Charles, I liked your "frame" - I can't remember in which forum I once displayed a little similar photo and according to few people center of image HAS TO BE in focus, which I of course find quite funny; in photography there are no rules written in stone...
philber wrote:
Why, can't the little guy learn from his betters?
Philippe, nothing wrong on learning or shooting with different styles - I just got worried that you won't anymore show us the magnificient f/5.6-10 photos, which don't rely on narrow DOF but other features (composition, Zeiss drawing style etc.).
rsolti13 wrote:
Wow Denoir, you and the 21 are like Makten and the 35....great shots. What distortion problem?
Thank you! All things considered, the 21 is my favorite lens. I'm very fond of the 100MP and the 35 & 50MP are great as well, but the 21 is really special to me.
charles.K wrote:
Great shots with 21 Luka! I like these shots, as it is not the standard style shot, where everything is parallel, so any distortion will stand out more. I noticed with Snowboarder's shots, he does not try and keep front on, but adds to the perspective with different angles.
Luka, NEC has both the 24" PA 241W and 27" PA 271W, with multiple calibrations available on the monitor, which you can change within seconds. The calibrations with the Spectra II software is a hardware calibration and is very accurate. I am noticing colours and issues, which I could not have seen before even with this new 24" monitor. The Eizo monitors are excellent, but you do not have the provisions for multiple calibration profiles, and are a lot more expensive....Show more →
Thanks Charles - and lovely landscape shot. Regarding the monitors, the thing I'm not quite sure about is what the benefit of a wide gamut monitor would be if in the end I'm just squeezing the images into sRGB. Snowboarder's path of choosing ProPhoto RGB is of course an option, I'm not sure it is a practical one though - not until IE & Chrome get color management.
Peire wrote:
Ceiling of the Zagreb cathedral - superb lighting colours and sharpness.I like it very much.
Thanks Peire! That scene with all the fine detail in the ceiling and on the columns was really made for the 21. The lighting in the cathedral was dim but fairly even.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Denoir, seems that Zagreb cathedral has quite much light (compared to Notre Dame for example). My favourite is for some reason the #3 (shallow DOF 21mm shot).
If I remember correctly from my last visit to Notre Dame, I'd say the amount of light is about the same. It's possibly a bit brighter in the middle of the cathedral, as it's smaller but it was relatively dark everywhere. The last shot was a 13 s exposure - I put the camera on a church bench and did a dozen or so of long exposures of the ceiling. The preceding image was shot handheld, but with relatively high ISO - 1600 , 1/25 @ f/2.8.
I did try a HDR shot, inspired by your Notre Dame series:
It was the only bracketed exposure that I shot and it was handheld with fairly high ISO, so my hopes weren't high. In the end however I manged to align them and at least get something.
Your photos are great Samuli - I like them all, but my favorite is hands down the tunnel shot with the 21
Picked up the 50 1.4 ZE today (used @ $500 USD w/B+W MRC which I think is a fair deal)... Haven't really had a chance to use it, but from the few test shots I took it is obviously a different lens then the 50 MP ZE, though I'm not sure if thats a good or bad thing yet.
Good thing in the sense that it may be decent for portraits and walk around lens while on vacation.
Bad thing in the sense that the 50 MP ZE might beat the pants off of it, for my style of shooting.
I suppose only time will tell. I'll try to get some portrait comparison shots up sometime in the next few days if I'm not to busy.
Denoir, the first shot of the scaffolding and the one towards the end with the statue and blurred cathedral are fantastic. The stature shot looks like it is against a backdrop painted by Monet.
Jim
Thanks for the nice comments, guys The A900 + 35/2 is a nice combo to have hanging over my shoulder when I'm out chillin' in the sweet summer weather we have here these days
zoomo wrote:
Hi Edward, thought so. Great result! It is sad they do not have the 100mm macro in ZS though otherwise I would have been very interested.
Cheers, Bob.
Thanks Bob! Well I too would have been tempted by the 100 MP, but only if it reached 1:1 magnification. I do a lot of jewelry shots and 1:1 is a must. I have to rely on the Sony 100mm for the time being. It's a good lens but no Zeiss. Actually it's my only non Zeiss lens
Whenever I feel that I've been doing too much conventional photography, I get back to one of my big interests - lively bokeh. Most people prefer it butter smooth - I don't and I love to experiment with it.
100 MP
If you haven't fled already, here is my parting shot - the 21 Distagon, master of impressionist bokeh
The problem I find with my newly acquired ZE 100 is that it is so "visibly sharp" that it leads to take pictures that are going to look spectacular rather than "good pictures". I need to work on that...
Charles: Great shots. I really like the first shot (uncropped version) - too bad about that fourth horse partially visible on the left side. Without it it would have really been a perfect shot. I really like the third 50MP shot as well.
I forced myself to use the 35/2 yesterday - I'm still not quite sure what the optimal use for this lens is, so I tried a variety of types of shots. I can't say that I'm any wiser now - all the shots that I took would have probably been better with another lens. Well, I suppose I need more practice - it's after all the Zeiss lens that I've used the least so far.
Luka: I really like #1 minus the vignetting. #2 has strong plasticity and the vignetting fits there. I'm not inspired by #3 and #4. The background's far to dark for me on 3 and the main subject in 4 is not prominent enough (the framing is a bit weird).
Benjamin (AhamB): Thanks for the feedback. I'm personally not crazy about any of them but I agree that the two last are the weakest. #1 and #2 show nice 3D characteristic of the 35/2.. but I miss the fine detail that the 21 would give me. #3 is crap (no 3D, no detail) and #4 is also weak in the 3D department.
Looking through the shots I took during the last two weeks, here is a selection of varying subjects taken with the 35/2:
