Ulff wrote:
The huge DOF is probably due to f11 and the wide-angle characteristics of the 35mm. Actually I find this perspective very similar to the macro-feature of the 35-70 3.4.
Just realized that you must have different flower than what I was thinking of. For the Finnish flower looking like this, the shot would be around 1:1 or even 1.5:1, for which the DOF would have been enormous...
Ajay,
Beautiful evening light in the boat dock shot. Really nice.
Denoir,
Excellent narrow DOF head shot with the 50MP which shows what I really like about this lens for portraits like this. Very sharp and then bokeh is smooth blur.
I also like the ivy leaf macro shot and the first duck shot if you darkened some the bright highlight spot in the top right side. Setting the bar higher with your duck-in-flight obligatory first lens shots.
From all of our recent discussion, I now see that the 50/1.4's bokeh and quicker transition to OOF would work better for that last shot of the table outside with the narrow DOF over a large scene.
Samuli,
Wow, those large DOF "tourist" shots are about as far as possible from your normal shooting style.
I like the first one better and I remember Philippe taking a similar shot of that building with his 21 if I remember correctly. BTW, do you or Philippe have a shot with the 21 looking out onto the city from Sacre Coueur at sunset, another popular tourist shot? I just have faint memory of it from a very long time ago.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Damn, no it was not there, at least not so strong I hoped for. The small version looked just like some portraits (and definitely will not get model release form...my ex...) I have taken with 35ZE, where the roundness of head etc. shows from the texture of the skin, when shown slightly too small size just similar as your smaller shot. I think you were thinking #2 since we were looking different things, you were looking the 3D which relies to shallow DOF (depth), I was searching the shape&volume drawing capabilities. I agree on 2nd there was better depth, since the background was having something, not just blurred colors. ...Show more →
Is that what you are looking for? It was one of the images that sold me on the MP.
How you find the focusing? I like it much more than my 100MP, which is hard to get moving and move short distance when in normal using range from 2m to infinity. I find 50MP easier to do accurate small adjustments, even it needs noticeable more force to turn. Due to this it's so accurate and fast to focus with live view 10x mode with 50MP, when I have to go forward and backward many times with 100MP. Maybe some differences between ratio of static and kinetic friction
I find both it rather difficult with both to differentiate focus between say 5 and 6 meters. Infinity is also messy as it is basically a tiny, tiny movement away from where the focus ring stops. This goes for both lenses. I'll have to use them both more before I'll decide which focus works best for me. I also have to micro focus adjust the AF assist as it's way off on the 50 and it has fooled me more than once.
Is that what you are looking for? It was one of the images that sold me on the MP.
No, almost no texture on skin, too flat for my taste. How bokeh draws her hair I like very much thou.
denoir wrote:
I find both it rather difficult with both to differentiate focus between say 5 and 6 meters. Infinity is also messy as it is basically a tiny, tiny movement away from where the focus ring stops. This goes for both lenses. I'll have to use them both more before I'll decide which focus works best for me. I also have to micro focus adjust the AF assist as it's way off on the 50 and it has fooled me more than once.
You might be right - this far I have never shoot even single shot handhold with 50MP, which tells the truth about focusing (the large friction will cause more problems when you have to hold&support the camera and focus at same time, from tripod it's just the focusing). Even with LCDVF and live view I have so hard time focusing with 100ZE, that for example in Paris I preferred to use 4/80-200 instead of 100ZE many times.
I'll have to find some 21ZE f/13 images to shock Wayne even more
wayne seltzer wrote:
Denoir,
Excellent narrow DOF head shot with the 50MP which shows what I really like about this lens for portraits like this. Very sharp and then bokeh is smooth blur.
I also like the ivy leaf macro shot and the first duck shot if you darkened some the bright highlight spot in the top right side. Setting the bar higher with your duck-in-flight obligatory first lens shots.
Thanks!
Re: Duck, is this better?
Yes, yes, content aware fill
Samuli:
Ok, one last try regarding portraits, take a look at this one (first post by Anden) taken with a 35/1.4. Is that what you are looking for?
To me that picture is quintessential Zeiss - ultra sharpness combined with a graceful DOF and a feeling of space in the picture. In addition there is a clarity that much more gives the impression that you are looking at the real thing rather than a flat 2D projection.
Regarding focusing, ideally I would always use a tripod but as it turns out some 90% of my shots are handheld. I have a Zacuto Z-finder for live view, but I much prefer the optical viewfinder. The problem is of course that for anything at a distance the focusing task becomes very difficult.
Yes, the duck shot looks better, anway to take out the ripples in the water in the middle of the reflection with content aware fil?
I really like the sharpness and contrast of the C/Y 35/1.4 wide open and have lusted after it ever since seeing shots like this from Andreas and Brainiac. It definitely separates the background from the subject nicely and is sharper looking than my 35/2 wideopen in indoor lighting conditions like that.
Andreas has a lot of nice wide open shots on page 2 and I really like this one of his:
Sometimes I wish they had never shown a stealth new prototype of the rumored new Z* 35/1.4 on the Putz website. Then I would have bought this lens and be enjoying it now instead of lusting after it.
I think this C/Y 35/1.4 is more like the 50/1.4 than the 35/2 and is probably better for Samuli's style of landscape.
