ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
p.594 #1ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
wfrank wrote:
Thanks kindly for all comments on the 50P.
Here are two more 50P then a 85P from today in super extreme spring light.
Nice images. Do you have both the Contax and the ZF/ZE versions of the 50 and 85 planars?
Thanks kindly for all comments on the 50P.
Here are two more 50P then a 85P from today in super extreme spring light.
Nice images. Do you have both the Contax and the ZF/ZE versions of the 50 and 85 planars?
Apr 15, 2012 at 02:43 PM
p.594 #3ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
I turn around and there are four pages of amazing works. Great works everyone. Sorry for not commenting to all.
Samuli, Edward, frezeiss, Lieutenant, bpark42, Ant, thank you for your comments.
Edward - You use the same view to test your camera, lens. Very smart. GXR looks pretty good.
Ant - Love your work, I hope to see more soon.
At least I don't mind. I doubt 2/35 would have made any difference. I think if I would have shoot those I would have exposed 1/3 or even 2/3 stop lower (I rarely use light meter, I have "standard" conditions viewing the LCD because using LCDVF, blocking all light and just seeing the LCD - so I know based on how the LCD looks like in live view how the exposure is going to end up - of course sometimes I overexpose and then take it down in post processing if image style requires it [this will enhance colors]), and...Show more →
Thank you Samuli for your input. I am not sure whether I got your Live VIew exposure part. With D700, actual exposure to what I see on LCD has no relationship. With NEX, it is pretty much WYSIWYG, but with D700, not at all. So, with 1.4/35, exposure has been a bit of a challenge. In terms of expose to the right or left, I have been playing with it, but did not think to go left with this scene. Anyhow I rarely go back to old one and redo PP, but your comment got me more interested. So here is what I got.
In terms of dimensionality, not quite yet, but at leas this dialogue is adding more interest in me to look at the way I shoot.
Thanks for the link to your Voigtlander shots. I especially liked the tree shots. Too bad they discontinued that lens already. I somehow got an impression it was less contrasty compare to zeiss. Anyway I should check out the other thread and not to go too much into it here.
Some more pursuit of shooting trees. Light was not as dreadful as last series, so there is more dimensionality. Again, with 1.4/35 ( manually exposed )
Samuli, Edward, frezeiss, Lieutenant, bpark42, Ant, thank you for your comments.
Edward - You use the same view to test your camera, lens. Very smart. GXR looks pretty good.
Ant - Love your work, I hope to see more soon.
At least I don't mind. I doubt 2/35 would have made any difference. I think if I would have shoot those I would have exposed 1/3 or even 2/3 stop lower (I rarely use light meter, I have "standard" conditions viewing the LCD because using LCDVF, blocking all light and just seeing the LCD - so I know based on how the LCD looks like in live view how the exposure is going to end up - of course sometimes I overexpose and then take it down in post processing if image style requires it [this will enhance colors]), and...Show more →
Thank you Samuli for your input. I am not sure whether I got your Live VIew exposure part. With D700, actual exposure to what I see on LCD has no relationship. With NEX, it is pretty much WYSIWYG, but with D700, not at all. So, with 1.4/35, exposure has been a bit of a challenge. In terms of expose to the right or left, I have been playing with it, but did not think to go left with this scene. Anyhow I rarely go back to old one and redo PP, but your comment got me more interested. So here is what I got.
In terms of dimensionality, not quite yet, but at leas this dialogue is adding more interest in me to look at the way I shoot.
Thanks for the link to your Voigtlander shots. I especially liked the tree shots. Too bad they discontinued that lens already. I somehow got an impression it was less contrasty compare to zeiss. Anyway I should check out the other thread and not to go too much into it here.
