Amazing shots Philippe!!! These are showing the hallmarks of how good the ZE 21/2.8 can be My favourite is #1 of the last set.
Makten, love your shots. The last showing how the 50/1.4 can render, is excellent
Nice shots John, ucphotog
Lizzie, I must agree to disagree. Having a calibrated focusing screen when using MF such as the ZE range for me, I would think is a necessity. I use the focusing screen when using the 50L and 85L, quite often to correct the focus point after AF confirmation when the lens is wide open. I do understand if you are using live view, but having both does make it a lot easier.
John: Love that first shot of the cemetary. Really nice transition to blur.
Makten: Not exactly my cup of tea, but very nice nevertheless. Great colors in the first shot and I really like the composition of the third.
Philippe: You are going to force me to move to Paris. Excellent hunting grounds for the 21 and you definitely know how to use it.
I'm afraid I havnen't had any time to shoot anything interesting today, but I can provide three gigapan shots of a technical nature.
The fist two are shot right after each other. One with the 100 MP and the other with a Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II @ 200mm.
This is the scene:
The Zeiss is a 500 Megapixel panorama made of 44 images while the Canon is 2 Gigapixel made up of 162 images. Lens correction was applied in lightroom and the panoramas were created in Autopano Giga. They were then resized to a reasonable size (~100 Megapixel) and I aligned and cropped them in Photoshop. After that they were just resized using the same script. No other modification were made. A passing car ruined a portion of the Canon shot, so ignore that part. The differnt focal lenghts meant different DOF, so ignore that part as well.
Note that the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II is considered to be one of Canon's best lenses..ugh. I find it really difficult to after using Zeiss glass to use my Canon glass.
Anyway here is the second shot, taken some hours later:
So what's special about it? That's a small panorama (25 images) shot at ISO 6400. I could have easily gone up to ISO 12800 and reduced it to a standard 20 Megapixel image with a minimum of noise. That's an interesting feature that could be used to get some really low light high quality images... If only the blasted thing (the gigapan) wasn't so bulky and heavy it could have been a really useful tool.
Many thanks for your kind words, Lizzie, diploneis, krosavcheg, Wayne, Charles, Makten, Luka (Denoir) and anyone I may have inadvertently forgotten. As I was uploading these, from my point of view one of my better sets, I was thinking how much all of you have inspired and helped me along. Of course, the same applies to other brilliant photographers here who happen not to have commented, among others: Ulrik, Anden, Ryan (rsolti), Andrew (Snowboarder), Rick (Perry), Adam (dewilde), Boris, Thrice, Paul Yi, Jeffrey, Twok, and, of course, Samuli Vahonen
I was sleeping Philber, but your images are worth waking up for!
If I ever find myself in France, you'll be getting a PM about a photo excursion.
LizzieShepherd - I think you've missed focus on those shots, and the 50 1.4 isn't to great close up anyway.
You'll need to just buy the focusing screen. It's easy to take out and put back the other screen, so if you find you hate it, you can always switch back. Oh and there's not really a noticeable darkening, if you're using 2.8 lenses and faster.
Philber, that would have been a great idea however Im short on time in Paris and have to move onto London to catch my flight back to NZ. Perhaps next time!
I've been absent a few days....getting my spending together Bought myself an M8 set with a couple ZM lenses. Next week
Philber, great set from les Invalides. The ZE 21 has to be the best lens possible for indoor shooting like that. Some may argue the T/S lenses but the 3D from the ZE line is obviously missing. You also made very good use of the 28. I tried the ZF 28 and just couldn't make it work for me....definitely more demanding. Too many things to look out for such as bad corners on planar objects and the CA. Obviously at f/10-f/14 those *issues* are no worry though. The near perfectness of the 35 made that my favorite.
Luka, I really like those panos. The first one was a great shot but there seemed to be many 'blotches' in the sky. Is that pp cleanup or from the sticthing? In regards to the Canon vs. ZE shootout.....are you sure the 70-200 is working correctly? That is a horrible showing. I understand it is vs the ZE 100...but still. I have a very hard time believing that my 70-200 VRII would perform that bad. Nevertheless, the ZE 100 pano looks excellent. What does it take for you to complete, just a few minutes?
rsolti13 wrote:
Luka, I really like those panos. The first one was a great shot but there seemed to be many 'blotches' in the sky. Is that pp cleanup or from the sticthing? In regards to the Canon vs. ZE shootout.....are you sure the 70-200 is working correctly? That is a horrible showing. I understand it is vs the ZE 100...but still. I have a very hard time believing that my 70-200 VRII would perform that bad. Nevertheless, the ZE 100 pano looks excellent.
Thanks Ryan. The origin of the blotches is vignetting which I did not correct for adequately.
As for the 70-200, I would guess that it's an unfortunate combination of light and the too shallow but not shallow enough DOF that is the problem. Otherwise it's an excellent lens. No Zeiss so it's lacking the nice colors and micro contrast goes, but it's exceptionally sharp and overall one of the better Canon lenses...
From a safari in South Africa earlier this year:
Sorry for the OT. I promise I won't do it again..um..today
What does it take for you to complete, just a few minutes?
The Zeiss shot took about 15 minutes while the Canon shot took about an hour as I used long exposures in both cases. The earlier panos were shot when there was more light and I used the standard value of 2 seconds per shot.
Nice shots Philippe, but I do like the ZE 21 a lot more The rendering with the ZE 28/2 is more classical, and more subtle. Mind you the shot of the tank is perfect, as all the tones are captured.
Luka, interesting comparison between the 100MP and the 70-200. Yes the DOF would have been an issue, and a looks like different WB too. Although, the 70-200 is an excellent lens, I think the 100MP is an extraordinary lens. If comparing similar lenses, 135L or the Canon 100L macro maybe a fairer test
Thanks Charles! The white balance was set to the same values but as the 70-200 pano took about an hour to shoot, the light conditions changed. Furthermore there are blotches from the vignetting of individual shots - despite the fact that I applied Adobe's supplied lens correction settings.
Anyway, it was not intended as a comparison between the lenses. I was mostly interested to see how much DOF benefit I would get of 200mm @ f/2.8 compared to 100mm @ f/2. Furthermore the Canon shot could have been improved a lot with a little PP.
Regarding the 100L vs 100 MP, I did a proper albeit small test a while ago:
----------------
Tripod, liveview, manual focus, shutter release, timer, developed and resized with the same settings etc...
Come to think of it, that was the last time I used the 100L.. not much chance really of it getting much use when it has the 100 MP to compete with. It's actually a pretty good lens but it ain't no 100 MP...
Charles, diploneis, Ryan, thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated.
Luka, great safari shots! And with a (relatively) short lens, too...
Ryan, I am coming to terms with the 28, finally, to the point that it now has its niche in my shooting profile, as an alternative to the 21. Yes, it is not an easy lens to use, just as the 85 f:1.4 isn't, whereas their 21 and 100MP brethren are no-brainer easy. But that is not without its rewards.
To sum it up, when you want a "neutral" shot, without the "drama" of Distagon 21 shots, when you are doing a wide-angle close-up, or inside a building, the 28 is actually quite good. Still learning, though
Here is my first pix post in FM.
The image somehow looks washed out as jpeg on monitor vs jpeg on PS.
If someone could give me an advice how to transfer same color from adobe rgb to web rgb, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks!!
My favourite is #1 of the last set.
