I am a bit surprised at this comment! I thought that you preferred the boke and narrower depth of field, as well as the more glowy rendering of the 50 Planar? In any case, these two 50s are different enough that I can imagine Zeiss aficionados owning both. I think I will end up with both.
That is exactly where I did not want to end up, but you (and others) make a powerful case, and 50mm is after all my favorite FL. Also, I plan on unloading my 100MP, so tht would provide me with a useful close-up lens.
Sell the 100 MP (the sound of dialing the knee-cap busters...)?
I can imagine concurrently having two separate ZF kits: 28, 50, 85 and 21, 35, 50, 100.
The lenses are so different. Right now I just have 21, 50 MP, 100 MP, and the 35/2 will probably be next, closely followed by 50 P. Then I would take a long break from buying. In fact, there will probably be a break from buying right now, other than possibly a Contax 80-200/4.
Fct is, for the almost a year that I've owned the 100MP, there is only one shot where I feel that (a) it is truly delightful, and (b) I could have shot this otherwise. That is not a lot. Not enough for me to carry it around all the time, when the 35 f:1.4 is going to add another kg to my bag. The 28mm is going for the same reason. That would leave me with the 21 and the f:1.4 triplets. Not exactly lean or light, but adequate.
Carsten, the similarity between the 1.4 and the 2.0 shot seems strange, did you keep the focus or refocus? could the 2.0 be focused more to the front? the 1.4 seems sharper on the tree.
I find the 50 MP is a great walk around lens. You can do almost everything with it.
a close to mid range shot, with still nice bokeh and almost some 3D
ZF 50 MP f2
Here a few city scapes from my last night trip in Milano. The first three shots represent a recent masterwork of a famous Italian artist (a 21th century Michelangelo... what do you think?)
It is possible that the focus shifted slightly. On the other hand, I believe that the 50 Planar has some focus shift, so it could also be that. Most likely it is both at the same time. I hope that you can still compare the look somewhat. I really need to bring a tripod and do this with live view, but my tripod is rather large and I tend to bring it only for specific projects.
philber wrote:
Fct is, for the almost a year that I've owned the 100MP, there is only one shot where I feel that (a) it is truly delightful, and (b) I could have shot this otherwise. That is not a lot. Not enough for me to carry it around all the time, when the 35 f:1.4 is going to add another kg to my bag. The 28mm is going for the same reason. That would leave me with the 21 and the f:1.4 triplets. Not exactly lean or light, but adequate.
You seem to be doing it all with the 85. I own them both too, and since I have the 100, I seem to be doing it all with the 100 MP.
I guess the f 1.4 triplet is the best choice for your shooting style. It might be that the 100 MP is better on landscape up to macro and the 85 is better for city stuff, that's my feeling anyway.
Here is one more 50P vs. 50MP comparison: the urban rumble. This time the 50P wins for me, hands down. This is exactly the kind of performance which made me wonder about the 50MP's depth of field when I first started using it. There is just too much information in the background for a 50/2 at this kind of distance.
Again, there might be minor focus differences, although I think this one is pretty close. I have also processed to minimize colour and contrast difference, to let the DoF and sharpness speak.
I think I am more or less done with this. Maybe one more shot after this. Here is the overall scene, followed by 1200x1800 links. The blue valve is the focus. Look at the spokes of the bicycle.
Since Carsten is comparing the 50 Planar with the 50 MP at the moment (and Philippe is thinking about buying a 50MP) I decided to post some links to high res images from my shooting together with Philippe at Schloss Neuschwanstein with both lenses. I will probably delete the full size images in a few days. Both images where shot with the same camera (5DII) at the same time from a tripod with lifeview and mirror-lockup, but on Philippe's Planar was a UV-filter (B+W), while on my MP was a clear proctection filter (B+W).
carstenw wrote:
Here is another comparison between 50P and 50MP, this time with less difference, and IMO the 50MP shot looks better.
