Bush walks or swims in ocean, have their perils. As you know some of the deadliest spiders and snakes, including sea life have taken residence here. Unfortunately the actions shots, we need to have fast AF, and since we are in less action prone forum, I have not presented these shots yet Maybe practice.... with MF.
Hmm, yes... I think you have been holding out on us when it comes to Australian images. I mean, having seen two Yahoo Serious movies and all of the Crocodile Dundee movies, I consider myself to be an expert in Australian wild life and culture. So I feel pretty sure when I ask you: Where are the shots of koalas eating crocodiles and kangaroos and stuff like that?
Charles spends too much time hanging out with the Wiggles
I don't own a Zeiss lens, merely a few Canons for my 5Ds. But I'm considering the 35 F2, and soon: I leave on a month-long trip to the Southwest on Sept 30. My wide lens now is the 17-40—but after examining results from a head-to-head with my 24-105 I was surprised how the longer zoom seemed sharper at 35mm…and I'm willing to bet the Zeiss would smoke 'em both. Any takers? I've enjoyed the examples posted here and pretty much know the answer now, but go ahead and tell me how amazed I'm going to be when I see the difference.
In baseball terms, I think this is called grooving the pitch.
My subjects will be predominantly landscapes, dog portraits, a few unlucky people, and odds and ends, with stitched pans in there somewhere.
Wonderful thread you have here, I'll keep looking...
charles.K wrote:
Bush walks or swims in ocean, have their perils. As you know some of the deadliest spiders and snakes, including sea life have taken residence here. Unfortunately the actions shots, we need to have fast AF, and since we are in less action prone forum, I have not presented these shots yet Maybe practice.... with MF.
Yep, why I don't visit Australia, I have a knack for getting into awkward confrontations with creatures. The blue ringed octopus is probably the main reason why I don't ever wanna go into Australian waters.
charles.K wrote:
Nice shots Bob! Interesting sequence Any story behind it?
Thanks Charles. No story really. Just playing with the 21mm to get to know it better. It's funny, because I recently got a Canon 35mm f/1.4L as well. It's no slouch at all, but I find myself picking up that Zeiss constantly. If Zeiss does come out with a 35 f/1.4, I might be selling the canon. Right now, you guys with the 50/100 MPs are killing me. It very well be one of my next purchases.
Ha, Robert, getting the disease, are you? FYI, there are quite a few guys here who traded their 35L for the existing 35 f:2.0, and aren't looking back either...
philber wrote:
Ha, Robert, getting the disease, are you? FYI, there are quite a few guys here who traded their 35L for the existing 35 f:2.0, and aren't looking back either...
I can see why . . . but that damn 100MP may be first on my list.
Zeiss should give every poster on this thread a discount on their next lens purchase, because these images are certainly great advertisement for their product. I bought my 35mm f2.0 ZE on the strength of images from this thread and just had my first vacation with it as my only lens on my 5DmkII. I couldn't be happier.
Tuscany, Italy (Firenze, Carrara, Garfagnana valley, Lucca)
Quite a few others on my Flickr site if you are really a glutton for punishment.
Unfortunately the actions shots, we need to have fast AF, and since we are in less action prone forum, I have not presented these shots yet 
I don't own a Zeiss lens, merely a few Canons for my 5Ds. But I'm considering the 35 F2, and soon: I leave on a month-long trip to the Southwest on Sept 30. My wide lens now is the 17-40—but after examining results from a head-to-head with my 24-105 I was surprised how the longer zoom seemed sharper at 35mm…and I'm willing to bet the Zeiss would smoke 'em both. Any takers? I've enjoyed the examples posted here and pretty much know the answer now, but go ahead and tell me how amazed I'm going to be when I see the difference.
