Ok I just want to say that you guys were absolutely right about the ZE 35, it is just SO SHARP! I've only had the chance to take it out just around my apartment complex, so please excuse my boring photos, but I'm planning a trip on monday and I intend to use this lens almost exclusively to really test it out!
All the photos were taken with the 5DmkII in the AdobeRGB colorspace and Imported into Lightroom (which natively converts to ProPhoto RGB) I did no saturation, vibrance or contrast adjustments aside from what Lightroom may do on its own during RAW conversion. I DID correct the WB on a couple shots, and the last one I used the fill light slider to brighten the foreground. No Sharpness adjustments were done. All the shots were taken at f/2 (wide-open)
Not that a 1024px JPEG says a lot, but this thing is flippin sharp!
Note: any vignetting was not done in post and was either a bad exposure on my part or caused naturally by the lens, that being said, I like vignetting and will never complain about that
* please excuse the blown out sky, there isn't much color out right now*
I can already tell that I'm going to enjoy this lens! I can't wait to get more ZE glass!
Mast3rChi3f wrote:
Makten you are the 35mm man. Nice work with that lens.
Hey, thanks! I like your second shot a lot. The first one is a little too tight though.
------------------------------
AbramG, you should really use the sRGB profile for the web! 99% of the viewers are using browsers that will make the greater profiles only look worse, with less saturation.
Speaking of which Makten or anyone else who wants to chime in quickly... This is how I work my files, I use sRGB for my in camera color space, then what I do is use lightroom to process my raw files into TIFFs I'll adjust the color and exposure. Once that's done I bring my files into lightroom and work on aesthetics of the human form.
Then, I generally save the tiff again for "storage" as well as to send to my client, the magazine designers handle color space, printing etc.. Unless I'm asked to. And depending on the magazine I usually prefer to handle myself.
Afterwards, I usually save a small jpg for web (photoshop) so I can either display on my site, or just keep for quick reference..
My question I guess would be, what is the best way to save for web, where as if I wanted people to view it, it would look good/closest to what I see?
And it pertains the the ZE/ZF/ZM forum because I'm using zeiss lenses for said photos
BTW, just picked up the 85ZE, waiting for it to arrive so I can test it out. I wonder how it will differ from the 100ZE (aside from FL) and if the focus shift will be an issue for my type of work..
Makten wrote:
AbramG, you should really use the sRGB profile for the web! 99% of the viewers are using browsers that will make the greater profiles only look worse, with less saturation.
I usually worked in sRGB, but I prefer the end result of ProPhoto RGB, I use Safari as a browser which is color managed, but you're right, I have to accept the fact that some people are still in the dark ages and using Internet Explorer.
I'll post in sRGB like I usually did from here out.
adamdewilde wrote:
My question I guess would be, what is the best way to save for web, where as if I wanted people to view it, it would look good/closest to what I see?
There are thousands of ways. The most important thing is sharpening and to convert to sRGB for the web. I usually apply just a tiny bit of sharpening in ACR (25%, 1.0 pixel radius), then 200% @ 0.8 pixel radius in PS "smart sharpen". After downsampling (bicubic) to desired size, I sharpen again with 30-50% @ 0.2-0.3 pixel radius. Oh, and it's a good idea to sharpen only the lightness channel in LAB mode! That way you don't affect colors and contrast.
AbramG wrote:
I usually worked in sRGB, but I prefer the end result of ProPhoto RGB, I use Safari as a browser which is color managed, but you're right, I have to accept the fact that some people are still in the dark ages and using Internet Explorer.
I'll post in sRGB like I usually did from here out.
You can work in other spaces, but since most browsers and screens cannot display them correctly, it's best to convert to sRGB as the last thing you do.
hrm.. Makten, I notice that when I "convert for web" the photos are not sharp at all...
I'll try out what you suggested. BTW printing with Zeiss lenses, I must say though not as noticeable as on screen viewing, is still a step above what I'm use to seeing with Canon Ls
Makten... great colors...again
bentenjima... great shots too.
Must be the D700
Makten... Great advice. I read in number of places to sharpen in PS in LAB mode, in the lightness channel, but I have not really embraced this yet. Will try to incoporate this in my workflow ...
I do all this as well, but not for webjpgs... I didn't realize you should over sharpen a web image. Or at least thats what I'm lead to believe you're telling me with your tutorial, as I usually have no reason to sharpen my images that much otherwise.
adamdewilde wrote:
I do all this as well, but not for webjpgs... I didn't realize you should over sharpen a web image. Or at least thats what I'm lead to believe you're telling me with your tutorial, as I usually have no reason to sharpen my images that much otherwise.
In my opinion, an image isn't "oversharpened" as long as you don't see any artefacts or the image looks harsh. Sharpen it as hard as you can without making it look oversharpened.
The very few pixels at hand for web display demands some good sharpening.
I've been lurking around this forum for awhile, and I have to say the Zeiss lens seem to blow the Ls' out of the water.
Maybe you guys can help an interested amateur. I mostly interested in travel photography and wide shots (not super wide) on my crop 40D. After much deliberation I went ahead and purchased the 17-40L, then 70-200 f/4L, and last the 50 f/1.4. After testing the 17-40L I was completely disappointed on the center softness. I know this was intended for a FF, but I doubt it would look that much better on one.
Here is where my question comes in. I'm selling off all my old lens, including the 17-40L (keeping the 70-200 & 50 f/1.4) and planning to pick up the 35ZE and the Tamron 17-50 to fill in the gaps, especially when I need AF. Does this sound reasonable? From the test shots I've seen the Tamron is way sharper than the Canon 17-40L, but may be laking saturation. I looked at the 24-105 & 24-70, and I'm looking for a bit wider and little less weight for a walk-around lens.
For those who have the 35ZE on a crop body, does it seem to suffice as a walk around for 75% of the time?
My friend has a crop body (7D) and he likes my 35/2 though his only other lens for reference is the 50 1.4 canon.
He's going for the 24-70L, and I wholly recommend it to him, along with the 70-200 f/4
Though since you're set on zeiss lenses, you only have two options that fit your description 28/2 or 35/2, both are nice lenses, so really it comes down to what FL you like more.. Also keep in mind that you'll keep the lenses a lot longer then the body, so one day you may end up going FF.
And yes to answer your question, seeing the 35/2 on his 7D, I could say that it would work as a walk around lens. Of course depending on your style. If you like wide candids, rather then tight cropped candids. And if you liked shots of most of the building over shots of details of the building.. Then the 35/2 could do it.
Nice work with that lens.
