rji2goleez wrote:
Makten - like them both but the second is stellar. Love the detail. What is it?
philber wrote:
Martin, John, great shots!
Thanks! It's some sort of ornament on a concrete wall, quite close to Denoirs house. I thought it looked like a pattern drawn by extraterrestial lifeforms for some reason.
Edit: Very nice shots of yours too! I love places like that.
This thread is way too popular, I cannot keep up with it. Great pics everyone!
philber wrote:
Basically, I now have too many lenses, in the sense that there are always one or two that I haven't used for too long, so I use them just to reacquaint myself with them. And I am at a point when just a 50mm would probably be enough for my needs. My desires, lust, gear and such being another matter altogether...:-)
Philippe, in addition to all mentioned I suffer also from laziness, I don't want to change lenses that often since I hate sensor cleaning, which is needed much more often when changing lenses frequently. I found myself shooting first with 50mm, then move to 100mm, then desperately trying to find something to shoot with wideangle and when not found I shoot 200mm a while and finally return to 100mm. I'm seriously considering getting other 5DmkII, "loaded" with 100 and 35 I think I could survive most rural situations, and with 21 and 85 most urban situations...
Other thing is the weight of carrying all ZE lenses; I was today shooting on swamp and didn't pack 21mm since I never need it on this kind of situation. And first time ever I found swamp landscape, which would have been made for 21mm... maybe next year, next weekend I think we have lost the fall colors.
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.
#1 and #3 very similar rendering considering focal length difference. #2 cannot be compared since focus is much further away than on #1 & #3 (the scooter on background is sharper than custom bike in front)
denoir wrote:
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"
This sounds like invitation... I think 50 planar is pretty bad with tubes, but I would not call it terrible close up, unless user error (e.g. not taking focus shift into account) - Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 @ f/2.8 & MFD:
And yes, using f/1.4 on same situation generates quite disaster (thou with adding local contrast it can be made looking better) - Thou I really like the wild bokeh:
Well, Samuli, the f/2.8 shot is OK, but that's stopped down two stops. From what I understand the 50 Planar becomes a different lens at that aperture. The f/1.4 shot is as expected and as you described it - a disaster. I find the bokeh to be particularly objectable.
The 85/1.4 is similar in that respect - these are wide open @ MFD:
It' cant get much worse than that. Yes, after posting these I am willing to give my self up to the Hague war crimes tribunal..
On the other hand if you choose the foreground and background with care you can get acceptable shots at MFD wide open:
This is why I would never recommend the 85/1.4 to anybody new to Zeiss glass.
I agree with Samuli and others that this thread moves so fast. It is hard to catch up. Great photos everyone.
Just from this page
rji2goleez
I too live in highly decaying urban environment. I really enjoy your new series.
Makten
Your abstraction is always inspiring
Samuli
I am glad that you are back. Your images and posts have been both educating and inspiring
Denoir
Sometimes I wonder if there is anything you don't do well. Last two shots are lovely.
Here, my first attempts to do HDR using PS-CS5. A lot to learn, so easy to get devastating result. All taken with ZF.2, 21mm, D700
p.s.
Please excuse the sensor spot. Time to do some wet cleaning..... sigh
denoir wrote:
Well, Samuli, the f/2.8 shot is OK, but that's stopped down two stops.
f/2.8 is still f/2.8 - On similar situation I also want to close down the makro-planar 50 to f/2.8 to smoothen the bokeh (the focal plane stuff is OK already at f/2, if not counting corners and vignetting).
denoir wrote:
This is why I would never recommend the 85/1.4 to anybody new to Zeiss glass.
Same here for 85, also I don't recommend 50 planar - it's kind of wrong that this is the most affordable Zeiss lens and it's easy to misunderstand since it's so difficult to use. Similar techniques needed to shoot with 50 & 85 planar successfully (e.g. understanding the aperture/focus distance relation to image quality and bokeh, compensating for focus shift) would also benefit when shooting with Canon/Nikon lenses.
Akul, the CS5 HDR seems to be quite decent (no halos, not screaming "I'm HDR"), however seems to kill micro contrast or something just feels "wrong", like 21 Distagon would have been downgraded to Canon 20/2.8. This is quite common also with Photomatix and many photos need a long time to find combination of settings which work - and some photos are almost impossible to get looking as sharp as they are without HDR.
--
Really hate posting without picture, have to find some picture to post... Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/2, 30s, ISO 100, crop to 16:9, "Kangasala glow":
Bob: I really like those urban decay shots - especially #2 & #3 from the first series.
Akul: I agree with Samuli - good HDR so far that it isn't obvious that it's HDR. Unfortunately you seem to have lost quite a bit of contrast in the process though.
Samuli: That's a really amazing landscape shot. Excellent choice of light and composition.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
f/2.8 is still f/2.8 - On similar situation I also want to close down the makro-planar 50 to f/2.8 to smoothen the bokeh (the focal plane stuff is OK already at f/2, if not counting corners and vignetting).
That's rather interesting - I've found the bokeh at f/2 to be very good and typically free of LoCA. This especially at MFD.
You two just blew me away, and I am really happy to be ! Samuli, that picture is gorgeous and mysterious. Denoir, once agin, the last two are stunning, color contrast and definition, salivating.
I agree with both of you completely. This HDR thing is totally new for me, and I feel like it is some sort of black magic. Too much control and freedom, while it is rather hard to not to get lost in that parameters.
The thing is Samuli, your HDR images are so well done, I was compelled to try. I will keep playing with the tools I guess.
Here is one of the originals from the last image posted, rocessed in NX2 ( a little tweak in curve) photoshp sharpening.
akul - I have not found a need for HDR software and make great use of the gradient filter in Lightroom. I'm sure that those who really know the ins and outs of HDR software might be able to deal with higher contrast images than I, but I am certainly satisfied in most situations what I can achieve to balance high contrast images. Most of mine of sunrise/sunset landscape images.
Clearly, the image above, processed without NX2 appears to me to have the signature Zeiss 'look' versus the HDR processed image.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
f/2.8 is still f/2.8 - On similar situation I also want to close down the makro-planar 50 to f/2.8 to smoothen the bokeh (the focal plane stuff is OK already at f/2, if not counting corners and vignetting).
Same here for 85, also I don't recommend 50 planar - it's kind of wrong that this is the most affordable Zeiss lens and it's easy to misunderstand since it's so difficult to use. Similar techniques needed to shoot with 50 & 85 planar successfully (e.g. understanding the aperture/focus distance relation to image quality and bokeh, compensating for focus shift) would also benefit when shooting with Canon/Nikon lenses.
Akul, the CS5 HDR seems to be quite decent (no halos, not screaming "I'm HDR"), however seems to kill micro contrast or something just feels "wrong", like 21 Distagon would have been downgraded to Canon 20/2.8. This is quite common also with Photomatix and many photos need a long time to find combination of settings which work - and some photos are almost impossible to get looking as sharp as they are without HDR.
--
Really hate posting without picture, have to find some picture to post... Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/2, 30s, ISO 100, crop to 16:9, "Kangasala glow": http://www.vahonen.com/1/jpg.php4?id=537&file=537.jpg
I thought it looked like a pattern drawn by extraterrestial lifeforms for some reason. 
