wayne seltzer wrote:
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.
Yes, I've been following the forum for quite some time, I remember the talks, but I think a few more of you got both lenses, so wanted to see how that developed for the new users. Though you've convinced me, this is exactly what I wanted to hear, I'm gonna consider picking this lens up as soon as one comes up on a good price (which usually means my impatience will kick in, and I'll go to my local camera shop soon).
charles.K wrote:
Philber: Nice shot with a different angle
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....Show more →
Yes true, these are all good points. You're just adding fuel to the buy it now fire.
Just a follow up on my previous post, with respect to the new monitor NEC multiSync PA241W, W7 64bit with Spyder 3 elite calibration. Probably not the right thread to post it, but it may be of interest, as we try to present the best we can obtain from the Zeiss lenses.
I work in ProPhoto in CS564bit work with TIFF 16bit, final step of saving to sRGB before I upload to the web. No problems to date, until I included a wide gamut monitor into the workflow. I had the monitor calibrated with a very wide gamut for printing, but caused all sorts of issues with mismatching of colours on the web, and problems with CS5 64 bit in presenting previewing what would be viewed on the web.
Fortunately this monitor allows for dual calibrations, for a wide gamut and sRGB. After spending 36 hours trying plugins and different browsers and different colours managements, I reverted back to sRGB calibrated and no problems.
My research has indicated there is a widespread problem, when working with wide gamut monitors working with web based applications, as there is no support yet, as far as windows 7 is concerned.
For printing of course, I can use the wide gamut calibration on the monitor with a switch for printing, to a canon pro9500II.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Please don't say that. Maybe I'm superstitious but I singlehandedly defeated Brazil last night by claiming they will win. So now you know.
Argentina will win for sure, no doubt
Haha, you have a point. It was the same here with me yesterday, so I get the idea.
That was one of the most intense matches I have seen. At several time, I think I even forgot to breathe. I'm mostly happy for Maradona though. I dislike him and his team even more than I like Germany.
oldmiller wrote:
Same cat, different lens. ZF85, f/1.4:
No doubt we will.
Kind regards,
Bernd
Wow, I don't think my 85 is that sharp wide open. Wanna upload a 100% crop for me? I'm just curious to see if there are sample variations, or if you're really good at sharpening for low res..
Just wrinting to express my dislike of football comments on this forum! We should stick solely to Zeiss discussion!!! Football is totaly unnimportant!!!
Andre
PS:btw, I happen to be brazilian...
