This isn't about the focusing screen. It's about lens specific electronic micro-adjust focusing. Another way to state my question would be to ask if lens-specific micro-adjustment affects when the focus indicator light turns on, which would be useful with manual focus lenses, or whether it only affects auto-focus operation? Anyone know?
splathrop wrote:
This isn't about the focusing screen. It's about lens specific electronic micro-adjust focusing. Another way to state my question would be to ask if lens-specific micro-adjustment affects when the focus indicator light turns on, which would be useful with manual focus lenses, or whether it only affects auto-focus operation? Anyone know?
Yes it's possible to micro-adjust them, but I have to say that the focus confirmation isn't all that reliable. When it lights up and you then pull the focusring a tiny bit further... it still lights up.
That's why I always use the focusing screen or liveview.
While I really like the look of the OOF areas and transitions in the 35/1.4 ZE, is it just me or does it have far less 3D character than the 35/2 At the risk of being slapped by a heavy lens, the 35/1.4 looks almost Leica-like in its rendering to me compared to the 35/2.
It would seem that you have to choose between smooth or 3D rather than being able to get both "better" in the f/1.4. Am I missing something, or is that a fair assessment?
Jim, everyone has an own vision on that.
For me the question is: "how life-like does it look?" The 1.4 is better in this regard than the f2 I also had. The clarity, color and fine details are better IMO.
The f2 is punchier, more in-your-face and has a different DOF-falloff. That's why some people call it more 3D.
So I do understand your assessment. Nothing wrong with it
General speaking:
In order to like the 35/1.4 you have to appreciate the elegance and fine detail of it.
To show that fine detail, here's a full-res shot for those interested:
I tend to avoid the '3D' discussion. With that said, I tend to agree with Jochen. In addition, rendition of 1.4 feels like 'glass is more transparent'. and from that reason, it can give 'being right there' impression. That, to me, can also be described as 'strong three dimensionality'. Jochen's example showcases that character very well. Whether that is more 'Leica like' or not, I can't say as I don't have any experience with Leica lenses. I've been checking out KEH for R lenses, but it will take a while.
Thanks for the examples. The f/1.4 does not have the in-your-face look of the f/2 and does look more natural. Didn't mean to unearth a 3D debate...it just seemed the most expeditious route to trying convey what I perceived as a difference. I also wasn't trying to proclaim one as more desirable. It just seemed that they really provided different drawing in addition to a different aperture.
I tend to avoid the '3D' discussion. With that said, I tend to agree with Jochen. In addition, rendition of 1.4 feels like 'glass is more transparent'. and from that reason, it can give 'being right there' impression. That, to me, can also be described as 'strong three dimensionality'. Jochen's example showcases that character very well. Whether that is more 'Leica like' or not, I can't say as I don't have any experience with Leica lenses. I've been checking out KEH for R lenses, but it will take a while.
Thanks Akul.I guess I associate a natural look with a more Leica-like drawing style. Leica doesn't have a franchise on that, but a lot of their lenses have that look to me.
Relating to R lenses, I have my 50/2 and my R6 film body for sale in the B&S at the moment. Moving to San Francisco and I need to simplify my camera gear.
Jochenb, thanks for the input. I use live view for landscapes, including fairly dark landscapes, and I am very happy with it. But for people shots in dark interiors I am trying to optimize through-the-viewfinder focusing. When it's dark, I have trouble seeing the screen accurately enough. I have a matte screen and watch the indicator, and concentrate on using the center focusing point on my 5D II. A large majority come out at least usable for casual use and small enlargements, even at f/1.4. But it would be cool to absolutely nail focus more often. Like you, I see some ambiguity in the focus indicator, so I doubt that is going to happen. But I figured if I could make an adjustment, it might be worth it to do some tests to see if there was a pattern in out-of-focus results, and compensate for that—center the randomness closer to the target.
reza187 wrote:
Interesting. Currently I have 2/35 Zeiss and Canon 35mm F1.4L. I've seen stunning images from 1.4/35 Zeiss, and I wonder if it's worth upgrading my 2/35 Zeiss to 1.4/35, as I already have the 35L. I can't dump my 35L, cos sometimes I need its af.
I'm playing catch up on the last 10 pages. So many great images by everyone here, but here's just a few that caught my eye: (sorry if I missed any out, there are just so many great works here)
Jim - Love the clock and arches, the colours are so subtle in that arches shot.
Mohamed - Some uber cool shots with the ZE21
Prosep - The B&W shot with the tree stump is great, the lives really work well.
Smridevan - Cool shot of Manhattan, I love cities at that time before sunrise and after sunset when the sky is a nice tone of blue and all the lights are on. Cool.
reza187 - Great autumn shots, especially the first one with the path. Maybe a tad over saturated though.
kururu - Great colours and textures in those trees.
Lieutenant - Great shot of the kid with train/tram.
Jochenb - Nice looking dog. Interesting conversation about the 2 35's. I've missed a load of pages here, has anyone posted comparisons showing the fine detail with a stopped down shot at distance?
The shot with the 21 is awesome, Must have been a hike to that viewpoint.
MorrieC wrote:
Taken with a 21ZE. Timed exposure HDR converted to B & W in Photomatix.
We are seeing more and more people living on the streets during these slow times.
Thanks for looking
Morrie
This image is both magical and sad, I've noticed many homeless people in my walks around London. It's very sad at any time of the year but around the holidays when it's colder and we're cozy at home with our families it seems even harder to accept.
As I promised, here are my attempt to do some comparisons of ZF.2 35/ 1.4 and 2.0. Shots are mostly done on a tripod with cable release, manual exposure, focus was done on Live VIew with Loupe. D700 images are shot as NEF, and I adjusted the exposure to roughly match ( except for the boat shot) so that it is less distracting. Resizing was simple bicubic, with no sharpening applied.
First, F2 bokeh
f3.2
f4
Earlier I mentioned about 1.4 to be brighter at the same exposure setting. Here is an example. These photos also shows 1.4 to have shallower DOF at the same f stop. ( Or at least it appears that way)
both at f4, 1/3200
Distortions are about the same from medium distance on. Nikon 24-70 is also shown for comparison. Nikon shows much less distortion at 35mm
As D700 is limited to 12MP ( which is plenty for me, but ), I also did a quick comparison on a NEX5. This one was without a tripod. (need to get a universal plate ) Camera was set against a railing, but you can see compositions are not the same.
and 100% crop from center area
My finding is that I am not that analytical type of a person
I love them both !
I love f.2 for its contrasty rendition, however, it is more challenge to achieve oof background compare to 1.4 at the same aperture. And as much as I like f2's bokeh, 1.4's bokeh is just wonderful. 1.4 shows a silky elegant rendition, which brings out more subtlety, and to me, also feels more 'transparent' as I keep using this expression. My only gripe is ( for both Zeiss lenses) relatively strong distortion. However, when all cards are down, still love the rendition. Eventually, I may let go of f2 if it does not get much use, time will tell.
At the risk of being slapped by a heavy lens, the 35/1.4 looks almost Leica-like in its rendering to me compared to the 35/2. 
