This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
p.2 #1Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Mirek Elsner wrote:
This is upper left corner from 21mp from my copy of the 50MP@f4, actual pixels. Default LR sharpening (25), no output sharpening. Handheld shot at 1/125. It is really just 100 pixels or so out of 21MP and it should not be difficult to crop it if it really is a big deal. I am not sure if any other 50 would do much better. Again, this is 1/3 - 1/2 of an inch in a corner of 13x19 and unless somebody examines it very carefully, I don't think it would show up. I am not going to print...Show more →
Thank you very much for posting this crop. It looks slightly better than my lens, but not as good as I had expected.
You are probably right that it's not a big problem, but I don't like the idea of buying a very expensive lens and then having to crop the last 100 pixels of each shot.
Boris
This is upper left corner from 21mp from my copy of the 50MP@f4, actual pixels. Default LR sharpening (25), no output sharpening. Handheld shot at 1/125. It is really just 100 pixels or so out of 21MP and it should not be difficult to crop it if it really is a big deal. I am not sure if any other 50 would do much better. Again, this is 1/3 - 1/2 of an inch in a corner of 13x19 and unless somebody examines it very carefully, I don't think it would show up. I am not going to print...Show more →
Thank you very much for posting this crop. It looks slightly better than my lens, but not as good as I had expected.
You are probably right that it's not a big problem, but I don't like the idea of buying a very expensive lens and then having to crop the last 100 pixels of each shot.
Boris
Feb 08, 2010 at 02:56 PM
p.2 #2Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
How do the corners look on the 50mm f2 stopped to f8? I mean for landscapes one usually stops down anyway, and for macro one usually is higher than f4. For portraits, the corners generally do not matter that much.
Feb 08, 2010 at 04:49 PM
p.2 #3Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
mark1958 wrote:
How do the corners look on the 50mm f2 stopped to f8? I mean for landscapes one usually stops down anyway, and for macro one usually is higher than f4. For portraits, the corners generally do not matter that much.
At f8 the difference is nearly gone, but the zoom is still slightly better in the extreme corner. On a print you won't see this difference. Even if you normally use f/8 or f/11 for landscapes I still would like sharp corners at f/4 or f/5.6 if I occasional need it.
Boris
50 MP @ f/8 (100% crop of lower right corner):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/4342291401_2f7d1a21c2_o.jpg
35-70 @ f/8 (100% crop of lower right corner):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2709/4342290373_84cf0b5e2c_o.jpg
How do the corners look on the 50mm f2 stopped to f8? I mean for landscapes one usually stops down anyway, and for macro one usually is higher than f4. For portraits, the corners generally do not matter that much.
At f8 the difference is nearly gone, but the zoom is still slightly better in the extreme corner. On a print you won't see this difference. Even if you normally use f/8 or f/11 for landscapes I still would like sharp corners at f/4 or f/5.6 if I occasional need it.
Boris
50 MP @ f/8 (100% crop of lower right corner):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/4342291401_2f7d1a21c2_o.jpg
35-70 @ f/8 (100% crop of lower right corner):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2709/4342290373_84cf0b5e2c_o.jpg
Feb 09, 2010 at 12:25 AM
p.2 #4Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
philber wrote:
Boris, if you are looking for a "landscape-50" from Zeiss, IMHO you are better off with a f:1.4 than with an MP.
If you are looking for ZE35 to be a smaller ZE21, then I am not sure that you will be 100% satisfied. ZE35 is impeccably sharp from close up to infinity. It does vignette slightly wide open, but less so than 35L. It does have a tad more lateral colour than ZE21, but easily fixed.
The difference, as I see it, is elsewhere. The "gestalt" of the 21 is almost dramatic. By comparison, the 35 is so sharp it is...Show more →
Thanks philber, I will have a closer look of the 1.4/50 and will probably give the 2.0/35 a try. I like the look of my 24mm TSE II, which is also more "clinical" than the 21mm Distagon, so maybe I will also like the 35ZE.
