snowboarder wrote:
Another example, is the perspective strong here? Yes. I was just so close to the massive
building my picture shows it. If the perspective was corrected, the building would look
much smaller and the picture wouldn't represent what I saw there.
And the perspective is used to very good effect here. You would not want to correct this perspective in any way.
If you can not see it then don't worry about it. Also PTLens removes the mustache distortion, of course nobody has shown the 100% crops before and after to show how much is lost, if any. That would be more interesting than arguing about lens distortion and keystoning as these are clearly personal decisions on how much you are willing to live with.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I agree getting close and taking a shot which shows the scale of the building is cool, that is why I got a TS-E 17 but taking shots like this above with a regular wide angle pointed upward and getting all this keystoning screams tourist to me. I started a thread on keystoning a couple months back and some people don't mind it. Just funny how some people are so sensitive to the smallest amounts of CA but are ok with gross distortion.
Converging verticals are fine for more abstract type shots. Using a pano-head and stitching is one way to get rid of the keystoning while still using a non-shift lens.
Adam, I will try to find Philippe's shot that shows it and I wasn't the only one who commented on it....Show more →
It wasn't a challenge, I was asking because I feel you know what you're talking about, and I'm hoping you'll take the time to explain... I don't shoot landscapes, I've never though to look up, nor discuss or join in on discussions about key stoning or mustache distortion etc.. I know this is the ZE thread, but since the 21ZE seems to exhibit some of these qualities, maybe someone could help explain....
BTW, snowboarder I like your photo of the building, you're really quite close, but the distortion adds to the drama IMHO... Sometimes though, maybe we should aspire to create images with technical perfection because the situation calls for it, so maybe Zeiss should make a TS for us to spend our money on
Anden - In the first shot, the distortion would be in the box's left side, where the box looks like it's curved.
In the second shot, what am I looking at? the fact that the barb wire converges on the right side? But isn't that because you were closer to the left side or?
Wayne, thanks for showing me that post... I read that thread, and I really didn't see an issue with his photo. Perhaps I'm either ignorant to such physical properties of wide lenses, or it really just doesn't bother me enough to say one lens ruins an image over the other... Now I'm guessing the argument is that Zeiss's 21 does this, and other cheaper 21's don't do this? So would you trade off Zeiss color and look for the distortion you get from the lens?
Again, I really don't see it, so I couldn't tell, but if Anden's images show this distortion to it's fullest, then thats something I just thought happens when using wides, and I've learned to live with it. I wouldn't buy another TS-E lens to avoid distortion (had one, to try, wasn't useful to me) as I'm not a architecture shooter, but I suspect in some cases one would need a TS lens..
Can you guys help with how you are focusing with the manual lenses. I mean, are you using a split focusing screen and which one? I own the original Canon 5D.
The canon 5D being without MFA, is ideal MF. Probably the best focusing screens are from Canon, Ee-S, as they internally calibrated for exposure.
The ground glass effect is best, as you can focus without recomposing. If that is not sufficient, there are other vendors, that will supply split and/or micro prism focusing screens for the 5D. I have tried the split/mico prism focusing screens and after a while I found them distracting.
I am using the Eg-S with the 5DII, and it is excellent. I also use it for MF adjustments, when using AF lenses.
charles.K wrote:
The canon 5D being without MFA, is ideal MF. Probably the best focusing screens are from Canon, Ee-S, as they internally calibrated for exposure.
The ground glass effect is best, as you can focus without recomposing. If that is not sufficient, there are other vendors, that will supply split and/or micro prism focusing screens for the 5D. I have tried the split/mico prism focusing screens and after a while I found them distracting.
I am using the Eg-S with the 5DII, and it is excellent. I also use it for MF adjustments, when using AF lenses.
I use the EG-S screen also. I also use a KPS eyepiece magnifier which definitely helps. If you get one of those, be sure to readjust your diopter adjustment as it shifted on mine.
Back already with a follow-up split screen question... What do you think about the Haoda 5D-B (Ec-B) split screen for the 5D? Someone is selling it locally and mentioned it works well with Zeiss ZE lenses.
Thanks Andreas for the example above of the subtle mustache distortion in the horizontal lines between the glass rectangles. I am not saying it is horrendous but it is a fault with the lens.
Here is another shot I saw a while back which shows the wavy mustache distortion.
Take a look at the back edge near the ceiling in the first office shot here:
See how the buildings in the first shot lean towards the center on both left and right edges of the frame. The top of the building in the 2nd shot rises up on the far left side and is also a little wavy across the frame. I have also seen this leaning buildings on the side effect in some of Philber's city building shots.
Adam, hope this helps and sorry for not showing what I meant with better examples earlier. I sometimes get frustrated here as some people are so one brand oriented that they can not appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of all brands and each lens. I guess I am more rounded in my altness as I appreciate lenses from Zeiss, Leica, Minolta, Olympus, Rokinon and even a few Canon lenses. No lens is perfect and some lenses are better than others at certain types of shooting. IMHO that the Ze 21 is better for landscape than architecture. I prefer the TS-E 17 and 24 and the 14-24G for architecture. For landscape the microcontrast and color of the ZE 21 give it the edge.
The distortion held me back from buying the 21. But that was before I tried it. Distortion is the only fault. In any other way it is superb!