Some more pursuit of shooting trees. Light was not as dreadful as last series, so there is more dimensionality. Again, with 1.4/35 ( manually exposed )
Apr 15, 2012 at 10:40 PM
p.594 #4ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
akul wrote:
Thank you Samuli for your input. I am not sure whether I got your Live VIew exposure part. With D700, actual exposure to what I see on LCD has no relationship. With NEX, it is pretty much WYSIWYG, but with D700, not at all. So, with 1.4/35, exposure has been a bit of a challenge. In terms of expose to the right or left, I have been playing with it, but did not think to go left with this scene. Anyhow I rarely go back to old one and redo PP, but your comment got me more interested. So here...Show more →
Love the 3D look in this photo!!!
I just finished a weekend with a rented 35mm f/1.4 ZF. I had a lot of fun with it but I also had problems with overexposed shots. I am using a Katzeye on my D700 and that may be the issue. Not a huge issue as I was able to do some adjustments in LR to compensate for overexposure.
Thank you Samuli for your input. I am not sure whether I got your Live VIew exposure part. With D700, actual exposure to what I see on LCD has no relationship. With NEX, it is pretty much WYSIWYG, but with D700, not at all. So, with 1.4/35, exposure has been a bit of a challenge. In terms of expose to the right or left, I have been playing with it, but did not think to go left with this scene. Anyhow I rarely go back to old one and redo PP, but your comment got me more interested. So here...Show more →
Love the 3D look in this photo!!!
I just finished a weekend with a rented 35mm f/1.4 ZF. I had a lot of fun with it but I also had problems with overexposed shots. I am using a Katzeye on my D700 and that may be the issue. Not a huge issue as I was able to do some adjustments in LR to compensate for overexposure.
Apr 15, 2012 at 11:14 PM
p.594 #5ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Samuli, love the last two in the cart wheel series.
Wiseguy, the color shot of the girl is amazing...so smooth, almost dreamlike.
Here are my first shots with the 50MP. While I do a lot of macro/close up work, I had shied away from this lens because it gets a fair amount of griping here. In its brief time in my hands, I really like it. Versatile, sharp, mid weight. I see it residing in my bag long term.
These are all from Whistler, British Columbia.
Cheers,
Jim
Seeing Red I by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Kind of Blue by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Uphill Battle by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
And to all a good night by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
If the trees could talk by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Wiseguy, the color shot of the girl is amazing...so smooth, almost dreamlike.
Here are my first shots with the 50MP. While I do a lot of macro/close up work, I had shied away from this lens because it gets a fair amount of griping here. In its brief time in my hands, I really like it. Versatile, sharp, mid weight. I see it residing in my bag long term.
These are all from Whistler, British Columbia.
Cheers,
Jim
Seeing Red I by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Kind of Blue by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Uphill Battle by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
And to all a good night by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
If the trees could talk by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Apr 15, 2012 at 11:18 PM
p.594 #6ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
...and one from the 1.4/35, same location.
Jim
First Night Out - Eric Serra by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Jim
First Night Out - Eric Serra by Only_to_be_kind, on Flickr
Apr 15, 2012 at 11:19 PM
p.594 #7ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Grenache, congrats on the 50MP! Some nice shots.
It was my very first zeiss and I still use it a lot. Very versatile.
Don't care about the nagging.
The 50MP often gets compared to the technically better 100 and the cheaper 50P. The planar is also nice, but not as versatile (and you have to deal with issues like focus shift).
That being said, I can't think of a lens that doesn't get any criticism on the alt. forum here.
Enjoy it.
It was my very first zeiss and I still use it a lot. Very versatile.
Don't care about the nagging.
The 50MP often gets compared to the technically better 100 and the cheaper 50P. The planar is also nice, but not as versatile (and you have to deal with issues like focus shift).
That being said, I can't think of a lens that doesn't get any criticism on the alt. forum here.
Enjoy it.