I have also included an f/1.4 shot this time. Surprisingly, there is almost no difference in depth of field, just a touch extra sharpness and less vignetting, the latter of which is the most visible.
I am not sure why the background isn't more blurred with the 50P, especially with f/1.4. Perhaps the focus cannot be too far away before this is lost a bit?
Interesting. The difference between the f/1.4 and f/2 shots is really confusing. Nothing seems to be really sharp in the f/2 shot. If you look at the branches at the right side of the frame they are wrapped in haze in the f/2 shot, which is not seen on the f/1.4 shot.
I definitely like the look of the 50P better here. The field curvature of the 50MP is pretty obvious again (affecting the bokeh progressively towards the edges).
Edit: In the second comparison, the 50P is perhaps a bit front focused (the front of the log is still completely sharp). The 50MP is backfocused, on the ropes, giving it a slight DOF disadvantage (not sure how significant though). The trend is clear anyway.
@Boris: The CA of the 50P is a bit disappointing. The 50MP looks much cleaner (and a slightly more detailed) and interestingly only shows blue/yellow CA at the right part of the frame, where the 50P shows almost none.
Thanks to both for providing the samples.
Btw, I've heard the suggestion that the Contax 50/1.4 may show less CA. That would be interesting to verify.
Interesting, Boris. I don't really see any differences not attributable to the filters on the lenses, and the sliding of snow from the roof I think these two lenses are pretty interchangeable for certain uses.
AhamB wrote:
Interesting. The difference between the f/1.4 and f/2 shots is really confusing. Nothing seems to be sharp in the f/2 shot. If you look at the branches at the right side of the frame they are wrapped in haze in the f/2 shot, which is not seen on the f/1.4 shot.
It is possible that there was a little wind just then. I see sharp parts, but not in a logical way. It was slightly breezy that day.
But the grass wouldn't be affected by the wind, not at 1/1500 shutter speed. If there was focus shift, the focal plane would have shifted backwards, but in the f/2 shot I see nothing in the grass or in the tree that is sharper than the f/1.4 shot, neither in front nor behind the tree.
Thanks carstenw, philber and akul for your comments. To answer your question, I purchased a 21, 35 f/1.4, 50MP and 100MP. I took those photos on Lake Michigan on a very windy day. Those waves were being created by the wind. I had my tripod with me but after setting it up, I realized I forgot to put my RRS plate on my camera, so I had to take all the shots hand held in strong winds. I found shooting with these lenses to be a lot of fun, though you really have to pay attention to so many aspects that never had to deal with using my AF zoom lenses. However, the results can be so much better. As for processing, I have a lot to learn. I really appreciate your comments. I’ll be posting more shots as I practice more.
Carstenw – so you suggest working with the 35 first, huh? Anything particular you suggest I work on?
AhamB wrote:
But the grass wouldn't be affected by the wind, not at 1/1500 shutter speed. If there was focus shift, the focal plane would have shifted backwards, but in the f/2 shot I see nothing in the grass or in the tree that is sharper than the f/1.4 shot, neither in front nor behind the tree.
I think you are analyzing too much. They were downsized from 12MP and sharpened at each step. There are no more original pixels in these images If you really want to compare sharpness, I should do a different test.
DianaND33 wrote:
Carstenw – so you suggest working with the 35 first, huh? Anything particular you suggest I work on?
Ah, I don't know the 35/1.4, so I don't know if my advice is good I thought you would have bought the 35/2. Well, focusing that lens wide open will be tricky, so that would be its own challenge. Perhaps start with the 50 MP? That lens really does nothing wrong, sharp and practically no CA (but it also doesn't quite have the character of some of the more complicated lenses).
I couldn't really tell you what to work on, since I don't know what you like (except the beach), but the way I and many around here have started is to look at the photos in these threads, and to single out a specific type of photos, or a specific photographer, and to think: I wish I could do that. Then you go and do it to the best of your abilities, present the results, ask for feedback, make some improvements and repeat
I think these two lenses are pretty interchangeable for certain uses.