Boris
Boris, if you are looking for a "landscape-50" from Zeiss, IMHO you are better off with a f:1.4 than with an MP.
If you are looking for ZE35 to be a smaller ZE21, then I am not sure that you will be 100% satisfied. ZE35 is impeccably sharp from close up to infinity. It does vignette slightly wide open, but less so than 35L. It does have a tad more lateral colour than ZE21, but easily fixed.
The difference, as I see it, is elsewhere. The "gestalt" of the 21 is almost dramatic. By comparison, the 35 is so sharp it is...Show more →
Thanks philber, I will have a closer look of the 1.4/50 and will probably give the 2.0/35 a try. I like the look of my 24mm TSE II, which is also more "clinical" than the 21mm Distagon, so maybe I will also like the 35ZE.
Boris
Feb 09, 2010 at 12:35 AM
p.2 #5Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Boris,
You've got me worried as Ive just purchased a 50MP from B&H and Mr UPS says it will arrive tomorrow!
I will be looking at those corners!
Dave
(down in NZ)
You've got me worried as Ive just purchased a 50MP from B&H and Mr UPS says it will arrive tomorrow!
I will be looking at those corners!
Dave
(down in NZ)
Feb 09, 2010 at 02:03 AM
p.2 #6Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
philber wrote:
Boris, if you are looking for a "landscape-50" from Zeiss, IMHO you are better off with a f:1.4 than with an MP.[unquote]
Philber, I'm interested in why you feel the 1.4 is a better landscape lens. My reading of posts on this forum all suggest the 2.0MP to be sharper, and f1.2 would be rarely needed for landscape?
steve
Boris, if you are looking for a "landscape-50" from Zeiss, IMHO you are better off with a f:1.4 than with an MP.[unquote]
Philber, I'm interested in why you feel the 1.4 is a better landscape lens. My reading of posts on this forum all suggest the 2.0MP to be sharper, and f1.2 would be rarely needed for landscape?
steve
Feb 09, 2010 at 03:53 AM
p.2 #7Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Steve, it seems that lenses that are optimized for close range shooting, such as portrait lenses or macro lenses are seldom at their best at infinity which is the most common range for landscape. The Zeiss macros are less "extreme" in this respect, as their magnification factor only goes to 1:2, and not the more common 1:1. Still, comparisons between the 50MP and the f:1.4 have indicated that the f:1.4 had a slight edge for landscapes, even though the 50MP is recognized as generally sharper, as befits a macro lens. AFAICR, it had to do with "better" rendition of coulour and contrast. Never having used a 50MP, I can only help by supplying examples of the 50 f:1.4...
Feb 09, 2010 at 09:23 AM
p.2 #8Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
philber wrote:
Steve, it seems that lenses that are optimized for close range shooting, such as portrait lenses or macro lenses are seldom at their best at infinity which is the most common range for landscape. The Zeiss macros are less "extreme" in this respect, as their magnification factor only goes to 1:2, and not the more common 1:1. Still, comparisons between the 50MP and the f:1.4 have indicated that the f:1.4 had a slight edge for landscapes, even though the 50MP is recognized as generally sharper, as befits a macro lens.
The MP 2/50 is actually at its best at long range. But what is the point of buying the more expensive 2/50, for landscapes, when the legendary 1.4/50 still outresolves today's sensors?
Steve, it seems that lenses that are optimized for close range shooting, such as portrait lenses or macro lenses are seldom at their best at infinity which is the most common range for landscape. The Zeiss macros are less "extreme" in this respect, as their magnification factor only goes to 1:2, and not the more common 1:1. Still, comparisons between the 50MP and the f:1.4 have indicated that the f:1.4 had a slight edge for landscapes, even though the 50MP is recognized as generally sharper, as befits a macro lens.
The MP 2/50 is actually at its best at long range. But what is the point of buying the more expensive 2/50, for landscapes, when the legendary 1.4/50 still outresolves today's sensors?