Apr 16, 2012 at 01:06 AM
p.594 #8ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
wiseguy010 wrote:
ZF 35/2 @2.8:
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd256/ustjwe/DSC_04732.jpg
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd256/ustjwe/DSC_0482.jpg
wonderful portraits with 35/2 wiseguy,
these portraits reminds me why i hate "which lens for portraits" threads
ZF 35/2 @2.8:
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd256/ustjwe/DSC_04732.jpg
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd256/ustjwe/DSC_0482.jpg
wonderful portraits with 35/2 wiseguy,
these portraits reminds me why i hate "which lens for portraits" threads
Apr 16, 2012 at 01:30 AM
p.594 #9ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Uzay wrote:
wonderful portraits with 35/2 wiseguy,
these portraits reminds me why i hate "which lens for portraits" threads
+1
Of all the great images that keeps coming on this thread these two really caught my eye. Excellent use of this lens with beautiful 3D-rendering (and light) and smooth bokeh, I have to use my own 35/2 more for this kind of close portraits.
And thanks for all kind comments on my snow-scenery some days ago
wiseguy010 wrote
ZF 35/2 @2.8:wonderful portraits with 35/2 wiseguy,
these portraits reminds me why i hate "which lens for portraits" threads
+1
Of all the great images that keeps coming on this thread these two really caught my eye. Excellent use of this lens with beautiful 3D-rendering (and light) and smooth bokeh, I have to use my own 35/2 more for this kind of close portraits.
And thanks for all kind comments on my snow-scenery some days ago
Apr 16, 2012 at 02:06 AM
|
p.594 #11ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Wow, some very nice shots since I last commented. I especially like the latest work of Lars, HelenaN, Lieutenant Z, Samuli, Wfrank, wiseguy010, akul, Grenache, Rodluvan, among others .... Beautiful stuff!
Apr 16, 2012 at 05:34 AM
p.594 #12ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Thank you johnahill, Dalmas, Lieutenant Z, Samuli, Wilhelm and edwardkaraa!
Wilhelm, really nice atmosphere in this set (especially the last one, with the boy):
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/531#10545629
akul, the last one has a really good sense of depth:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/531#10546946
Grenache, interesting and varied set:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/531#10547021
Edited on Apr 16, 2012 at 02:40 PM · View previous versions
Wilhelm, really nice atmosphere in this set (especially the last one, with the boy):
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/531#10545629
akul, the last one has a really good sense of depth:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/531#10546946
Grenache, interesting and varied set:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/860134/531#10547021
Edited on Apr 16, 2012 at 02:40 PM · View previous versions
Apr 16, 2012 at 06:18 AM
p.594 #14ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Some great stuff on this page! Samuli, Wilhelm, Edward, Grenache to name a few for remarkable shots. I think for me the most striking shots were the portraits/people by wiseguy and Rodluvan -- very captivating people.
A few from today with the Zeiss Contax 135/2.8 and 5D2.
Battle of Bougainvillea vs. Black-eyed Susans
A few from today with the Zeiss Contax 135/2.8 and 5D2.
Battle of Bougainvillea vs. Black-eyed Susans
Apr 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM
p.594 #15ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
William, if you don't mind, few hints, which might work on post processing to your last 3 posted photos (personal preferences): 1) exposure 1/3 or 0.5 stop down, WB 175-200K warmer (maybe 2-3 clicks hue towards magenta), 2) exposure 1/3 stop down, WB 150-200L warmer 3) quite close how I would have adjusted, maybe 50-100K warmer WB.
wiseguy010, I have never seen so smooth skin (real people, models with make-up made for photoshoot different thing...), did you use some filter or is she really that smooth skinned? 2nd portrait was very good, really good eye contact.
akul;
"I am not sure whether I got your Live VIew exposure part." --> point was that when using LCDVF the light outside is not affecting LCD, so I get "standard" viewing conditions and I can estimate from LCD how image eventually will end up looking like. It's not WYSIWYG, since 5DmkII LCD definitely isn't even close when it comes to colors, but with "adjustment factor" in my head I can imagine, how it will end up after different RAW processing and adjustments.
Regarding your image, even with different settings I don't see potential for dimensionality, light was just too uniform, non-directional and dull.
