Smridevan wrote:
So after spending a week reading all about Zeiss lens in this forum and the beautiful pictures that they produce, I took the plunge and bought the Zeiss 35/1.4 ZF.2. I use it with my D90. From what I've been reading and from my initial experience with it, the bokeh is amazing. However, I heard the resolution of this lens wasn't its strong point compared to the 35/2, but since I don't own the 35/2, I decided to test and compare the resolution with my Nikon 25-70/2.8G at 35mm.
I took shots at f2.8 and f4 for both lens (at 35mm for the Nikon). I viewed the raw file in Picasa at 100% zoomed in (just ordered Lightroom and still waiting for it). I was disappointed to discover that the Nikon has better resolution in the center at both apertures than the Zeiss 35/1.4! However, the Zeiss was slightly sharper along the outer edge.
Is this normal? Did I get a bad Zeiss sample? I thought Zeiss was king of resolution. Considering that the Zeiss is a prime lens and is more expensive than my Nikon, I would expect it to perform better at the center than the Nikon. Does anyone have a similar finding about the resolution of the Zeiss 35/1.4 lens?...Show more →
No, your sample is fine and 24-70 f2.8 is probably sharper.
But theres thing. Zoom cant do f1.4, it doesnt have micro-contrast, it has different colors. Most ppl buy Zeiss exactly for what that zoom cant do. Same reason why ppl use Leica R lens today, or Contax Yashica (old Zeiss), or Minolta MD/MC etc. Cause they are different.. maybe not always sharpest, but different.. usually in good way. They have kinda "character". Even old Nikkors has (or even newer AiS).
Thx Smridevan! Plenty of great shots again. Zeiss production line is really running fast.
Ah - another one for you, Smridevan: one great reason to buy Zeiss lenses might be, that they are a hell lot faster than anything else you can screw to your cam. See how fast the loads of world class photos are running in here. No photo thread in the world could keep up with these brillant speed lenses!
Here's another one from my cup series. And this time it IS taken with the 2/35 (controlled the EXIF's for safety reasons). Sacks & ashes! Last one wasn't a Zeiss shot at all - mixed it up with this one here, mea culpa!
Bigger upload giving you the chance to see the fine details of the lovely logo (a lady and a gentleman savouring their steaming coffee, while a barista is preparing fresh drinks behind his desk).
Mescalamba wrote:
No, your sample is fine and 24-70 f2.8 is probably sharper.
But theres thing. Zoom cant do f1.4, it doesnt have micro-contrast, it has different colors. Most ppl buy Zeiss exactly for what that zoom cant do. Same reason why ppl use Leica R lens today, or Contax Yashica (old Zeiss), or Minolta MD/MC etc. Cause they are different.. maybe not always sharpest, but different.. usually in good way. They have kinda "character". Even old Nikkors has (or even newer AiS).
Very true. This is precisely the reasons I bought the 35/1.4. I need to take it out for a spin this weekend to learn more about it.
Smridevan wrote:
Awesome coffee cup pics Vincent and Ripolini!
Thank you guys.
However my pictures are far from being good still-life shots; I should have controlled highlights (i.e. reflections from smooth metal surfaces) in a better way.
Akul wrote
Hexonxonx - 1/15 second !! that is impressive Vincent Kluwe wrote
The water landscape of Hexonxonx is a real wow-er again. Lovely. I was just considering if I should share my Tiergarten picture with bridge, taken with 2/35. But akul does ferns much better and if I see Hexonxonx', I better don't!
Thanks a lot Vincent and Akul !
Concerning the 1/15 second, I must say I've trained a ** lot ** on trivial subjects before some serious shooting but more precisely on getting the plane of focus where I want it to be wide open ( to add difficulty ) and with Z glass I suffered a lot in the beginning !!
I trained beforehand on manual focusing on my Canon 15-85 and Tamron 70-300 and I must say it was piece of cake !
Then I started with the planar 50 I learnt FOCUSING PAIN and also that 2.5 meters is not the same at all as 2.4 meters and you need to do micro adjustements and not move at all your body of course.
I say this for the newbies : the jediness of manual focusing the hard way you will learn
Moreover each lens has it's own very different scale on the barrel, I just got the 85 which is quite different from the 21,35f2, 50f1.4 ... I still have to load a mental file of each lens characterics but I guess that with some more thousand shots I'll no more feel the mental lag of adaptation.
On the other hand with Z glass, I feel under ( positive ) pressure because I know that no shaking is allowed, focusing moves has to be top notch and those are primes so taking pictures require a lot of time compared to the average IS zoom.
I LOVE the challenge though and the good thing is that since I'am aware it requires really some time to get a picture right, I take more time to think and muscle my eyes before shooting so I got few winners instead of buckets of fillers with the standard zoom.
Same reason why ppl use Leica R lens today, or Contax Yashica (old Zeiss), or Minolta MD/MC etc. Cause they are different.. maybe not always sharpest, but different.. usually in good way. They have kinda "character". Even old Nikkors has (or even newer AiS).
