edwardkaraa wrote:
Very very nice photos. You're gonna make me spend a fortune on a new Canon body and a few (maybe around 8) ZE lenses
This is revenge you got me interested about Sony and I almost switched system... I have been lucky since I got 28, 50 and 85 from secondhand market, I would have not purchased 28mm or 85mm as new - now both of them has turned out to be very interesting lenses.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Regarding bokeh CA (this was also not meant to be serious criticism), you are right it's not only present in Zeiss lenses, and like you if that would be criteria for lens selection any of my lenses won't be usable. However I disagree about the software correction, it can fix CA in focal plane but with bokeh CA I have not been very successful, this is because normal CA can be corrected by "scaling" color layers separately so that the pixels will match - but in bokeh CA this won't work since it's about distance from lens, not distance from center of image circle which affects to amount and direction of correction. ...Show more →
Unfortunately, that is so correct. CA in the bokeh is a !@#$%^&. I've got a Leica 90mm Summicron-M pre-ASPH that breeds CA in bokeh like spring bunnies. I love the lens on the M9, but the green fringing drives me crazy at times - somehow those images end up being black & white
I knew "you" were not picking on the 28/2 ZE, but I did want to expand on the topic. There was somebody a couple months back who noticed a tiny bit of CA at the corner of the image and said something like - "well, the 28 ZE won't work, I've got to find an another option." The amount of CA was so insignificant; I was truly surprised someone would dismiss a lens (especially a wide angle lens) for such a small, basically unnoticeable amount. I've been ridiculously picky too at times and it has usually led to spending stupid sums of money trying to find a superior alternative. I think Zeiss found a pretty good balance of price vs performance on the 28 ZE.
I'll also agree, hitting the 3D effect outdoors has been hit or miss. My best results have been with close-in shots. Standard F5.6 stuff with a focus point 20-30 feet - there's not much 3D there. But shoot at F2 to F4 with a focus point around 1 to 5 feet and the lens sings. Put the 28 ZE on a tiny 1.6x body and it could be M8 / M9 alternative. These next images are not intended to blow anybody away, just examples of where I think the 28/2 does very well -
This is portrait crop taken from a landscape framing, so in terms of DOF & framing, the left and right 1/3's have been cropped -
This next image is uncropped, also F2 @ ISO 800 on a 1Ds3. I knew the image needed a lot more aperture, but with no flash along for evening, it ended up being an F2 shot. I put focus at around 3 feet and figured whatever happened, happened. This shot is headed for the trash, but I find the sharpness outstanding for F2 and a 1/50th handheld shot.
I much rather shoot the M9 in that setting because the M is much less obtrusive. But based solely on optical performance, I think the 28/2 ZE could put up a really good fight against the Leica 28mm F2 Cron ASPH.
With regards to the 50/2 ZE - great lens, but I'm struggling to get mileage out of it. As 50mm lenses go, my favorite is the Leica 50mm Summilux-M ASPH. Comparing the Makro-Planar ZE 50 to the Leica 50 Lux is totally apples and oranges, so there's no point in writing paragraphs on the topic. But, I'm pretty sure I'll be selling the 50/2 ZE when the 50 Lux ASPH can be found (I stupidly sold mine several months ago, but that's a whole other story).
There was somebody a couple months back who noticed a tiny bit of CA at the corner of the image and said something like - "well, the 28 ZE won't work, I've got to find an another option." The amount of CA was so insignificant; I was truly surprised someone would dismiss a lens (especially a wide angle lens) for such a small, basically unnoticeable amount.
You probably do not mean my thread , because I said I would not return the lens except for exchange. In my first day or two of shooting I had many pictures with really bad purple fringing. I printed a 13x19 and it had like 10 inch long purple line along a building edge that looked like if you draw it with a sharpie. This was my first Zeiss and I haven't seen anything like that with my Canon lenses since I sold 17-35/2.8 and I wanted to know if this is normal for this lens or if it needs to be exchanged. I purchased it based on recommendations here on FM and on Diggloyd and nobody mentioned the PF.
This was apparently a bad coincidence of light, raw developer, f-stop and type of scenes I selected for the initial testing, because I don't see that strong PF anymore. In addition, Thrice recommended Capture One, which completely removes that. But on my camera, under certain circumstances, this lens does have PF that I would not call small or unnoticeable.
Nah, Rick, don't listen to these guys! They just criticize your shots without realizing that they had too much to drink. It all looks perfectly straight and sharp to me... and lovely too!
I knew this would get your attention - In fact I thought twice about using one of the sharpest lenses in the World to shoot through water just to capture the dancing light - but I liked the effect. I feel that somewhere in this process I have the need to stop taking "Test Shots" and start taking photographs. The only useful definition of "ART" (that I have ever come across) is - "Art is having control of the medium that you are working in" Photography is about Seeing and Light and getting what you want from your camera. In spite of this forum and our need to have the very best lenses and cameras - Fine equipment does not create "Fine Art" - Artists do! If our work invokes an emotional response from the viewer - then we have succeeded. There is no control over other people's taste - we can only capture those images that interest us. In the end - this is communication - this is a language - we are only trying to discover the words
