Gunzorro wrote:
denoir -- So, according to the MTFs, the two are almost identical, with a slight edge in favor of the 1.4. That's pretty impressive!
No, not really. I mean they are both 35mm Zeiss Distagon designs so they are similar in many ways, but there are differences. For stopped down shooting each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Here's an expanded MTF chart (@ f/4) that shows how it looks across the frame. I also included the 35/2 Biogon ZM as it's a very different lens.
Each 3D plot shows the the MTF applied on a full frame (35x24) image at a given resolution and direction:
So what do we see:
1) At all resolution levels except the 10 lp/mm sagittal the ZE 35/1.4 shows locally higher resolution than the ZE 35/2. The really relevant part is the fine detail (40 lp/mm) center frame.
2) The ZE 35/1.4 shows much more field curvature than the ZE 35/2.
3) The ZM 35/2 shows much higher contrast than both the ZE lenses at 20 & 40 lp/mm.
So for stopped down shooting at infinity - i.e typical landscape photography the ZM 35/2 Biogon is very good while both ZE 35's are..well.. not very good. The 35/1.4 is better in the fine detail department but it it is uneven across the frame due to field curvature. The ZE 35/2 MTF chart is consistent with my experience with the lens - it's great wide open and at close and medium distances but not good for traditional landscapes.
Now before you conclude that the ZM 35/2 is the best lens of the lot, I'll show you an image from it that will make you think otherwise:
The ZM 35 is definitely the best of the three for landscapes, but it can be downright awful wide open and can produce really nasty bokeh. The ZE 35/1.4 on the other hand seems to be very good in that department. The ZE 35/2 also has a much more pleasant OOF rendering compared to the ZM 35/2.
The bottom line is that the different 35's are good at different things.
The first shot of the statue is especially appealing. Nice one Philippe! :-)
On a light note, it is interesting to see peacocks are becoming standard test subjects for the 35 1.4 :-) !!
Dr.Nasse, in his mini-book on DoF and bokeh states that, for under-corrected SA designs, a small change in aperture value can sometimes result in noticeable differences in rendering behavior. So for this lens, I am a bit interested in seeing the rendering differences at 1.4, 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0
Hope I'm not posting too many, and not too large? :-) These photos are mostly 'getting-to-know-the-lens tests', inspired by pictures I've seen on this thread for the past year or two, so please forgive me if I'm not very original in my posting.
I recently added the 6th Zeiss to my lineup, the ZE 85/1.4 - expecting it to be soft wide open, especially compared to my 100/2MP. I must say though that I'm thoroughly impressed - the lens is far from soft in my opinion, even at 100% view. It most definitely has a glow though :-) The following are all wide open SOOC except for web-resizing, except for the architectural shot which is f/4. The thing that struck me most though was the color rendition - it's the most accurate I've seen in any of my ZE's so far.
PS. This is the first Zeiss I have that needed microadjustment, and not by a small margin - a -15 on the Canon 5D2, after that my pics went from 60% keepers to 90% roughly. I'm not sure why manual focus lenses require microadjustment? I thought the phase-detect focus sensors on the camera wouldn't work unless it saw sharp contrast? Does anyone know?
We've been discussing the focus shift problem on another thread. Initially I thought it was back-focus, but it is a different animal. It seems to most affect the 50/1.4 Planar and the 85/1.4 Planar models. I had recently bought a 50/1.4 and found the shift far beyond what I could live with at middle apertures, and returned it.
The effect is the focal plane shifting as the aperture is changed from viewing aperture to taking aperture. The effect is not noticable wide open (or nearly wide open), or closed down to where DOF covers up the shift in focal plane.
denoir -- Thanks for the added evaluation of the information. I don't know how one can figure anything out from MTF charts without a lot of training!
Phil -- Loving seeing your photos with the new lens!
kiddik - lovely pics. Very nice! Good 'atmospherics' in those images.
Gunzorro: The focus shift problem is simply called that, focus shift. However, the amount of shift you saw was quite severe and probably more than normal for the aperture values used and at the subject distance used. I wouldn't rule out issues with a specific sample or other factors yet. Did you buy the 50MP ?
abhijeeth -- Thanks. Yes, I think you are right that there may have been other issues compounding that arrangement.
No I haven't got the funds for the 50MP. I'm still considering it for down the line. I recently purchased a bunch of new lenses, and the 50/1.4 was stretching the limit.
I've been evaluating my Canon 50 Macro and Nikon 55/1.2 with adapter, and they are doing pretty well. I took the 55 out today (with a few other odd choices) and was impressed with its performance (again!). If only it had exif info and auto aperture!
May 14, 2011 at 12:36 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
rji2goleez wrote:
Lars - You make the 100mp really shine showing it's sharpness but it's your composition and lighting that are consistently brilliant!
+1
Thanks akul! Here is another 50 Planar shot. I was having some trouble balancing shadows on the right with the low contrast in the centre. It was raining, which gave the vibrant colours.