"...Voigtlander shots...I somehow got an impression it was less contrasty compare to zeiss." it is, with Zeiss I typically left black point to Apple Aperture default value 3 (sometimes raise it to 4-5, depends on light and exposure), but with Voigtländer I had to systematically raise black point to 3.5-4, and for some shots even to 6. Great small lens - I got it for abstracts etc. where I want flat rendering (compared to Zeiss), and I'm quite happy how it performs in that usage.
From your new photos I liked most the last one, it also had best light...center compositions work well at least for me.
Jim, liked "Seeing red I" and "First Night Out - Eric Serra". 2/50 is good lens for some purposes, however I personally prefer 1.4 version, suits better for my shooting style.
Edward, I'm surpriced (based on my assumptions - thou I have very little information about 4/85, to be honest I haven't even checked MTF...) that 4/85 has so bad bokeh in some pictures. I would have assumed lens so slow, would be made top quality wide open, however wide open the bokeh highlight seem to have very bright edges (like ZE/ZF 2/35 when it's bad). Liked 2nd and 3rd, thou slightly overexposed for my taste. GXR looks good camera, don't see anything obviously wrong, and if wides work without color issues it's quite good for ZM-lenses. Is it how difficult to focus to ZM-lenses with GXR?
Gunzorro, where you got one (2.8/135), didn't know we can get it in Z-mount liked the 1st one, took me long time to figure out the light spots in bokeh, I assume they are reflections from somewhere to house wall or something.
Spring is finally here (well saying this and knowing Murphy's law it will rain 25cm/10" snow tomorrow...)
"Rapolanharju 2012/1 - Hepatica nobilis" - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/25 @ f/5.6, 1/640s, ISO 100 (this is shoot at minimum focusing distance, this flower is really small)
"Rapolanharju 2012/3" - Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/85 @ f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO 100
"Rapolanharju 2012/2" - Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/85 @ f/2.8, 1/500s, ISO 100 (larger)
wiseguy010, I have never seen so smooth skin (real people, models with make-up made for photoshoot different thing...), did you use some filter or is she really that smooth skinned? 2nd portrait was very good, really good eye contact.
akul;
"I am not sure whether I got your Live VIew exposure part." --> point was that when using LCDVF the light outside is not affecting LCD, so I get "standard" viewing conditions and I can estimate from LCD how image eventually will end up looking like. It's not WYSIWYG, since 5DmkII LCD definitely isn't even close when it comes to colors, but with "adjustment factor" in my head I can imagine, how it will end up after different RAW processing and adjustments.
Regarding your image, even with different settings I don't see potential for dimensionality, light was just too uniform, non-directional and dull.
"...Voigtlander shots...I somehow got an impression it was less contrasty compare to zeiss." it is, with Zeiss I typically left black point to Apple Aperture default value 3 (sometimes raise it to 4-5, depends on light and exposure), but with Voigtländer I had to systematically raise black point to 3.5-4, and for some shots even to 6. Great small lens - I got it for abstracts etc. where I want flat rendering (compared to Zeiss), and I'm quite happy how it performs in that usage.
From your new photos I liked most the last one, it also had best light...center compositions work well at least for me.
Jim, liked "Seeing red I" and "First Night Out - Eric Serra". 2/50 is good lens for some purposes, however I personally prefer 1.4 version, suits better for my shooting style.
Edward, I'm surpriced (based on my assumptions - thou I have very little information about 4/85, to be honest I haven't even checked MTF...) that 4/85 has so bad bokeh in some pictures. I would have assumed lens so slow, would be made top quality wide open, however wide open the bokeh highlight seem to have very bright edges (like ZE/ZF 2/35 when it's bad). Liked 2nd and 3rd, thou slightly overexposed for my taste. GXR looks good camera, don't see anything obviously wrong, and if wides work without color issues it's quite good for ZM-lenses. Is it how difficult to focus to ZM-lenses with GXR?
