Samuli Vahonen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.59 #7 · ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
People whom thing "lens quality = sharpness", "lenses can be evaluated by single numerical rating" etc. can skip to next post...
I'm also big fan of "black sheep" of ZE/ZF/ZK-lenses (1.4 planar, both of them), which some people don't seem to like, not even that somebody likes them, I wonder what makes them hate these lenses so much.
I like the 1.4/85 better than the 1.4/50, mainly due to random bokeh problems on corners in 1.4/50, which also sometimes cause interesting effects (can be used as an advantage as well).
For me 50 and 85 are definitely lenses, which I love for the character. I really would like to see 35mm Zeiss with similar character as 50 and 85 since it would be "perfect" partner for 85ZE, 50 and 85 are too close to each other in field of view.
And same warning I have given earlier: Under any circumstances I don't recommend 50 or 85 planar to anybody, they have their faults and if you don't mitigate the focus shift and understand these are not meant to be shoot close neither wide open (and specially not combined close and wide open), one will just be disappointed.
Some photos from Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 ZE, all f/2.2 or f/2.5:
1. Close-up some swirly/painterly bokeh:
2. Almost as 85 Planar (=razorblades and cream) except corner bokeh:
3, Weaker contrast in bokeh helps background colored subject to stand out:
4. "melancholy" (my mood when shooting this...)
5. Like said sometimes bokeh acts weird even 1.5 stops closed down:
camershy wrote:
Well it can't be just us three-Let's hear from some others that "get" the 50 1.4 . Lovely image by the way
Considering that there are lots of "fans" of Contax 1.7/50 and 1.4/50, and ZE/ZF/ZK is same lens (maybe slightly improved but has exactly same character) I doubt we are alone.
So many people are after sharpness, which is offered by other Zeiss ZE/ZF/ZK lenses, specially D21, D35, M-P50 and M-P100. Originally also I got interested of alternative lenses at 2006 due to sharpness; I found out that with Canon I can shoot nature picture showing leaves but with Leica I can see the small veins in the leaves... Sharpness is great for some shots, but for majority of the stuff I shoot I prefer to have certain character in the drawing style, assuming there is still sufficient sharpness for A3 printing.
adamdewilde wrote:
Going to Boracay in two weeks. What lenses should I bring.
I've the 35ze, 50mpze, 85ze, 100mpze..
I was thinking 35 and 100 and calling it a day. Though would I be missing out 
I'm looking for someone to convince me to pickup a 21ze, and I'm also looking for people to convince me that two lenses is enough. Though I currently think bringing all 4 is a good idea. I'll BTW be spending a few days in Manila as well.
Think I will take all lenses, thoughts?
Adam, based on our discussion on the other thread I vent to few hikes with 21ZE and 100ZE. It really didn't work for me, I had to shoot way too many panoramas with 100ZE just to get wider view. Also I was in April at Paris for shooting tourist stuff, and didn't have much use for the 100ZE, too short for details, too long for most of the other stuff. Based on this I would recommend 21ZE (yes, you have to get it...), 35ZE and 85ZE - however if you want also to shoot macro then it might be good idea to replace 85ZE with 100ZE. Having just 3 lenses makes possible to use very small size camera bag. I had 21, 28, 35, 50, 85 and 100 ZEs + Contax 80-200 in Paris, way too much to carry on holiday, goes well when hiking with big camera bag or big hiking backpack.
wayne seltzer wrote:
The only differences I see between the two lenses is the bokeh, which the MP is smoother and less busy/nervous
Wayne, this is true, but also Makro-Planars (50 and 100 - compared to planar 50 and 85) have much more contrast on the bokeh and quite different transition from DOF to bokeh. This may or may not generate meaningful differences. For me it's important since I mostly shoot nature pictures with "ugly edgy things" not that far away from the focal plane.
Sure makro-planars are sharper, better on corners, better on close-ups. For these reasons I would consider myself crazy if I used something else than 100ZE for my shallow DOF "emulate large sensor" panoramas, in practice there is no difference between extreme corner and center at f/2.8 (except vignetting), making stitching very easy. However on some other situations I prefer lenses like 50 & 85 Planar, or Contax/Yashica Sonnars etc. mainly on situations I want to express some feelings with my photos, or want to have some specific look in my image.
Some people don't understand or appreciate lens characteristics; I value them very high, I don't have 11 different 50mm lenses due to searching for most sharpest 50mm... However if I need to document something very accurately, I prefer to use "dead" lenses without characteristics, even Canon's would do well if their "numeric" properties are good enough.
Samuli
|
I've got the contrasty 35/2, so it'll be very interesting to try something else from Zeiss. For SLR that is; the 35/2.8 Biogon is probably the nicest lens ever, and it's a lot smoother than the Distagon. 
