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.
Thanks, I think there is something wrong with the lens. I have the beep noise disabled, but the light blinks for my other AF & compatible lenses.
denoir wrote:
Hehe, nice geometry there Samuli. HDR?
No, I could not use my standard settings due to clouds blowing to white, so the "highlights"- and "recovery"-sliders were used. Would have been better at HDR. Here is another composition but I liked the one on previous post better (same lens and exposure):
pdmphoto wrote:
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).
I had it and sold it. It was a quite good lens.
The perfect Zeiss trio IMHO is 21/2.8, 35/1.4 and 35-70/3.4.
hello friends i`m a long time reader of this thread, and i appreciate the zeiss effect,but currently i don`t have enough cash to enjoy the ship(what a pity!)
The question i want to make you is: the great contrast an 3d feeling is visble in subjects in average to near distance but the awesome amount of far detail seen in photos like this :https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/905064 is reached with a simple ef 24 105 f4.
i wonder if this big amount of detail is reached with a professional post processing? and if it`s more important to get this details with processing or with zeiss lenses?
thank you and keep on this great thread(forget my english)
desinteresadam wrote:
hello friends i`m a long time reader of this thread, and i appreciate the zeiss effect,but currently i don`t have enough cash to enjoy the ship(what a pity!)
The question i want to make you is: the great contrast an 3d feeling is visble in subjects in average to near distance but the awesome amount of far detail seen in photos like this :https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/905064 is reached with a simple ef 24 105 f4.
i wonder if this big amount of detail is reached with a professional post processing? and if it`s more important to get this details with processing or with zeiss lenses?
thank you and keep on this great thread(forget my english) ...Show more →
The "details" that you see in those quite small images, is in fact local contrast, which is scaled down to look like details. So, if you use a lens with great detail sharpness but with lack of local contrast, your downscaled images will not look as detailed. Here the Zeiss lenses obviously has a great advantage over most other brands and design philosophies, in my opinion.
Many professional photographers like Ian and also Art Wolfe (comes to mind) - use Canon "L" lenses exclusively or certainly as their main lenses. I also notice Ian uses the Nikon 14-24 quite creatively. They also spend the time and expense in the field doing what it takes to get those images. I find their work outstanding and truly on a professional level - worth being published and commanding top dollar for the prints.
I like Zeiss rendering for some subjects/scenes as much as the next guy but the final product - the real "Wow" effect comes from the uniqueness of the composition, correct exposure and sometimes post processing. Too many times I hear or read into these posts that Zeiss will somehow make your images "the best"- if it gives incentive to take notice and try harder that's a good thing but many other lenses also give "the best" rendering - including the elusive 3D effect. JMHO
desinteresadam wrote:
i wonder if this big amount of detail is reached with a professional post processing? and if it`s more important to get this details with processing or with zeiss lenses?
Optics always wins over post processing and unfortunately there is no substitute for a lens (or we'd all have saved a lot of money ).
What you call 'detail' (or commonly referred to vaguely as 'sharpness') consists of two parts: resolution and micro contrast. Zeiss excels in both, but what makes it unique is the micro contrast. The images you linked are fantastic because of their subject, composition and light. Post processing in terms of sharpening for reduction has been done very well. Ultimately however they would have shown more clarity had they been shot with Zeiss glass. There is a distinct rendering style that you can't really can't be reproduced with post processing.
Having said that, mMontag is correct - the visual look/style is just one aspect of a photo. For most people posting in this thread it is a very interesting aspect but many great photographers are completely indifferent to it. If you are specifically interested in the Zeiss look, then you need to save up and join us
Right, pictures.. Here are a couple shot with the 50 MP:
Many professional photographers like Ian and also Art Wolfe (comes to mind) - use Canon "L" lenses exclusively or certainly as their main lenses. I also notice Ian uses the Nikon 14-24 quite creatively. They also spend the time and expense in the field doing what it takes to get those images. I find their work outstanding and truly on a professional level - worth being published and commanding top dollar for the prints.
I like Zeiss rendering for some subjects/scenes as much as the next guy but the final product - the real "Wow" effect comes from the uniqueness of the composition, correct exposure and sometimes post processing. Too many times I hear or read into these posts that Zeiss will somehow make your images "the best"- if it gives incentive to take notice and try harder that's a good thing but many other lenses also give "the best" rendering - including the elusive 3D effect. JMHO...Show more →
Very interesting and valid point! Any lens and camera, with a photographer with great vision can produce exceptional images. I have seen great images taken with pinhole cameras, and point and shoot cameras. So often we get caught up with the technical details, important as they may be, we put aside the art of photography.
As denoir put it simply, an original image captured in RAW format, with all the detail and colour, micro contrast and rendering already there, will far outweigh what can be done in PP. Of course this is assuming this is the rendering and look that you wish to achieve. There are many that prefer the canon L series look. There is a place for both the ZE and L series lenses.
My personal experience, particularly with the ZE range, is that the lenses capture landscapes and portraits the way I interpret and perceive them to be. It is personal, as some photographers may find the zeiss range too strong in rendering a portrait for instance, and would prefer to use a canon lens instead.
thanks everyone who has kindly responded my question, this forum is teaching me many things and techniques that i havenīt found in the net, and the people here is awesome
greetings!!
Lovely colors Ajay and a very nice portrait Charles. I've been looking through this thread to see if a 35/2 would be something to get but to my surprise I've discovered that I really like the style of the 85/1.4. 85mm is not a favorite FL of mine though.
Hi. I am a brand new user of Zeiss ZE series but having some problems with my new 85mm 1.4. I initially purchased 50mm 1.4 and was blown away by IQ I was getting so I decided to try out 85mm. Oh boy, was that a disappointment. The pictures came out very soft. I was aware of the shift issues so I first selected an aperture and then focused using LiveView (Stills + Movies -> Movie Display). Even at 5.6 it was very soft. I did side-by-side with 85L II and even wide open Canon beat Zeiss. Is that just a bad copy or am I doing something wrong? Can you check the Zeiss images and let me know if this is what I should expect to see from that lens?
faremax wrote:
Hi. I am a brand new user of Zeiss ZE series but having some problems with my new 85mm 1.4. I initially purchased 50mm 1.4 and was blown away by IQ I was getting so I decided to try out 85mm. Oh boy, was that a disappointment. The pictures came out very soft. I was aware of the shift issues so I first selected an aperture and then focused using LiveView (Stills + Movies -> Movie Display). Even at 5.6 it was very soft. I did side-by-side with 85L II and even wide open Canon beat Zeiss. Is that just a bad copy or am I doing something wrong? Can you check the Zeiss images and let me know if this is what I should expect to see from that lens?
I haven't tried the Zeiss 85, but I think it looks alright. At that close distance, the Canon should be better. The Zeiss is reportedly optimized for greater distances.
And, if you scale them down, I think they'll look quite similar.
Edit: And in the f/2.8 pictures, the Zeiss is obviously either misfocused or there's camera shake involved.
Scaled down I agree that they look very similar. The only problem I saw was the sharpness , especially at 100%. I was focusing on the pedal's elbow where it connects with the wheel. The black plastic part of the pedal does look out of focus. Is that what you were referring to when you said that it was misfocused or there was a camera shake?
). 
