Bob, very nice sunsets! Technically perfect as well.
Douglas, I do not disagree with what you're saying. My comments were more towards the artisitic and drawing style side. For some reasons, I guess probably vignetting and FC, it produces some very special results on FF. On APS-C maybe because the effects of vignetting and FC are gone, the lens becomes technically perfect edge to edge as you describe, but somehow looses a bit of its magic. I use it only on FF mind you, so I base my observations on the samples I see regularly in several threads around here.
PS: I also notice some glow wide open but only around the outer parts of the frame (maybe SA?) that disappears at f/2.8. I am pretty sure this glow is invisible on cropped sensor.
douglasf13 wrote:
Boy, I'm not sure that I agree. I do think the ZM 35/2.8 maybe looses something on aps-c, but the ZM 35/2 is just about a perfect lens on aps-c, IMO. I must have a particularly good copy or something, because I'm shocked how sharp it is wide open, and, stopped down a tad, it's more or less technically perfect edge to edge on aps-c. As Luka has mentioned, it's among the best lenses I've used for infinity focus, and I find it to be a great standard lens on NEX, if you want technical. I still like the Contax G, too, but it can't touch the ZM in sharpness, distortion, flare, etc.
I've also been surprised how usable the ZM 50/1.5 is on aps-c. It's a great portrait length on a crop camera, and, by cutting off the edges a bit, it's truly two lenses in one, depending on how far you stop down. ...Show more →
The 35 f/2.8 was reputed to have excellent performance on center by photozone, and so on by Sean Reid on the M9. But after having both, the 25 just have a nicer rendering (also perhaps a little sharper?) and its easier to focus with. Perhaps its due the longer focus throw of the 25.
I've been very interested in the personalities of the Sonar. Do you have a picture from the NEX, preferably wide open or f/2 ? The samples on M8 / M9 looks splendid.
frezeiss wrote:
Edward, the 2nd shot is very nice. It seems the Planar also sings on film
I like these shots too. WB also looks good and the highlights are natural. Not sure how much of the soft/smooth highlights is due to the paper calendar used and how much of it is from the film's natural response, but I like the result !!
Abhijeeth and Luka, thank you very much. actually the paper calendar is used as a hood against the light shining directly into the eyes of the stone cutter. It actually increased the contrast of the scene. The silky highlights are due to the Fuji pro 160s film, usually used for weddings and portraits. Almost impossible to blow out the highlights.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Bob, very nice sunsets! Technically perfect as well.
Douglas, I do not disagree with what you're saying. My comments were more towards the artisitic and drawing style side. For some reasons, I guess probably vignetting and FC, it produces some very special results on FF. On APS-C maybe because the effects of vignetting and FC are gone, the lens becomes technically perfect edge to edge as you describe, but somehow looses a bit of its magic. I use it only on FF mind you, so I base my observations on the samples I see regularly in several threads around here.
PS: I also notice some glow wide open but only around the outer parts of the frame (maybe SA?) that disappears at f/2.8. I am pretty sure this glow is invisible on cropped sensor. ...Show more →
I hear you. Being currently an aps-c shooter, I think of the ZM 35/2 as closer to the ZM 50/2 equivalent on 135 (minus the stop of equivalent DOF, of course.)
It would be interesting to compare the vignetting of film vs. NEX. I know that 135 digital sensors tend to have more vignetting than film, due to the angle of the light rays, so it'd be funny if the vignetting of aps-c is closer to the vignetting of film, but I doubt it. I do know that all of the ZM Biogons tend to vignette quite a bit more than many other lenses on NEX.
In fact, I just looked over at Photozone, and the ZM 35/2 on the NEX-5 vignettes at f2 nearly identically to the ZE 50/2 on the 5D at f2.8. Obviously, there are a ton of variables, here.
frezeiss wrote:
The 35 f/2.8 was reputed to have excellent performance on center by photozone, and so on by Sean Reid on the M9. But after having both, the 25 just have a nicer rendering (also perhaps a little sharper?) and its easier to focus with. Perhaps its due the longer focus throw of the 25.
I've been very interested in the personalities of the Sonar. Do you have a picture from the NEX, preferably wide open or f/2 ? The samples on M8 / M9 looks splendid.
The Sonnar on NEX certainly behaves differently than it does on 135, but it's pretty cool. Since aps-c cuts off the edges, you get a pretty sharp (but not Planar sharp) performance across the frame at f5.6.
Here is one I posted earlier in this thread. This was at f2 or so on the 5N.
wfrank wrote:
Hi Douglas. Far too small to judge almost anything. Love the snowflakes and expressions though, looks like it could be a really good shot.
It's the only size that I have readily available at the moment. Still, it gives a good idea of the out of focus transition, vignetting, bokeh and vibe of the lens at f2'ish. If you're looking for sharpness faster than f2.8, this isn't the lens for you, anyways, and the Planar is the better choice. The Sonnar just isn't a super sharp lens...I believe Zeiss calls it "round" sharpness.
Great person obviuosly too!
Edward, what is your subject doing, I like the the rendition very much but have no idea what this machine is. Looks like ice cutting? But ice in Thailand? This is usually called Iceland