Gunzorro, where you got one (2.8/135), didn't know we can get it in Z-mount
liked the 1st one, took me long time to figure out the light spots in bokeh, I assume they are reflections from somewhere to house wall or something.Spring is finally here (well saying this and knowing Murphy's law it will rain 25cm/10" snow tomorrow...)
"Rapolanharju 2012/1 - Hepatica nobilis" - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/25 @ f/5.6, 1/640s, ISO 100 (this is shoot at minimum focusing distance, this flower is really small)
"Rapolanharju 2012/3" - Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/85 @ f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO 100
"Rapolanharju 2012/2" - Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/85 @ f/2.8, 1/500s, ISO 100 (larger)
Apr 16, 2012 at 02:16 PM
p.594 #16ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Lieutnant: very nice this one, also those from the last page. I like this street style!
Samuli: I enjoy all your pictures from the ZE25. Seems to be a very nice lens that I would like to try one day. Too bad that its focal length is so similar to the ZE21. Very hard to justify to have both lenses and the ZE21 is very near to what I consider a perfect lens.
You commented on my last picture (p.531) in regard to the "super ugly bokeh" which I find very interesting because I like the bokeh rendering a lot in this picture. Would you mind to elaborate your impression a bit? Maybe I, for whatever reason, am biased toward the bokeh of the ZE 35 2.0 because this is not the first time that I defend it against another opinion. The bokeh is not as smooth as the bokeh of e.g. the ZE 35 1.4 and has relatively high contrast, but I find the rendering generally very pleasing in most cases.
Edited on Apr 16, 2012 at 03:47 PM · View previous versions
Samuli: I enjoy all your pictures from the ZE25. Seems to be a very nice lens that I would like to try one day. Too bad that its focal length is so similar to the ZE21. Very hard to justify to have both lenses and the ZE21 is very near to what I consider a perfect lens.
You commented on my last picture (p.531) in regard to the "super ugly bokeh" which I find very interesting because I like the bokeh rendering a lot in this picture. Would you mind to elaborate your impression a bit? Maybe I, for whatever reason, am biased toward the bokeh of the ZE 35 2.0 because this is not the first time that I defend it against another opinion. The bokeh is not as smooth as the bokeh of e.g. the ZE 35 1.4 and has relatively high contrast, but I find the rendering generally very pleasing in most cases.
Edited on Apr 16, 2012 at 03:47 PM · View previous versions
Apr 16, 2012 at 03:32 PM
p.594 #17ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
wiseguy010, I have never seen so smooth skin (real people, models with make-up made for photoshoot different thing...), did you use some filter or is she really that smooth skinned? 2nd portrait was very good, really good eye contact.
Samuli (and others), thanks a lot for your nice words.
In this case I didn't use a filter. Of course I waited for good light, but further it is just the lens that does it. I have shot several portraits with the ZF 35/2 @2.8 and it always amazes me how good they are in terms of sharpness, contrast and bokeh. It is now my favourite portrait lens and that is quite strange for a 35 mm lens.
By the way, I like your pictures of the old wheel on the former page. It is just if I can touch it. The 25/2 appears to be a very fine lens for such subjects.
wiseguy010, I have never seen so smooth skin (real people, models with make-up made for photoshoot different thing...), did you use some filter or is she really that smooth skinned? 2nd portrait was very good, really good eye contact.
Samuli (and others), thanks a lot for your nice words.
In this case I didn't use a filter. Of course I waited for good light, but further it is just the lens that does it. I have shot several portraits with the ZF 35/2 @2.8 and it always amazes me how good they are in terms of sharpness, contrast and bokeh. It is now my favourite portrait lens and that is quite strange for a 35 mm lens.
By the way, I like your pictures of the old wheel on the former page. It is just if I can touch it. The 25/2 appears to be a very fine lens for such subjects.
Apr 16, 2012 at 03:43 PM
p.594 #18ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Samuli Vahonen - Is it just me or the bokeh of Distagon's and planars differs a lot?
