akul wrote:
darbo - I don't think Carsten was joking. I did not know myself that Otus gets the ZE, ZF2 naming also. I checked zeiss site and realized that naming was indeed kept. Interesting decision from Zeiss. Also, you may be the first person who did not call the lens 'Otus' but ZE 55 1.4.
Ah, OK.
The one thing that struck me as surprising about the naming is that Zeiss has dropped the lens design name. I believe the Otus 1.4/55mm is a Distagon design, right? But, officially it's just "Otus 1.4/55". And, you are correct: the ZE and ZF.2 mount-type naming convention is still retained.
From now on I will use the term "Otus 1.4/55 ZE" instead of only listing "1.4/55 ZE" to avoid confusion.
Regarding Otus naming; if you look at google image search there are lots of photos with ZF.2 or ZE printed in the lens and very small number of images without marking. On Zeiss website the photos of lens are without ZE/ZF.2. Examples with marking:1, 2, 3, 4.
I prefer to name the lenses with their real names, forgetting the commercial crap. If I would post photos with Otus lens I would indicate lens with string "Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/55 ZE" or just "Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 1.4/55". I have never cared about commercial names (Otus, Contax, Rollei or whatever), they either mean nothing or indicate the lens mount.
akul wrote:
Samuli - Great lighting that brings out snow texture. If A7 is making you to post more, that is already a great thing.
Thanks. You might be right about A7, I have typically given up photography during winter, but now I have been shooting quite a lot to get understanding how A7 and A7r behave.
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2.8/21 ZE @ f/11, 869s, Sony A7 @ ISO 100
Incredible shot NatDerox! I haven't made my way over to Olympic National Park yet. Maybe sometime soon! A couple from today's walk around the block.. The first from the 13mm APO and the second from the Otus 55mm.
As to my postings on ZI, I don't think you should be spreading this out at FM. I have written to Jorge Torralba, to ask whether he sees a problem, and he does not.
Concerning this thread, I have already acknowledged that I overdid it (the past two months), and I think we can end this topic here.
Sorry that I bored you with my series - constructive, well-meaning criticism is the greatest thing to anyone's improvement.
I would appreciate, if you would adress me as a she, when you keep talking to me in the 3rd person.
@Cyra - Please keep posting all you want I truly enjoy seeing your photos! I think many others would concur.
My $.02...
Having been on this thread for over two years these "rules" are the first I've heard. Really? Geez people - get over yourself! If you want to list "Rules" about posting then do it in the FIRST page of the thread not 936 pages later. Unbelievable!
Either update the first page with your "rules" or stop polluting this awesome thread with that nonsense. It's about photos! And, if it's not about "photos" then say so on the first page so myself and others will know and more importantly, the "thread police" will have a reference to refer the offenders to. Until then... just say'n.
IMO everyone who thinks that her or his pictures are worthwhile posting is free to do this. There is no such rule about "too many" pictures.
I don't post pictures quite often because I consider most of my pictures not special enough to post. But that's me. Other people with more talent and more time to take pictures are free to post many more than I do.
