Every d700 plus zeiss glass image i see makes me feel sick!. I mean those fat pixels make the images POP pretty much that in the canon ones. I am a canon guy so this is just what i see
Greetings
On this thread, most use semi-pro (or pro) bodies and obviously Zeiss glass of some sort. Obviously, from the images, the skill level seems to be pretty high. Having said that, do most of you folks print images ? Print at home, pro lab, drug stores etc ?
1. I am thinking of investing in a printer, and I am seriously considering the Epson 3880 (with its on going $300 rebate, and a full set of inks!). And there are Canon's 9000 series printers. From what I gather, Epsons are better. Any thoughts?
2. Now for the main question, how well does Zeiss signature translate into prints? I do realize it depends on variables like pp, profiling etc ? Any thoughts?
Ajay, I have an Epson 1900, generally well regarded for colour prints. I am very pleased with it, though the cost of the many inks is very high. The difference bteween lenses at the print level is very visible indeed, substantially more than on an unmagnified screen full-res RAW view. Also play with different types of paper, it makes a big difference. For reference, I print my best shots up to A3+ in size. Hope this helps
Ajay, I use the Epson 3800, predecessor to the 3880 and it's an awesome printer. While the individuals cartridges are more expensive, they contain so much more ink. The cost per print is much lower than printers using smaller ink cartridges. Plus there's nothing like making a print from Zeiss glass as large as 17" wide.
Thanks Philippe, Bob and Ryan for your inputs. Looks like I am headed to the poor house one more time this month! . Ohh well, I am used to bread and water.
Stateside, with the mail-in rebate, effective cost for the Epson 3880 is turning out to be about $320. I think it's not bad for a pro printer..
Of course, fine images. Honestly, I am getting tired of saying that. You guys are talented.
#3 (the leaves) with the 21 is fantastic Bob! #2 from the Opera House is very nice Philippe.
rsolti13 wrote:
I also have the Epson 1900, works well for prints posted around the house.
Bob, on your last shots I really like 2 & 4.....#1 has some nast flare going on
Yeah, I didn't notice it until it was posted here. It's definitely flair but I was so worried (and embarrassed) that I posted an image with a bunch of dust bunnies I deleted the image. Chalk it up to my overwhelming joy of the 21.
Todd Adamson wrote:
A few ultra-thin DOF shots from the 100 MP. I was taking a break at the lab last night, and still trying to get a handle on focusing with this lens.
Is the 100MP that hard to focus? I should get mine in the next couple of days and would be interested to understand what you mean.
Great shots Akul! I really like the clarity and the texture in the shots.
Nice night exposures Bob. Have you tried adjusting the white balance? I think you could get some pretty cool colors there with the mixed light sources.
Nice Philippe, but it would have been even better with the 21
I have not had much time to play with the 85/1.4 today, but here are a few shots...
rji2goleez wrote:
Is the 100MP that hard to focus? I should get mine in the next couple of days and would be interested to understand what you mean.
Thanks,
Bob
Well, I may be a little wet behind the ears when it comes to manual focus. But I have been using Nikkor lenses with great success, and depending on the focus confirmation dot to tell me when to click. That wasn't working out for me with the 100 MP, but I think I am getting it down now. See THIS thread for details. FWIW, another FMer just got his today, and he says he gets perfect focus with the green dot method.
joakim wrote:
I was on a workshop this weekend on the island Öland on the swedish east cost. Here are four photos from the visit, first two with the ZE 21/2.8 and the last two with the ZE 50/1.4
Wow, great photos you took there, that second photo was the best one in my book!
Todd Adamson wrote:
Well, I may be a little wet behind the ears when it comes to manual focus. But I have been using Nikkor lenses with great success, and depending on the focus confirmation dot to tell me when to click. That wasn't working out for me with the 100 MP, but I think I am getting it down now. See THIS thread for details. FWIW, another FMer just got his today, and he says he gets perfect focus with the green dot method.
Thanks Todd. I read the linked thread. Interesting stuff. I shoot Canon so we'll see what happens when I place the lens on my 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV. I'll let you know what I find.
philber wrote:
the 28 is the best Zeiss lens I have found to handle extreme contrasts, which was the case with this short set, shot around 3pm. Why this is, I don't know yet, but it can help in certain situations.
This was the reason I purchased the zf28 as well as the zf35. Its more than FL that sets this lens apart from the 35. I just figured that it was a more diffused angle of light, that it is softened. When I asked, all I would get in reply was that the FLs were to close together to consider both and that just made no sense.
The 35mm FL and render is very matter of fact, you can focus and shoot and be assured of a facsimile, the 28mm has a very suave personality, wider but not enough to make the lens obvious and yes it is very different (but subtle) in rendering light.
Lloyd suggested the original zf25 was likely to achieve a cult status of sorts, he is way off and its nice a noob can tell him so. The cult lens is the 28, its overlooked for the cheaper 35 and the closeness of FL but it has a quality that is not apparent in the 35.
I could be wrong because I have never shot Canon, but I think they don't have the same focus assist dot that Nikon does? If that's the case, and you've been doing it visually all along, I can't imagine you'll have any trouble. Looking forward to seeing some shots!
philber wrote:
Luka, what I find is that the 28 is the best Zeiss lens I have found to handle extreme constrasts, which was the case with this short set, shot around 3pm. Why htis is, I don't know yet, but it can help in certain situations.
Perhaps that's a benefit but overall I just can't get excited about its rendering style. It lacks the incredible detail and micro contrast of the 21 as well as the drama that comes with the wider angle. It also seems to lack the medium range depth of the 35/2. I mean you can definitely see that it's a Zeiss but I think that the lenses on both sides of the FL (21 & 35) are simply better. Of the pictures you've posted here I've always by far preferred your shots with the 21. This is however not just your shots - of the hundreds that I've seen shot with the 28 I could perhaps pick two or three where I liked the overall look. (I'm talking of rendering style only of course - I've seen many fantastic photos - including yours - taken with the 28. They were however not good because of the lens in question but because of other factors.)
Anyway, that's just my opinon
A couple of night time 85/1.4 shots in my standard setting:
I really like your shots Akul!
Sami, great lighting in #2 with your portraits
Ajay, the epson 3880 is a very good printer! Epson printers are easier to colour manage than Canon printers. I have the canon Pro 9000 and 2 x 9500 II, for business and home. The Pro9000, will yield prints that have more punch. The Pro9500II are great printers, producing archival prints, but you do have to use specific canon drivers, to get accurate colours. The colours are more subtle. B&W printing from the 9500II is second to none. The Zeiss colours do definitely translate into prints, but you need very good colour management work flow. Beginning with accurate and well calibrated monitor, consistent workflow to produce the prints as what you see on the monitor. If not obtain, an ICC printer profile from a local colour lab.
I really like your shots Philippe! Nice work with the 28. The 28 does have less contrast than the 21, so this will work in your favour with high contrast scenes.
Todd, some nice shots. I have Canon 5DII, and I would not consider relying on the focus confirmation, since with a good ground glass focusing screen, you can easily focus on any point in your frame without having to recompose. There is some practice but it does become second nature.
Luka, I really like the first 3 shots, as the 85/1.4 has the softer rendering with great bokeh to them. Nice work at f/1.4 MF is not easy The last series are excellent, but do not have the same rendering as the 35/1.4 or the 21. I personally like the difference, as it is a unique lens.
.. Baby steps, I suppose! 
