Just checked stats from Malta 2/135 shots - total 137 photos of which: f/2 53pcs, f/2.8 1pcs, f/4 19pcs, f/4.5 1pcs, f/5.6 99pcs, f/6.3 1pcs, f/8 65pcs, f/9 1pcs, f/10 16pcs, f/11 42pcs, f/13 14pcs, f/14 1pcs, f/16 3pcs, f/20 1pcs. Can't resist shooting wide open, specially urban subjects. For nature more often larger DOF is required for subject matter, hopefully not too many need deconvolution sharpening to restore dullness caused by small aperture.
Not sure if I dare to put these "ooh nice bokeh" shots to my webpage, artistically they have about zero value. But for gear forum these suit well, specially since there haven't been very many samples of 2/135. Sorted by "warmness" from coldest to warmest
Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/800s, ISO 100, CZ T* polarizer
Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/320s, ISO 100, CZ T* polarizer
Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/320s, ISO 100, CZ T* polarizer
Carl Zeiss APO-Sonnar T* 2/135 @ f/2, 1/320s, ISO 100, CZ T* polarizer
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Awesome shot's Samuli
Great to see some vacation photos
Please link your website
Ronny//
Thanks, http://www.vahonen.com - thou if you follow this thread and Zeiss thread, you have seen all my images, actually much more than what I post to website. Updating website is boring (like work), so I have been very lazy - Also I don't like writing but for a blog one has to write something. Don't all go there, I pay for the traffic if it goes over x GB/mth limit...
So I have a conundrum. I guess I should start with what I own. I have a Canon 5DmkIII with a 24 f1.4L fist version, a 50 f1.4, and a 100 f2. I've had the opportunity to shoot with the Zeiss 50 f1.4 ZE and really love it. I know it's not much sharper or showing less CA than the Canon really, but I just prefer the look over all.
So my question is this. I also own a Leica M6 with a pair of lenses. As much as I so love my Leica, it hasn't been used in probably 4-5 years and it's becoming such a hassle to process and scan, I'm thinking possibly of selling it to fund some lenses for the Canon that I actually use.
My first thought its the 50mm f2 Makro-Planar which looks to be the nicer of the two 50mm lenses.
My second thought is I have no idea! I love the look of the 21 and know it's considered one of the best, if not the best ultrawide of all. My hesitation is that I really don't shoot ultra wide very often. I had a 16-35 that I sold because I found that among other reasons, I didn't need the range and usually shot around 24mm, hence my 24mm f1.4 which I love.
The 35mm range is my favorite, so the 35 1.4 or 2 seem like good choices.
I also love portraits so the 85mm 1.4 was near the top of my list, but I find that I shoot usually wide open or with in a stop, and usually very near the minimum focus distance, so I'm not sure if that's a good choice or not from the comments and reviews I've read about the focus issues.
I would start with the lens you have tried and love. The 50MP is very different, sharper, but with much less attractive boke and more neutral rendering. I have both and prefer the Planar. The price is also very attractive.
Once you have that, you might look at the 35s. I prefer the f/1.4, but it is huge and expensive, and quite hard to focus. The 35/2 is also very nice, but with less subtle rendering, but more obvious 3D.
The 85/1.4 is great, but has focus shift and is hard to focus as well. For people at close range this lens requires quite fine control.
The 100/2 also has beautiful rendering, and has 1:2 near-macro range ability. This might make a nice second or third lens, or perhaps the 135/2 if you can use the range and don't do macro.
The 21/2.8 is legendary, but if you don't shoot that wide, then perhaps it is pointless. The 25/2 is meant to be great, but I don't own it and cannot verify that. In any case, it sits in the same spot as your existing lens.
The 28/2 has a mixed reputation. It has field curvature, which can cause boke problems in the corners, but it has this very gentle, beautiful boke for certain subject/background ranges, and I love mine. It has been called an artist's lens, not implying that anyone who doesn't like it isn't an artist, of course, but giving some sense that it isn't great for purely technical matter, perhaps.
I don't remember the shooting situation accurate enough, but the tree diameter is 35cm/14inch +-few centimeters
carstenw wrote:
The 21/2.8 is legendary, but if you don't shoot that wide, then perhaps it is pointless. The 25/2 is meant to be great, but I don't own it and cannot verify that. In any case, it sits in the same spot as your existing lens.
25/2 is great with few flaws; field curvature on extreme corners and change of getting very rough bokeh. Lens is very well corrected, has best colors of ZE/ZF lenses I have shoot with (I don't own 15, 18 or Otus).
carstenw wrote:
The 28/2 has a mixed reputation. It has field curvature, which can cause boke problems in the corners, but it has this very gentle, beautiful boke for certain subject/background ranges, and I love mine. It has been called an artist's lens, not implying that anyone who doesn't like it isn't an artist, of course, but giving some sense that it isn't great for purely technical matter, perhaps.
+1 - I'm happy with the lens, and I have learned to work with corner bokeh issues (lens barrel too small and DOF is larger on corners, can be very problematic on someone like me who shoots 90% of time inside the forest - if you browse my posts from few past years you will find samples about this issue). Mostly I use this lens for wide angle shooting, partyly due to 50mm is my favorite focal length and mixing 35 and 50 is hard because they are so close that I would have hard time opening bag and changing to different camera body for such small FOV difference.
Frogfish wrote:
Many beautiful, and in some cases world-class, work has been posted over the last few pages since I last looked at this thread. I gave 'Likes' to those that popped my eyes, but there are so many I had to leave some very good shots out. My work isn't anywhere near that level but I am looking, learning and continue to aspire to reach those peaks
A couple from NZ earlier this year. C&C always welcome so don't spare the lash !
D800 & Zeiss 21mm
To me, the colors are unnatural (and not in a pleasant way), and they're over-sharpened. The first is too magenta, the second too yellow.
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
Almost over sharpened .. blaming it on flickr
Liked the 1st very much, thou I still favour one of your 85mm images. I don't see any over sharpening issues except strange white halo around the ears, but that might be natural.
JaKo, nice photo of the very ugly flat black Ford.
Few more Maltese boats and tenders with 50mm planar.
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 @ f/2.8, 1/400s, ISO 100, polarizer
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 @ f/2.8, 1/40s, ISO 100, polarizer
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1.4/50 @ f/2.8, 1/400s, ISO 100, polarizer
Shoot also "cover image" (left some empty space for text like "Malta 2013" on left) for Malta by focusing incorrectly and letting lens "paint" the scene, used f/1.4 for it's painting skills
Samuli wrote: JaKo, nice photo of the very ugly flat black Ford
Well, if you Google for 'Ford' and 'Canada' you will find anything but flat, BUT definitely very ugly posts
