All the baby pictures (at the link) are at MFD or tad bit longer. Most of them were shot wide open, exif should be intact. If you look closely, the one I posted here is slightly out of focus if you see it in big, I was focussing on the eyes. I suppose one could work around this issue by stopping down and focussing and DOF pretty much absorbs shift by f/2.8 though.
Here's one more (@ f/2). I focussed wide open on my mother's face, totally missed it. A lot of folks tend to skip this lens and go to 100/2 MP. May be it's just me, I find them to be different in terms of how they render.
Anden....I need to buy a 21mm for myself so I can get great shots like those.....wait, I already do. Haven't seen great shots like that yet though, must be photographer. Very nice!
joekraft wrote:
Juan - the 35 is still a fast lens. You don't need to consider it any differently than you would any other fast lens as far as tripod use goes. The lighting conditions and your skill will dictate when a tripod would help you get a better image.
I don't have any empirical evidence yet, but I can tell you in my experience with the ZE, low-light images do seem slightly better with the ZE than the 35L that I had for years. Colors seem to be a little better, and the noise a little less ugly. I'd be very interested to hear if anyone else has a feeling on this.
The one other thing that was a concern to me though, was losing a stop between the 35L/1.4 and the ZE/2. My eyes are going, and I have to do a lot of low-light shooting, so I was concerned the viewfinder would be darker in losing that step. However, the difference is pretty much impossible to see in the viewfinder, so that was a relief....Show more →
Hi Joe, Thanks for your comment.
I love this lens....
Great shots Anden. The 21 ZE is amazing lens. It captures colors in the moment, without having remember them, and bring them back to life with PP.
Adamwilde: Yes the 100MP was at f2, and the 85L was at f4. You are quite right, different DOF. I was trying to capture more the rendering, and color. I am still getting the downsizing for the web to display what I have to present correctly. No problems upsizing for large prints.
Ajay C: Thanks for the heads up. It is hard enough with AF, to get the focus point 100% with narrow DOF's, but if there is a focus shift, you can't get it right with MF either. I find this very frustrating when you are trying to capture the emotion of the shot.
Philber: Thanks for the shots with the 85 ZE. I like the bokeh on the 85 much better than the 100MP.
It would be nice to see comparison shots of the same scene with equivalent distance to subject and subject to background distances.Boris's shot with the out of focus sunlit tree leaves and branches is a tough test.
philber wrote:
85 ZE and 50 ZE f:1.4 have a drawing style which is rather different from 50MP and 100 MP IMHO.
Here are three shots taken today, which may give you a feel for this. Not true portraits, not close to wide open, so sorry.
charles.K wrote:
I like the bokeh on the 85 much better than the 100MP.
I'm still a bit confused about the bokeh 100MP ZE creates.
Sometimes it's a bit harsh, but I connect it to the special conditions, like strong wind.
But most of the time it's very painterly and beautiful...
philber - Thanks, those work.... not f/1.4 er f/2 but they work
charles.k - The shot with the 5 of them, wow, amazing!
Ajay C - Yes, missed on that one, was it focus shift?
snowborder - I tend to get pleasing bokeh for the most part with the 100/2. I find if the background exposure doesn't vary from light to dark to fast, it's amazing, I think the bokeh gets a bit crazy with foliage that's backlit... Though even then I've gotten some pleasing results.
The 85 1.4 is definitely on the list now... The 21 I want, but would rarely use, so it's not justifiable.