Samuli: Like the 2nd shot tourist shot. It is great how the 21ZE picks the detail from the sky and skyline, which otherwise would be a mundane shot.
Denoir: Like your shots with 50MP. My fav is shot 4 with the leaves!
Wayne: What a great shot of Andreas!
Yes, the duck shot looks better, anway to take out the ripples in the water in the middle of the reflection with content aware fil?
I really like the sharpness and contrast of the C/Y 35/1.4 wide open and have lusted after it ever since seeing shots like this from Andreas and Brainiac. It definitely separates the background from the subject nicely and is sharper looking than my 35/2 wideopen in indoor lighting conditions like that.
Andreas has a lot of nice wide open shots on page 2 and I really like this one of his: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/31/391331.jpg
Sometimes I wish they had never shown a stealth new prototype of the rumored new Z* 35/1.4 on the Putz website. Then I would have bought this lens and be enjoying it now instead of lusting after it.
I think this C/Y 35/1.4 is more like the 50/1.4 than the 35/2 and is probably better for Samuli's style of landscape....Show more →
Glad you like my photos Wayne!
I now have the C/Y 35/1.4 but this photo and most of the others in that thread is shot with the Rollei Distagon 35/1.4 HFT.
Even though there might be a Z* version of this beauty I canīt see what there is to be improved?
Apart from auto aperture and exif...
A
Quick question for ZE users. Focus Confirmation should work automatically or is there some setting that needs to be engaged? It's not working for me when I have the ZE 35/2 attached to my 40D.
You missed one in (coordinates 326,14) I tried the content aware fill and it didn't look as good as in Adobe videos, any of the photos I tried didn't go as smooth and had to manually fix images.
denoir wrote:
Samuli:
Ok, one last try regarding portraits, take a look at this one (first post by Anden) taken with a 35/1.4. Is that what you are looking for?
To me that picture is quintessential Zeiss - ultra sharpness combined with a graceful DOF and a feeling of space in the picture. In addition there is a clarity that much more gives the impression that you are looking at the real thing rather than a flat 2D projection.
Yes, many pictures in that thread have what I'm looking for - I'm just looking to see it with 50MP, and also on larger subject distance shooting. Many times thou the subject distance and aperture has been selected so that effect is limited to narrow strip of cheek of model in 1.4/35 thread samples.
SKumar25 wrote:
Every cloud in this picture is man made (contrails). Seems a fitting backdrop to this man made marvel!
That was also my first reaction when I did see the shot in computer, didn't come to my mind in Paris.
Anden wrote:
Even though there might be a Z* version of this beauty I canīt see what there is to be improved?
I would like to have decent sized hood with bajonet mount, like in other Z* lenses. The Contax metal hoods are OK (I use them with C/Y 25, 28, 35-70) but they are really huge, and these days some of them are hard to find as well.
Great Pictures guys
I really enjoyed looking at all of them.
I have a question to all Zeiss Lens user.
is there any differences in IQ betwwen ZM and ZF ?
lens says Biogon ZM 35/2 VS ZF 35/2
You are talking about different lenses. The ZM is a Biogon, and the ZF a Distagon. Basically, the only things they have in common are (1) being made by Zeiss, and (2) being 35mm in focal length. Just as an example, the Distagon is over 2X the weight of the Biogon.
Hope this helps.
philber wrote:
You are talking about different lenses. The ZM is a Biogon, and the ZF a Distagon. Basically, the only things they have in common are (1) being made by Zeiss, and (2) being 35mm in focal length. Just as an example, the Distagon is over 2X the weight of the Biogon.
Hope this helps.
Hi Philber
Yes I agree with you
But since they both 35mm and made by ZEISS/COSINA Japan, i really want to know if these 2 lenses sharing the same characters.
My first posted pic with the ZE21 Sharpness is excellent, but what really sets this lens apart is the color, micro-contrast, texture - things that are not defined in most lens tests. I really wanted to like the sharp copy of the Canon 16-35II I had. The images were sharp enough, but completely lacked the other qualities I see in the Zeiss 21 for landscape applications.
Thanks Anden. I know you also have the Zeiss 35/1.4. Do you also have the Zeiss C/Y Distagon 28/2.8? I think it makes the perfect Zeiss trio (even if they are not all Zx lenses).
Nice image, pdmphoto. Yepp, the 21 is a nice improvement from the 16-35. I still have the zoom because it is weather sealed and well, because it's a zoom lens. If it is practical however, I'll choose the 21 any time over the 16-35.
Edit: Ah, yes, photos. Haven't had time to shoot anything today, so I'll just post a few more test images from the 50 MP taken yesterday.
I suppose next up are some tests of infinity or near infinity detail. Buildings are typically good subjects for that...
I hear all this talk about new Zeiss lenses. So is Zeiss making a ZE 35 1.4? Where's the proof, how much, and when can we own it?
swolfcg wrote:
Quick question for ZE users. Focus Confirmation should work automatically or is there some setting that needs to be engaged? It's not working for me when I have the ZE 35/2 attached to my 40D.
You have to set it in your menu settings. The setting is to beep when focus is achieved. I don't remember exactly what it's called, though it's there.. BTW if your other lenses beep when you auto focus, that would mean something's wrong with lens/body.
