Thanks! That last shot gave me some headaches in terms of composition - there was stuff both right, left and under the table that I did not want to include. I couldn't move too much because then my reflection in the mirror would be visible. I didn't have a tripod and in the end I managed to cut off the top of the mirror...
Thanks Luka Yes it is hard to compose horses particularly young untrained ones. Any wider than a FL of 50 would have caught to much detail. I tried the 100MP, but we had continuous movement.
My favs, #1,2 and the second lot, #1, 2 & 3. Great clarity and depth.
Personally I like the vignetting of the ZE35 particularly f/2 for portraits and it is sharp. You have a choice that the lens can be closed down if needed. I really like the shots and the feel of the 35/2
I like this lens as I have mentioned before for traveling, and I know I have to be conscious of moving in closer to get the right feel to the shots. This may well be the case for most wide angles, and you can catch too much extraneous detail to compose properly on the run.
Off to Ireland tomorrow. I don't usually use wide lenses, and I have never actually used a Zeiss lens before, but I figured what the heck and rented the 21mm/2.8.
I figured I would need it for castles and general landscapes. And I figured since it was a wide lens I wouldn't mind renting it and then giving it back. (The background is that I once bought a Tamron 11-18mm lens and hardly ever used it. Only 5-10 times over the 4 years I owned it.)
However, I think I have made a mistake. I don't generally like wide lenses, but I have only used it a few times around the yard and so far I like *this* "wide" lens. I don't think I am going to want to send it back. And I really, really can't afford this lens...
And just so you know, renting that lens was largely the fault of you folks on this thread. Throwing up beautiful, sharp, pictures with lovely color.
The ZF21 is a lot more impressive on an FX camera, but I'm sure you'll still love it for your trip. I know it wouldn't be nearly wide enough for me on DX, but you might think different.
Well, I was never much into photography when film reigned and I have never owned an FX camera, so as abnormal as it might be, DX is ... normal to me.
My two favorite lenses have been in the 100mm range (90mm/2.8 Tamron macro and 100mm/2.8 Nikon macro). So, for me 21mm even on DX is far wider than I am used to shooting. I have been slowly adjusting to it, but I still tend to take all encompassing shots that don't have a focus. If the lens was wider, I expect the effect would be even worse.
Before renting the 21mm, I had been trying to learn how to use the 18mm end of my 18-200mm. However, the closest focus on that lens is not very close. The Zeiss lets me get right in there. I have been loving that aspect of it.
I have more or less gotten the hang of 50mm. Also very different than 100mm.
In any case, I certainly believe that you and many other folks would find 21mm too narrow a lens, but I am looking forward to giving it a whirl somewhere interesting.
denoir - In my experience using the 35 ZE for portraits where you want to include objects in the background but have them be out of focus, so you can make them out but have them not distract from you main subject. It works this way because the 35 is really good at having your subject pop out, so it really helps to isolate someone amongst there stuff.
The 50's are a bit to normal for this, and the 85 and 100 are to tight to do this effectively. The 28 might work, but I haven't used it, and the 21 is just to wide for such things. So thats kind where I feel the 35 fits in.
Adam: Yes, I've used the 35 for portraits - both close ups and environmental:
To be honest, I prefer the Makro Planar rendering style though for portriats..
The 50 MP is my favorite portrait lens:
And the 100 MP can be nice at a distance (often too sharp close up):
Generally speaking I'm all that into shooting portraits beyond the standard family and friends stuff - and that's more for documentary than artistic purposes.
Luka, my favorite from the bokeh shots is the third one and from your second 35/2 batch I like the one overlooking the village for the composition, colours and details. The third portrait is a great example of an environmental portrait, plus nice 3d as well.
The last portrait is also really good but almost to much 3d, it would be interesting to see if someone has a similar portrait taken with the 85/1.4.
joakim wrote:
Luka, my favorite from the bokeh shots is the third one and from your second 35/2 batch I like the one overlooking the village for the composition, colours and details. The third portrait is a great example of an environmental portrait, plus nice 3d as well.
The last portrait is also really good but almost to much 3d
The background simply looks completely flat, making the subject look like it's cut out and standing in front of it.
Edit: That wasn't meant in a bad way -- I was just trying to explain why it looks almost "too 3D". There is plasticity in the subject/focal plane, but it's completely cut off from the background that there is only the impression of flat layers, not real depth.
Thanks Joakim! I think the last one would have been very different with a 85/1.4. At that type of camera/subject/background distances the 100MP provides a very strong subject separation while with the 85/1.4 we would have seen a more gradual DOF falloff. The 50 & 85 Planars are unique in that respect.
AhamB, joakim and denoir - I love the 100 MP ZE for exactly that reason!
denoir - The 35 shots you posted are great, but yes I agree that I do like the 50 MP ZE more for portraits. The 50 1.4 ZE I'm finding in my opinion doesn't do as well shooting portraits, and works best as a walk around lens where you're capturing fleeting moments. And if you do find yourself using the 50 1.4 for portraits (which it can do, just not as well as the 50 MP ZE) they would be more expressive or emotive showing the mood of the day, and not really capturing the character of the individual, IMO.
Anyway here are a few shots today while I was taking my dogs out for a run.
All shot with 100 MP ZE @ f/2
adam: Nice closeups!
mortyb: The one with the fly is just amazing - love the field as well.
joakim: Very nice 3D.. the half time break is over gotto run!
My two very first film shots, with the ZM 35/2.8 on Leica M6...
The negatives (T-Max 100) were developed in D-76 and photographed with the 100/2 Makro-Planar on D700, which isn't the best idea for good sharpness (only 1:2). But it worked!
Luka, nice change of style. I really like the portraits. You can captured personalities within them, with a background more about who you are. My favs, #1,3 and 5. Different lenses with different feel.
As Adam had eluded to, the 50MP is a great lens. I found myself this was lens of choice this weekend with horses, and people shots. Particularly is horse paddocks where there is ugly fencing you want the shots to separate from.
mortyb, I love the shot of field of flowers. ...and the last shot with 100MP.
dcjs, good shot. Interesting to see shots taken with different cameras. This is obviously a 1.5 crop. How do you find the Fuji for MF?
joakim, nice shots! I am still learning to use the 28/2. It is not the lens, that I first pick up to take shots, as I figuring out its strengths.
Makten, nice shots! You are braver than me, as I could not go back to film
That last shot gave me some headaches in terms of composition - there was stuff both right, left and under the table that I did not want to include. I couldn't move too much because then my reflection in the mirror would be visible. I didn't have a tripod and in the end I managed to cut off the top of the mirror...