Lieutenant Z - that creamy contrast is so pleasant to an eye. Keep it up. Already thinking about the planars.
Lieutenant Z - that creamy contrast is so pleasant to an eye. Keep it up. Already thinking about the planars.
Apr 16, 2012 at 03:50 PM
p.594 #19ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Here's a quick shot I took yesterday using a Canon 50D and 35 F/2.
Apr 16, 2012 at 04:08 PM
p.594 #20ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!)
Lieutenant Z, great composition and "feeling" in the high key image of woman legs.
wiseguy010, thanks for explanatio - I was more amazed by the of lack of sharp detail in the skin, I have not achieved that without professional make-up OR filter in photoshop to smoothen skin.
cipsaz:
Samuli Vahonen - Is it just me or the bokeh of Distagon's and planars differs a lot?
just Samuli please, there was time here when Fred wanted people to write with their own name instead of nicknames or whatever most people used. Sounds so official to be called by my whole name so please just use my first name...
Yes Distagon and Planars differ in bokeh, and DOF -> bokeh transition. More or less all lens designs look different, but you could expect rather big differenced when one is retrofocus wide angle and other is rather simple (and close to symmetrical) design. Would be nice to compare 60mm S-planar and medium format 60mm distagon (or 50mm lenses if there is medium format 50mm distagon). Naturally design goals for small detail MTF were very different in medium format glass and current Z* class, but bokeh could still be compared.
Ulff wrote:
Samuli: I enjoy all your pictures from the ZE25. Seems to be a very nice lens that I would like to try one day.
Thanks, very nice lens, just learning it. I really like how it renders close ups, liked already C/Y 25mm, and this is even better.
Ulff wrote:
Too bad that its focal length is so similar to the ZE21. Very hard to justify to have both lenses and the ZE21 is very near to what I consider a perfect lens.
ZE21 is lens, which technically gets me very interested and motivated. However I have very little I can shoot with it. Not only due to where I live and what I shoot, but also since I suck really badly with wide angles, but I hope to get some day same kind of "flow" with them as I do with short tele lenses - I just think of photo and without effort I have just the photo I wanted - with wide angles I have to adjust minutes and minutes and rarely get what I want - I don't "see" with wide angles without lens like I do with normals and short teles. I kind of realized this, when I was in Austria and could not find much to shoot with 21mm because it's too wide --> better to concentrate what I can do and not to dream of something I can't comprehend.
Ulff wrote:
You commented on my last picture (p.531) in regard to the "super ugly bokeh" which I find very interesting because I like the bokeh rendering a lot in this picture. Would you mind to elaborate your impression a bit? Maybe I, for whatever reason, am biased toward the bokeh of the ZE 35 2.0 because this is not the first time that I defend it against another opinion. The bokeh is not as smooth as the bokeh of e.g. the ZE 35 1.4 and has relatively high contrast, but I find the rendering generally very pleasing in most cases.
As overall the rendering is great, my comment was concerning those bits of sky, which was shown for example at coordinates X=265, Y=195 (origo on top left corner) and many other places in the image. They are typical to 2/35 (and 2/28), and I'm really hoping 2/25 doesn't have them, but haven't yet shoot enough with it to report my findings. I really liked the photo, but since knowing the lens and knowing how ugly they look on A3 print, I would have edited them (at least for print).
No need to "defend" your lens, all lenses are compromises. I have not yet seen lens, which could not be tricked to show ugly bokeh. Typically this only happens when lens (EDIT: for clarification added that text from here is about 2/35) is focused to ~1.5m/5 feet @ f/2 (the highlights in infinity), not if focus plane is closer or further away. There are some ways to smoothen in post processing, but they do require drawing of rather accurate layer masks (when you have drawns masks, apply gaussian blur and drop contrast) - not my favourite task to perform, nice to learn and do it once, maybe twice but at 3rd time I would prefer automation or that somebody else would do it for me, the base reason why I hate post processing...
