Thanks Samuli
That's very divided opinions on this compared to 50 1.4 ..
but I like it for some macro and flower photos .. where it works really good I think ..sometimes I think getting a 50 1.4 to compare .. actually I don't need it
when I have 100MP to macro and flower pictures
Which Zeiss lens do you like best and which has the best rendering style you think?
Good pictures from you as usual
johnahill, thanks for one more urban wide angle. I start to see trend here - I liked all 3 photos and they all have been shoot so that you did not tilt the camera. Hmmm, something to practice with 21mm, maybe it's usable afterall.
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
That's very divided opinions on this compared to 50 1.4 ..
but I like it for some macro and flower photos .. where it works really good I think ..sometimes I think getting a 50 1.4 to compare .. actually I don't need it
when I have 100MP to macro and flower pictures
50mm Makro-Planar vs Planar - very different lenses. For makro and close-up usage Makro-Planar I kind of like (I like wider view on makros), however I don't like it at all medium or long distances.
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Which Zeiss lens do you like best and which has the best rendering style you think?
Any other easy questions like "what is purpose of life?"...
Short answer from my personal point of view including just lenses I have shoot with - "best" doens't mean anything so unfortunately I'll have to give you few answers:
- best overall Planar 1.4/50 ZE (on my use and assuming user can mitigate focus shift - lens is near perfect from f/2.2-2.8 to f/8 - also normal FOV is most useful and can be used on most situation)
- best colors Distagon 2/25 ZE
- best wideangle landscape "presence"/"feeling of being there instead watching postcard" Distagon 2.8/28 C/Y or 2.8/25 C/Y I like both even they are somewhat different
- best bokeh (my criteria: lower contrast in bokeh than in subject, smoothness of bokeh also on situations background is close to subject and containing patterns etc. "difficult") Planar 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 (closed down to f/2.8 or more)
Best rendering style in my opinion is offered by Planar 1.4/50.
If I would not have any ZE lenses I would not buy them all, just 2/25, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 1.4/85 and 2/135 (based on Lloyd review), most likely could manage without 35 and 85 as well. Thou now I already have all of them (excluding 15mm and 18mm), I'm shooting with all of them from time to time. After getting used to 2/25 colors and 1.4/35 characteristics and 1.4/50 raw optical performance (assuming it's f/2.8 lens), I was quite disappointed to results I got from 2/28 and 2/35 last weekend, but I also like many things in 2/28 images. Also 2/50 gets very little use, only if I'm planning to shoot macros or close-ups (and then my S-Planar 2.8/60 C/Y is often preferred). 21mm I find too wide for almost any use, even I very much like the lens rendering (thou colors are not that great) I can't use it much, might be also skill relevant, I'm pretty inexperienced wideangle photographer, not my thing. 2/100 I use quite a lot, but I doubt it sees much use after Zeiss finally sells me 2/135 - even going every day to Zeiss webshop and refreshing webpage multiple times 2/135 doesn't come available
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Good pictures from you as usual
Thanks, just trying to survive here in middle of all the damn snow - really wanting to photograph but knowing I still have to wait 1+ month before spring starts makes me really miserable.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
- best overall Planar 1.4/50 ZE (on my use and assuming user can mitigate focus shift - lens is near perfect from f/2.2-2.8 to f/8 - also normal FOV is most useful and can be used on most situation)
Samuli
Wow, high praise for the 50P. It's the only Zeiss lens I have (since December) and I hope to learn to use it to its potential.
Your black and whites are tremendous. Do you have any processing tips?
Best Regards
Dave
Cheers Dave
I've got the Nik/google software bundle on demo at the moment and i've been using Silver Efex Pro 2 (part of the bundle) to convert to B&W.
It gives some nice looks and effects that may be reproduceable in CS but with silver efex it's just a few clicks and done.
rirakuma, very nice wide shot (specially the bigger size in photo sharing website). I have always wondered why in earth someone would use polarizer with ultra wide lens (causes uneven sky if sky visible) - now I can stop wondering...
Wanted to try one new technique; deconvolution sharpening. I tried it to normal images, but it didn't do anything positive to normal images. So I tried it with image, which is destroyed by diffraction. Results were rather good, sure at pixel level it looks little weird, but as print or screen (I view images in 2560x1600 screen) it looks ok. Tried this with few lenses, but it worked best with Makro-Planar T* 2/100. Wanted to share this, so my test don't go wasted since I don't feel any need for shooting "all sharp back to front"-images (boooooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiing).
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/22, 1/6s, 5DmkII, Topaz InFocus deconvolution sharpening + USM 20%, 35px (=local contrast enhancement)
For reference same image shoot with f/5.6 and normal processing
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
rirakuma, very nice wide shot (specially the bigger size in photo sharing website). I have always wondered why in earth someone would use polarizer with ultra wide lens (causes uneven sky if sky visible) - now I can stop wondering...
Wanted to try one new technique; deconvolution sharpening. I tried it to normal images, but it didn't do anything positive to normal images. So I tried it with image, which is destroyed by diffraction. Results were rather good, sure at pixel level it looks little weird, but as print or screen (I view images in 2560x1600 screen) it looks ok. Tried this with few lenses, but it worked best with Makro-Planar T* 2/100. Wanted to share this, so my test don't go wasted since I don't feel any need for shooting "all sharp back to front"-images (boooooooooooooooriiiiiiiiiiing).
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ f/22, 1/6s, 5DmkII, Topaz InFocus deconvolution sharpening + USM 20%, 35px (=local contrast enhancement)
For reference same image shoot with f/5.6 and normal processing
Thats what I used on your photo in The how-would-you-process-my-image thread. Im using this for a long time now. It works really nice in small amounts combined with less than perfect lens. With InFocus Im using "Unknown/Estimate" then set 1 under blur radius and click on Estimate Blur. It usually looks bit harsh, so I use Edge Softness around 0.6 and Artifact Suppression 0.5 (needs re-clicking Estimate).
Its not only thing that can do deconvolution, but it has probably best control over artifacts that it can produce.
Ronny, the 1st shot is really great, wonderful colors and usage of shallow DOF. The harsh bokeh gives a lot to photo, it would not be nearly as good with "neutral bokeh" lens.
Jim, great colors, but if this was HDR why to leave the foreground so dark?
Mescalamba wrote:
Im using this for a long time now. It works really nice in small amounts combined with less than perfect lens...
....Nice pic btw.
Thanks - so it's normal that with good lenses at optimum apertures it won't do anything, or at least doesn't seem to do anything positive? If I would shoot makros, this would be really great (could shoot f/14-16 and recover sharpness). But I don't think I'll buy Topaz InFocus since I don't like "all sharp" nature photos and I rarely anymore do makros.
"1st branch" - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 @ 1.4, 1/1600s, ISO 100
"2nd branch" - Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/35 @ 1.4, 1/2000, ISO 100
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Thanks - so it's normal that with good lenses at optimum apertures it won't do anything, or at least doesn't seem to do anything positive? If I would shoot makros, this would be really great (could shoot f/14-16 and recover sharpness). But I don't think I'll buy Topaz InFocus since I don't like "all sharp" nature photos and I rarely anymore do makros.
Samuli
With small dosage as I described before, it simply sharpens things up a tiny bit. But no, if you have really sharp lens, it wont do much. You are using it as DOF/diffraction removal, which is other way to use it.
Probably as you said, most useful if one doesnt have perfect lens or do a lot of macro shooting. Maybe it doesnt have huge effect on my pics cause Fuji S5 is sorta "soft" permanently and regular sharpnening is near useless on it.
If you ever wanted this for free, its built-in in RawTherapee. Among other interesting stuff..
