Can you tell what aperture you used here. I am interested because I see quite a lot of CA in the trees, but if it is wide open it is explainable/acceptable.
Edit: I see it as @3.2. Hmmm, that is a little disappointing in my opinion.
wiseguy010 wrote:
Can you tell what aperture you used here. I am interested because I see quite a lot of CA in the trees, but if it is wide open it is explainable/acceptable.
Edit: I see it as @3.2. Hmmm, that is a little disappointing in my opinion.
You got me on this Wiseguy. CA is one of the many areas I am not good at in looking at lense rendition. My approach is that unless it is bothering me, I don't look for it, and until then, does not bother me. Branches agains white fog is one tough situation. Interestingly, I tend to get bothered by 100MP more often in this situation. Your miles may vary.
akul wrote:
You got me on this Wiseguy. CA is one of the many areas I am not good at in looking at lense rendition. My approach is that unless it is bothering me, I don't look for it, and until then, does not bother me. Branches agains white fog is one tough situation. Interestingly, I tend to get bothered by 100MP more often in this situation. Your miles may vary.
If I'm not mistaken, that is purple fringing. Not many lenses are immune to this situation, especially large aperture lenses. I do not share wiseguy's disappointment here.
@Rodluvan: I dug down a spec that says .22m, or ~8.5 in. for the MFD for the 21mm. Given that the lens is 3-4 in. long, it *feels* really close. It is somewhere around 5ish inches from the lens.
I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC as well. I don't have the spec handy, but it's MFD (near 21mm) is another 5in or so back. I discovered this when I was doing some comparison photos and discovered that the Tamron couldn't get anywhere near as close.
And for lenses this wide, 5 in. more makes a *huge* difference in the apparent size of near objects like flowers. On the Tamron, you can make up for that by going to 50mm. (I discovered this on a long trip out of the country where I left my macro home because of weight and didn't yet own the Zeiss.)
So, you aren't going to shoot tiny bugs, or closeups of the flower stamens, with the 21mm, but it does get in there close enough, to be surprisingly good for some objects people normally use a macro for, like flowers. And it looks pretty darn good at MFD.
Very good images. everyone. This thread has more and more people join in. I especially like the 35 and 85 shots showing here.
Reza, your first 351.4 shot is very nice. I really like the paint like drawing and PP, it worked here. I also like The P85 shot from Rodluvan, like the mood and background.
The P85 is a sharp lens wide open. If you can handle Manual focus at 85mm, go for it. 35 take so many credit, other than focal length, I feel P85 short nothing compare to it. Maybe one more: focus shift
Here are few P85 at wide open. I don't need to do anything, lens do it all for me. Of cause I need give credit to my beautiful daughter
Philip, I love the second one (the forest scene). That is an amazing shot. There is an air of both beauty and mystery. It is easy to imagine the trees are watching you.
Of the shots on the linked page, I liked the shot of the algae in the flowing water. Beautiful.
Zhangyu - Great portraits of your daughter. I can see she is quite happy with her fancy jacket
uscmatt99 - Nice shots with ZM25. #2 from this page is my fav
Lieutenant - Love the texture and light.
Phillip - Gorgeous shots. I especially like the red earth shot and the low tree tunnel shot. Somehow, I have trouble viewing that particular photo at the moment. ( Image does not show .. )
It is somewhere around 5ish inches from the lens.
