I’m a new Zeiss user and here’s my confession with some of ‘not so very much exemplary shots’.
This thread has been an inspiration source for me and I should tell that some of you guys are just great in marketing because you convinced me to spend some crazy $1800 on a lens (100ZE)
Special marketing medals go to :
Mast3rChi3f
Samuli
Paul Yi (your ‘juggler in a street’ and ‘bench and the rail track’ are 3D references to me!)
Snowboarder (I simply love your ‘Pelicans’)
And what is this all about? It’s about my frustration on the results I get and how they can be improved. I hope something can be done because I am in panic and really thinking about if my 100ZE unit is defective.
For the last three weeks since 100ZE purchase I’ve been using the lens on my old 20D plus tried for a couple of shots on 5DII like this one () but I did not notice much difference in terms of easiness of manual focusing, volume of chromatic aberration and lack of 3D-ness.
And my main points of disappointment are:
- Where is 3D here? Seems to me on these shots all is set for 3D-ness but the bench and the pot don’t ‘jump out’ (20D).
- Why so much CA? I expected better results, really. Look at the bride. She’s simply glowing! (20D)
- Zoom challenge. Do you guys use LiveView? Handheld Or some of you find eyepiece eyecups like KPS 2CC useful?
It's you not the lens. Now I don't mean to be nasty, and please don't take it that way. You have to understand that you need to learn the lenses faults and work around them. You can't expect to shoot a brightly lit high contrast day, and have it look like gold. Especially when you're not shooting at the right exposures for a given scene. You'll just have to spend more time with the lens, learn how to work with it and it'll give you the shots your looking for. BTW, the 20D shot of the towers is pretty damn nice. It's certainly not nice because of the camera, or the lens, it's just a nice photo. If you continue to take good photos in good light situations you'll get great results. And if you continue to work with the 100 MP ZE your shots will eventually look much better then you normally would shoot with a mundane lens.
Honestly, I had the same problem when I first picked up the lens, and SLOWLY I'm getting blown away by what it can do, but it really does take time to learn how to shoot with it. In fact, I think my biggest mistake was that I picked up to many ZE lenses to fast, and I haven't had a chance to really familiarize myself with one lens for long enough to achieve fantastic results, so I'm really still stuck in that twilight phase. Really it does take time, and eventually you'll start to see the results.
charles.K wrote:
Philber: Good shot with the ZE 28
Bobu: Amazing shots of the cars.
alundeb: Very interesting shot! I like it. How do you find the MF with the 7D?
Ajay: Great shot.
Adam: Nice portraits! Great comparison shots with the ZE 100MP and the ZE 85/1.4. It would have been interesting to compare the 2 lenses at the same f stop. I find the 85 comes alive after about f2 to 2.5. My preference for the portrait would be the 100MP.
johnahill: I really like your shots with the 50/1.4. It has a unique style to this lens and how it renders.
Herisson: Your 100MP does not seem right. It could OOF, wrong plane of focus, marginally. With the 20D and even the 5D, you may need to calibrate the focusing screens, unless the copy of the 100MP has an issue itself.
Denoir: I like the shots of the animals Particularly 2 and 3, as you can almost feel the texture of the coat....Show more →
Yea, generally I do shoot the 85ZE at f/3.2 and would probably have done a comparison at f/2 had it been on the same day, but the shots were taken two days apart. That and I was trying to see if it was worth sacrificing sharpness for the dreamy 1.4 look.. End result, I could sacrifice if I really nailed focus, and I'd probably be pretty happy with the results.
adamdewilde wrote:
[Honestly, I had the same problem when I first picked up the lens, and SLOWLY I'm getting blown away by what it can do, but it really does take time to learn how to shoot with it. In fact, I think my biggest mistake was that I picked up to many ZE lenses to fast, and I haven't had a chance to really familiarize myself with one lens for long enough to achieve fantastic results, so I'm really still stuck in that twilight phase. Really it does take time, and eventually you'll start to see the results.