Sorry about non-meaningless ugly picture with bad composition and blown sky to demonstrate this bokeh highlight quality issue:
And the crop shows errors, in Ulff's photo sky was not blown so it look little different but cause is same.
Samuli
wiseguy010, thanks for explanatio - I was more amazed by the of lack of sharp detail in the skin, I have not achieved that without professional make-up OR filter in photoshop to smoothen skin.
cipsaz:
Samuli Vahonen - Is it just me or the bokeh of Distagon's and planars differs a lot?
just Samuli please, there was time here when Fred wanted people to write with their own name instead of nicknames or whatever most people used. Sounds so official to be called by my whole name
so please just use my first name...Yes Distagon and Planars differ in bokeh, and DOF -> bokeh transition. More or less all lens designs look different, but you could expect rather big differenced when one is retrofocus wide angle and other is rather simple (and close to symmetrical) design. Would be nice to compare 60mm S-planar and medium format 60mm distagon (or 50mm lenses if there is medium format 50mm distagon). Naturally design goals for small detail MTF were very different in medium format glass and current Z* class, but bokeh could still be compared.
Ulff wrote:
Samuli: I enjoy all your pictures from the ZE25. Seems to be a very nice lens that I would like to try one day.
Thanks, very nice lens, just learning it. I really like how it renders close ups, liked already C/Y 25mm, and this is even better.
Ulff wrote:
Too bad that its focal length is so similar to the ZE21. Very hard to justify to have both lenses and the ZE21 is very near to what I consider a perfect lens.
ZE21 is lens, which technically gets me very interested and motivated. However I have very little I can shoot with it. Not only due to where I live and what I shoot, but also since I suck really badly with wide angles, but I hope to get some day same kind of "flow" with them as I do with short tele lenses - I just think of photo and without effort I have just the photo I wanted - with wide angles I have to adjust minutes and minutes and rarely get what I want - I don't "see" with wide angles without lens like I do with normals and short teles. I kind of realized this, when I was in Austria and could not find much to shoot with 21mm because it's too wide --> better to concentrate what I can do and not to dream of something I can't comprehend.
Ulff wrote:
You commented on my last picture (p.531) in regard to the "super ugly bokeh" which I find very interesting because I like the bokeh rendering a lot in this picture. Would you mind to elaborate your impression a bit? Maybe I, for whatever reason, am biased toward the bokeh of the ZE 35 2.0 because this is not the first time that I defend it against another opinion. The bokeh is not as smooth as the bokeh of e.g. the ZE 35 1.4 and has relatively high contrast, but I find the rendering generally very pleasing in most cases.
As overall the rendering is great, my comment was concerning those bits of sky, which was shown for example at coordinates X=265, Y=195 (origo on top left corner) and many other places in the image. They are typical to 2/35 (and 2/28), and I'm really hoping 2/25 doesn't have them, but haven't yet shoot enough with it to report my findings. I really liked the photo, but since knowing the lens and knowing how ugly they look on A3 print, I would have edited them (at least for print).
No need to "defend" your lens, all lenses are compromises. I have not yet seen lens, which could not be tricked to show ugly bokeh. Typically this only happens when lens (EDIT: for clarification added that text from here is about 2/35) is focused to ~1.5m/5 feet @ f/2 (the highlights in infinity), not if focus plane is closer or further away. There are some ways to smoothen in post processing, but they do require drawing of rather accurate layer masks (when you have drawns masks, apply gaussian blur and drop contrast) - not my favourite task to perform, nice to learn and do it once, maybe twice but at 3rd time I would prefer automation or that somebody else would do it for me, the base reason why I hate post processing...
Sorry about non-meaningless ugly picture with bad composition and blown sky to demonstrate this bokeh highlight quality issue:
And the crop shows errors, in Ulff's photo sky was not blown so it look little different but cause is same.
Samuli
Apr 16, 2012 at 04:43 PM