I have not tried to fix it in PP. I rarely shoot architecture. When I need less distortion I have the Oly 18 :-)
No lens is perfect. I have a various selection of brands in my bag. At the moment:
Canon (35/2, 50/2.5, 65 MP-E, 85L, 400 5.6L)
Oly (18/3.5, 50/1.8, 80/4 macro, 135/4.5 macro, 35-70/3.6)
Rollei (35/1.4)
C/Y (35-70/3.4)
ZF (21/2.8)
Lensbaby (3G, Composer)
Voigtländer (105 APO Lanthar)
Rodenstock (APO 150/9, APO 240/9)
Vivitar (S1 90 macro)
Rokkor (58/1.2)
All of my lenses have strengths and weaknesses. No lens is perfect. I keep the lenses I use and some that I love too much to sell even if I don´t use them that much. As some of you know I have had a lot of lenses over the years. I have yet to see the "perfect" lens. What is a perfect lens?...
Wayne, you are entirely free as to which lenses you like, and I, for one, would not pass judgement on you based on your choice of lenses. I might say that we share certain tastes, or preferences, or not, and that is all that there is to it. To each his/her own. Even if the choice is one brand only.
Back already with a follow-up split screen question... What do you think about the Haoda 5D-B (Ec-B) split screen for the 5D? Someone is selling it locally and mentioned it works well with Zeiss ZE lenses.
thanks... Ron
I would first try the Canon genuine first, as they are not expensive. You are likely to have less problems with tolerances. I mentioned before in another forum, that I have tried several third party focusing screens, and found that the target focus was different the the split screen focus point. Just a matter of trying. The split screen with the micro prism may suit you better.
Once bitten by the Zeiss bug, it does make it difference having the focusing screen that suits you.
Wow, ok it's definitely something I've not seen before, or something I haven't noticed, it's pretty problematic, but I'm guessing this is an extreme case that you posted Anden.
Thanks Wayne, that really helped.. I can see it now!
It is something to take into consideration definitely worth mentioning. And yes, sometimes we're blinded by a brand, and dont' want to see faults. Though, the people that have this lens, seem to not be bothered by either A) fixing it in post, or B) just shooting around the problem...
ER i mean if what I said above wasn't the case, I'm sure I would have noticed this optical flaw earlier.
Thanks again for pointing it out, really something worth taking into consideration when looking for a wide angle lens.
wayne seltzer wrote:
Yes, if you read my earlier post I say that there are different distortions, some lens based and some perspective based. Just was trying to make a point that some people obsess over the smallest amount of CA in a shot and softness in the corners at the 100% pixel level but then take an architecture shot of a building and have gross distortion on parts of the building and think it looks great.
A road narrowing towards the horizon is a lot more acceptable than a keystoned building even though they are a similar phenomenon. Do a survey.
As far as I am concerned there is only one type of distortion, which is the curvilinear type. Certain 'perspective effects', which people call distortion, are in fact a natural rendering of the scene. The distortion exists only in the mind. To me, it makes no sense to even compare the dislike of chromatic aberration (imperfect imaging) and the dislike of keystoning (perfect imaging).
I think your definition of perfect imaging is "distorted". To me perfect imaging is when a rendering of a scene is closest to what the human vision is. Yes, keystoning can be used in a creative way to make a more abstract type of shot if done and controlled well. When parts of a building near the edge of the frame are distorted/miss-shaped or leaning in toward the center, that is not how I see things.Snowboarders shot of the church building where the left side windows and columns are leaning heavily towards the right and the tower in the back right leaning toward the center is not how I see things if I was there and looked up.
What I originally was trying to dispute is the statement that was being made about how it is wrong to knock the mighty ZE 21 as not as good for architecture shooting due to the mustache distortion. I prefer other lenses like the 14-24G and TS-E 17/24 lenses as better architecture lenses. If I took the same picture with these lenses there would be less distortion of the various types.
I am just trying to state that some people around here are so fanatical about their lens or brand of lens that they try to minimize the faults of the lens and at the same time over-exagerate the plusses of them.
I guess I would like to see more balance here otherwise we should just rename it the Zeiss lens forum.
wayne seltzer wrote:
I think your definition of perfect imaging is "distorted". To me perfect imaging is when a rendering of a scene is closest to what the human vision is.
Your perfect imaging is ill-defined, as there are subjective ingredients. One persons vision is not another persons vision. Moreover, the perceived level of 'perspective distortion' in a photograph is strongly dependent on the viewing conditions. I was thinking more about rectilinear projection, which is a design goal for most camera lenses.
What I originally was trying to dispute is the statement that was being made about how it is wrong to knock the mighty ZE 21 as not as good for architecture shooting due to the mustache distortion. I prefer other lenses like the 14-24G and TS-E 17/24 lenses as better architecture lenses. If I took the same picture with these lenses there would be less distortion of the various types.
I am just trying to state that some people around here are so fanatical about their lens or brand of lens that they try to minimize the faults of the lens and at the same time over-exagerate the plusses of them. I guess I would like to see more balance here otherwise we should just rename it the Zeiss lens forum. ...Show more →
Also PTLens removes the mustache distortion, of course nobody has shown the 100% crops before and after to show how much is lost, if any. That would be more interesting than arguing about lens distortion and keystoning as these are clearly personal decisions on how much you are willing to live with.