Francesco, love your bluish long exposure shot with 21 a few pages away. Great tone, and looks better than BW version, in my opinion.
Hugo, amazing shots with milky waters, as always.
Bob, love the drawing man, statues in the church, and also indoors with 21 from Barcelona and Paris churches earlier. Great atmosphere in those.
Here are a couple of street shots with 2/100, D300. I believe both of them were shot close to wide open. I also missed the focus in both cases, but I found them still quite usable.
This lady started to look sideways to see who was stalking her, while I was pretending to shoot something else ahead of me. Well, what should I do - it's pretty tough to get somebody in focus while both of you are walking, so I had to follow her for quite a while and make a dozen of shots or so
That man, on the contrary, didn't pay attention to me, which nevertheless didn't help me to get him in perfect focus
No worries I am a Scottish-Canadian living in Germany, so I get to see common mistakes. In fact, I think that the vast majority of young Germans, and older West Germans, speak English very well, but typically say that they don't, because they make a few mistakes. By that standard, no one would speak foreign languages well
I wasn't really expecting that. The lens is great for many things, and I am very impressed by its lack of CA where the 100 MP has lots, but I do want something which can give more 3D and isolation, so a 35/2 or 50/1.4 (or both!) is in the cards.
carstenw wrote:
I wasn't really expecting that. The lens is great for many things, and I am very impressed by its lack of CA where the 100 MP has lots, but I do want something which can give more 3D and isolation, so a 35/2 or 50/1.4 (or both!) is in the cards.
When you say lots of CA, you are only talking about longitudinal, not lateral?
For better subject isolation and more 3d, then the old C/Y 35/1.4 is better than 35/2(I have both) and better than the new 35/1.4 from what I have seen and read about undercorrected SA lenses which have slower focus transition.
Carsten, how much of your frustration is due to your desire for background isolation? Because, in my experience, Zeiss bokeh is much more "structured" than that of other lens brands. The classic example is the Sigma 50mm f:1.4. Whereas, with the Zeiss the background will still be recognizable, though totally OOF, with the Sigma is is not only OOF, but also de-structured (or blurred if you prefer).
In this respect, and while I value my 50 f:1.4 greatly, I am not sure that it would give you greater isloation than the 50MP. If that is the case, the obvious (and painful answer to your prayers is not the 35 f:2.0, but the 35 f:1.4, with its gorgeous, liquid bokeh. Ouch!
Actually, the new 35/1.4 with its undercorrected SA design retains shapes better further away from the focus point in the bokeh.Read CLN 35 which shows this and you can see it in Ajay's portraits with the hedge in the background.
Nie shots, Viincent! But, for the comparison to be quite fair, you should compare both lenses at f:2.0. Obviously the faster one has an advantage in getting thinner DOF wide open...
Sh*t, I need to really get into this wide open shooting. Too much good stuff that I am not enjoying...
Yes, Vincent, my apologies. You are trying to help, and I am just being difficult. But the subject is very interesting. [decides to go out despite a cold/flu with his 50mm f:1.4, and try his own hand at this. Why sould Carsten and Vincent have all the fun?]
partitura wrote:
I bought my 25mm ZF used, and feel like it has opened a new world for me. (even though I've had it only a few days). I've been interested to see that the 25 is not nearly as commonly represented in this thread as are other Zeiss models..
Oh, another 25 owner!
it is considered as one of the weaker lenses in the Zeiss lineup. This has two reasons: Zeiss is redesigning it, so people who are interested in the focal length are waiting for the newer (possibly f2.0 version) and it had been turned down at some test reviews due to its field curvature which is strong at close distances, but not necessarily a bad thing, if you know how to use it or to avoid it. Admittedly it results in soft edges often.
The lens is very sharp though, and some claim even sharper than the 21 closed down. There was a discussion about that (and some images posted) and more about this lens at this thread: 25/28/35 opinions please
Vincent and Philippe, not sure what you are trying to accomplish by just posting 50/1.4 shots but if you are trying to compare both 50's then you need same shot with both lenses.
Samuli's has posted shots which show the faster focus rolloff of the 50/1.4 vs.50MP which gives you better subject isolation and 3-d. This was after I mentioned this behavior to him that I had seen with my copies. The other week I posted forest landscape shots which showed this with both 50's and also between both my 35/2 and C/Y 35/1.4 in the 35 thread.
I will add that this faster rolloff difference is when stopped down and occurring within the theoretical DOF after which both lenses transition quickly to OOF.
This rolloff of focus from front to back in a scene shows relative distance between objects and the camera and renders volume around shapes better.
A scene like Samuli's forest shots with repetitive tree trunks/columns is perfect for showing this behavior difference.
