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS MkII. With a 1.4x teleconverter it becomes an f/4 and I'll be sure to test it with the Gigapan.. but while it's a nice lens, it's no Zeiss. The image quality is OK with the converter on the 5DII but if I mount it on my 7D (448 mm in 35mm equivalent) the image quality suffers beyond what I find acceptable.
Yep, 70-200 is not Zeiss, neither is 300/2.8LIS - Even I liked 300/2.8 quite a lot (also optically) I sold it (as well as other L-lenses) since it just doesn't have the look/characteristics what I prefer in the images.
denoir wrote:
Yep. I think that a 400/2.8 or 600/4 would be nice for landscape photography, but they are simply too heavy and bulky to be practical. I would love to have subject isolation at a great distance (100+ meters), but then we are really talking about 600+ mm.
Even 300/2.8 is too heavy for long hikes. However one rarely needs THAT much isolation, 300mm f/5.6 has less DOF than 100mm f/2.... For example at 15m distance 100mm @ f/2 DOF starts from 13.769m and ends to 16.473m (using generic very loose CoC of 0.3mm), while 300mm @ f/5.6 DOF starts from 14.599m and ends to 15.423m. If you shoot panorama with 300mm @ f/5.6 vs. 100mm @ f/2 the DOF looks much "tighter" in 300mm photo.
denoir wrote:
The problem is not in your math, but that you are overestimating my ability ... As you can see, a lot of those 1.2 Giga pixels are just black .....t. In my defense, this was shot handheld.. but generally speaking, I really suck at panoramas. Hence my purchase of an automated system..
OK I see... panorama head will make huge difference. Even with 100mm lens you will get parallax when shooting close objects without panorama head. Can't wait to see what you can do with panohead.
denoir wrote:
There is of course the Contax Zeiss 200/2 Aposonnar.. or the 300/2.8 APO Tele Tessar.. but both are very heavy, rare and expensive.. The Contax Zeiss 300/4 is relatively cheap but from what I understand not very good...
I have considered all of them, 2/200 has horrible bokeh (quality, not quantity), 2.8/300 is too heavy and 4/300 ain't that good. From current selection I think the most interesting lens is medium format supercromat 5.6/250; would be enough fast for me but the lack of T* coating I'm afraid caused non-Zeiss like look to images - of course price is little too much as well.
Waiting to see more of your shallow DOF/"large format" panos!
charles.K wrote:
Great shot Luka, love the evening warmth. I have noticed my favourites of yours are coming from the ZE 100MP.
Thanks Charles! My favorite lens is the 21/2.8. The 100 MP shares a second place with the 35/1.4 though.
I have not used the 35/2 for a while, so here are two shots taken yesterday:
To round things off, two 21/2.8 shots:
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
I have considered all of them, 2/200 has horrible bokeh (quality, not quantity), 2.8/300 is too heavy and 4/300 ain't that good. From current selection I think the most interesting lens is medium format supercromat 5.6/250; would be enough fast for me but the lack of T* coating I'm afraid caused non-Zeiss like look to images - of course price is little too much as well.
I wouldn't worry about the lack of T* coating. I have HFT coating on my 35/1.4 (Rollei version) and the rendering is definitely Zeiss. It's not as good at handling flares as modern T* but the colors and contrast are excellent.
Speaking of the 35/1.4 - it can produce wide open the kind of DOF I would like to get in a stitched panorama - but at a greater distance.. I'll illustrate it with three shots:
So basically if I could get that style at say a 50-100m distance, I'd be very happy.
Just don't think it's necessary to temp us any more with 35/1.4. Love the rendering of this lens. I am now waiting for the ZE version. My excuse for not spending any more for the moment
Since there have been some excellent HDR shots, I found this link to be excellent for another take on HDR technique:
Not the usual for this thread, but I thought I'd add anyway. Here's a 40 shot pano with the 35 ZF2 at Dubai Marina. It's stitched using trial software, but I think I'm going to cough up for the full version of PTGui, just to get rid of those watermarks!!!
some wonderful shots here. Unfortunately haven't been able to shoot as much lately...probably also going to sell my 50mmZE and 35-70/3.4 soon to finance some other stuff. Lets see. Keep posting guys and gals. This thread is an inspiration.
Well it finally arrived today. From the start i noticed the attention to detail (inspection card hand signed by Zeiss employee. Didnt get that with my 1600$ 70-200) The build quality of the lens itself is astounding. Manual focus is really hard at minimum focusing distance and f1.4 but its not frustrating. I feel motivated and compelled to take photos and learn the most I can. After 20 minutes my manual focusing has already improved.
No buyers remorse here folks. Quality glass and money well spent.
) and with optical viewfinder (5D).