It's been raining non-stop here... Plus I'm setting up my new studio (moved). So it's been crazy hectic for me, I haven't even had a chance to edit all the shots I took while on vacation.
Quick question for those who now have a 50 MP and 50 1.4 (you know who you are).
What are your thoughts about both lenses in consideration of each other?
Do you still find use for your 50 1.4?
Does the 50 1.4 do something that you like better then the 50 MP?
Any other things to add?
Took this a while ago with 35ZE, I don't think I've posted it, my apologies if I have. But wanted to at least toss a picture up since I asked questions that will get answered probably picture-lessly.
Rsoltl13,
I didn't have a chance to respond earlier, but I was going to comment that I like your bench shot because of the wet rainy/cloudy looking day is a nice break from the onslaught of the last month of hot,sunny, cloudless days we have been having here in Northern California.
Lotus,
I am super stuffed after an all you can't eat pizza buffet for lunch today at Pizza Hut so I am feeling a little ill looking at more pizza right now.
Philippe,
Glad you are enjoying your "brutish" 100MP!
Adam,
I think if you go back a month on this thread you will find a long discussion between Samuli, Phillipe, and I and others about the differences between these two lenses.
My take is that one of the biggest differences between the two lenses is that the 50/1.4 transitions faster to OOF from the point of focus than the 50 MP which stays in focus more consistently throughout the DOF and then starts transitioning to OOF. So if you are trying to isolate a foreground object from the background you can shoot the 50/1.4 more stopped down than the 50 MP and get the same amount of isolation as the 50MP at wider aperture. This more stopped down aperture of the 50/1.4 allows more DOF around the point of focus on the subject giving a stronger 3-d rendering than the 50MP would do at a wider apeture. Also, with the 50/1.4 consistently transitioning from the focus pt. to the OOF background, it renders the space from front to back in a way which shows the relative distance from the nearest object to the farthest object. Also, when shooting at this more stopped down aperture say f5.6 with the 50/1.4 as the lens transitions from focus pt to the background OOF it renders the background subject with a less strongly drawn some say painterly or refined type of bokeh. Where as the 50MP stays more of the same sharpness throught the DOF and then transitions to OOF in a more strongly drawn with blurring kind of way. Hard to describe.
So if you want to isolate a subject from a background with good 3-d and show relative distance from front to back in the scene and want to retain detail in the background but with a more softly drawn bokeh manner then the 50/1.4 is better.
If you want to isolate the subject and blur the background then depending on distances both lens will work but at wide apertures like f2 and f2.8 I probably would favor the 50/2 MP, especially if the distance to subject is closer to MFD.
If you want to take a landscape scene with max consistent sharpness from front to back and across the frame then I would favor the 50 MP.
Which one you like better will depend on your shooting style and type of photography you mostly do.
Both are great lenses!
I am finding a similar difference between the 35/1.4 and the 35/2 except the 35/1.4 is perfroms well when shot wide open and up close unlike the 50/1.4 since it has a floating element design and aspherical element.
Maybe try both lenses and see which one suits you better. Hope this helps and you should also get very knowledgable responses from both Samuli and Phillipe on this.
Adam: The 50/1.4 and 50MP are different animals. Same FL both different. Does one replace the other, IMO they don't.
I have used the 50/1.4 for evening portraits, and it is great. The 50MP would have too harsh, and brutal, of course, assuming the shots could have been taken at f/2.
The Planar, gives a more paint like rendering, rather than the sharper look of the 50MP. This is the only way I can describe it. Even though all the charts, defining sharpness, dictate the the 50/1.4 is inferior, to other 50's, there are many times when I prefer the 50/1.4. Makten and Philber, has done an excellent job of illustrating what can be done with the Planar. The shots that Makten has presented would have had a different look with the 50MP.
Personally, I am still on the steep learning curve, trying to see how best to use the lenses.
