philber wrote:
Here are 3 shots taken within seconds of each other, of the same scene, more or less framed similarly, with 3 different lenses, all ZE, and the same PP. Now this is not a quiz, nor a scjentifically precise test, I would just like your comments as to the lens rendition.
I like the first one best. Let me guess: 50/1.4 Planar...
philber wrote:
Here are 3 shots taken within seconds of each other, of the same scene, more or less framed similarly, with 3 different lenses, all ZE, and the same PP. Now this is not a quiz, nor a scjentifically precise test, I would just like your comments as to the lens rendition.
I prefer the second which I suppose is the 28/2. No shot with the 21? The first one is obviously the 50 Planar. I did not know what to make of the last one.. reminds me a bit of the 35/2 but I thought you did not have that one any more..
Comparisons like that between focal lengths are difficult as they tend to excel for different scenes.
Philippe,
I will say 28, 21, 50. Was going to take some shots of a local festival today but opted to not take my camera so I could partake in the festivities My head hurts now...
Good try, but no cigar, Jason. Luka has all of them right, and Martin also has a 100% score, but on a smaller sample. Reason for this is that my dealer has a second hand 35 f:2.0, which is mine for the week-end, and I debate whether to get until February, which, for me, is a long way off. Hence the comparison, and my request for comments on the renderings.
philber wrote:
Good try, but no cigar, Jason. Luka has all of them right, and Martin also has a 100% score, but on a smaller sample. Reason for this is that my dealer has a second hand 35 f:2.0, which is mine for the week-end, and I debate whether to get until February, which, for me, is a long way off. Hence the comparison, and my request for comments on the renderings.
Why not get an old Contax or Rollei 35/1.4 until February? You are unlikely to lose any money on it as the prices are at a historical low (people are waiting for the new lens). If the new one turns out to be different - which it will most likely - prices for the old one are likely to go up as people will get all nostalgic about its rendering style.
Plus you might be interested in some variation in shooting - the (old) 35/1.4 is awesome wide open but not anything special stopped down. Since you usually like to stop down quite a bit it may be interesting to try an alternative technique with a lens that really rewards it.
Philippe, very nice church shots with 100MP #2 and 4 are my favs.
Interesting take with the 3 lenses. Personally you cannot wrong with 35/2, as it is lighter than the 35/1.4 and an easy lens to use. You can always sell, if the price is right. Looking in hind sight, I do prefer the 35 over the 28, though it is hard to compare. Luka suggestion of the older 35/1.4 is an excellent one too.
Really nice beach shots Bob. What PP did you use?
Luka great action shots Great practice for your MF skills
Martin great job with the MF too
I have a question for all you Zeiss experts. I believe I have narrowed down what Zeiss lenses will work best for me and will be next on my list. A 21 & 100MP. That would give me 21, 35, and 100. Was going to go 21,35, and 50MP but with 35 and 50 being so close I think I would be better served going 100 instead. I am still teetering on picking up a 50 however and was wondering if anyone has used one with extension tubes for macro ability just for kicks? Would be great to have a 50 and 100 with macro ability while saving $$ unless IQ suffers. Any experience or thoughts?
charles.K wrote:
Great shots Bob! Excellent tone and rendering. Love #3.
+1
#3 is great.
The statues are nice, but I'm afraid you don't stand a chance against Philippe and Paris
bigkidneys wrote:
I have a question for all you Zeiss experts. I believe I have narrowed down what Zeiss lenses will work best for me and will be next on my list. A 21 & 100MP. That would give me 21, 35, and 100. Was going to go 21,35, and 50MP but with 35 and 50 being so close I think I would be better served going 100 instead. I am still teetering on picking up a 50 however and was wondering if anyone has used one with extension tubes for macro ability just for kicks? Would be great to have a 50 and 100 with macro ability while saving $$ unless IQ suffers. Any experience or thoughts?...Show more →
The short answer is that the 50 MP can't really be used with tubes. It's minimum focus distance is very short already and it has an extremely recessed front element meaning that with a tube the MFD would end up inside the lens (between the edge of the lens and the front element). Get the 100 MP instead - it's better in every way.
The statues are nice, but I'm afraid you don't stand a chance against Philippe and Paris
The short answer is that the 50 MP can't really be used with tubes. It's minimum focus distance is very short already and it has an extremely recessed front element meaning that with a tube the MFD would end up inside the lens (between the edge of the lens and the front element). Get the 100 MP instead - it's better in every way.
21 - 35 - 100 is the perfect Zeiss trio.
Thanks Denoir, but I was referring to the 50 1.4 with extension tubes. I have my eye on a 100MP at the moment but was also considering picking up a 50 1.4 as well and maybe adding some extension tubes later just for kicks.
50/1.4 with extension tubes? Good god no! The 50/1.4 is terrible close up, especially at larger apertures. I think adding an extension tube and posting the pictures in a public forum would fall into the category of "crimes against humanity"
Haha! Just thought I would ask you guys considering you all know the ins and outs of each lens. I have seen pictures of people that I would consider "CRimes against Humanity" and I want no part of that my friend
bigkidneys wrote:
I have a question for all you Zeiss experts. I believe I have narrowed down what Zeiss lenses will work best for me and will be next on my list. A 21 & 100MP. That would give me 21, 35, and 100. Was going to go 21,35, and 50MP but with 35 and 50 being so close I think I would be better served going 100 instead. I am still teetering on picking up a 50 however and was wondering if anyone has used one with extension tubes for macro ability just for kicks? Would be great to have a 50 and 100 with macro ability while saving $$ unless IQ suffers. Any experience or thoughts?...Show more →
AFAIK extension tubes don't degrade quality, but they do need more light to function. As distance diminishes light hitting the sensor. I've done some work with extension tubes and all the lenses work decently well with them..
Get yourself the 100 MP ZE since you already have the 35.. Later on add the 21 (if wides are your thing) and when you do want a 50, go for the 50 MP ZE...
Guys I've been crazy busy, and haven't even had time to keep up with this forum, I'm going to Serbia next weekend, and transiting through Amsterdam (for all who chimed in about where to transit through). So you can expect some photos soon!
EDIT: Why is everyone dogging on the extension tubes? Did he mean specifically for the 50 1.4 UMM... Get yourself a 50 MP ZE if that's what your asking, but as a rule the extension tubes are "fine" for adding macro capabilities to your lenses.
... and there is blue skies where u live! lol
.. you and your blue skies.. Is this blue enough for you? 
#2 and 4 are my favs. 
UMM... Get yourself a 50 MP ZE if that's what your asking, but as a rule the extension tubes are "fine" for adding macro capabilities to your lenses.