Feb 09, 2010 at 10:24 AM
p.2 #9Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Lose contact in a snowstorm for a few days and this is what gets discussed? ;-)
Someone is complaining about soft corners with a 50mm lens? Don't ALL 50mm lenses still have soft corners at f4.0? Yes, the 50MP is no different, performance drops off into the extreme corner -- but right up to that corner is is outstanding. I have both the 50MP and the 35-70 VS and at 50mm the 50MP is miles ahead of the 35-70 at f4.0 -- which also has weak corners, not to mentioned weak edges). The 50/1.4 P isn't much different in this regard, either. If you don't want weak corners, don't use a lens with a focal length less than 100mm of shoot at apertures larger than f5.6. It is a very rare and exceptional 50mm that can dismiss those rules. The ZF/ZE 35/2, which I also have, also falls off in the corners at large apertures, but is a little better than the 50mm's in this regard. I don't however see it as an alternative to the 50MP, because of the focal length difference. You should have BOTH lenses. of course.
No one should be surprised that a short focal length lens will falloff into the corners at large apertures. Further, 100mm macros are almost always better than 50 or 60mm macros in the corners (it was the same with the Contax c/y makros).
If your test is showing you that the 35-70 is better than the 50MP at f4.0, either there is something wrong with your test, or you need your eyes checked. The 50MP gives you SO much more right up to that corner than the 35-70. Looking at your corner crops, it seems pretty clear to me, however, that the 50MP is superior -- there is more detail (look at the bottom third) and better contrast overall. It really doesn't seem unexpectedly bad or unacceptable.
Unless you need the extra stop of speed at f1.4, the 50MP can replace any 50mm lens you might have and you'll never regret it. It is exceptional at infinity as well as close up.
If all you are concerned about is a sharpness into the extreme last millimeter of two of the corner, than you should look at lenses with medium format size image circles and only use the center half of it (like you do with the 24 TSE II). Of course, these won't be as good in the center or even over 95% of the image area. There are always trade-offs.
Someone is complaining about soft corners with a 50mm lens? Don't ALL 50mm lenses still have soft corners at f4.0? Yes, the 50MP is no different, performance drops off into the extreme corner -- but right up to that corner is is outstanding. I have both the 50MP and the 35-70 VS and at 50mm the 50MP is miles ahead of the 35-70 at f4.0 -- which also has weak corners, not to mentioned weak edges). The 50/1.4 P isn't much different in this regard, either. If you don't want weak corners, don't use a lens with a focal length less than 100mm of shoot at apertures larger than f5.6. It is a very rare and exceptional 50mm that can dismiss those rules. The ZF/ZE 35/2, which I also have, also falls off in the corners at large apertures, but is a little better than the 50mm's in this regard. I don't however see it as an alternative to the 50MP, because of the focal length difference. You should have BOTH lenses. of course.
No one should be surprised that a short focal length lens will falloff into the corners at large apertures. Further, 100mm macros are almost always better than 50 or 60mm macros in the corners (it was the same with the Contax c/y makros).
If your test is showing you that the 35-70 is better than the 50MP at f4.0, either there is something wrong with your test, or you need your eyes checked. The 50MP gives you SO much more right up to that corner than the 35-70. Looking at your corner crops, it seems pretty clear to me, however, that the 50MP is superior -- there is more detail (look at the bottom third) and better contrast overall. It really doesn't seem unexpectedly bad or unacceptable.
Unless you need the extra stop of speed at f1.4, the 50MP can replace any 50mm lens you might have and you'll never regret it. It is exceptional at infinity as well as close up.
If all you are concerned about is a sharpness into the extreme last millimeter of two of the corner, than you should look at lenses with medium format size image circles and only use the center half of it (like you do with the 24 TSE II). Of course, these won't be as good in the center or even over 95% of the image area. There are always trade-offs.
Feb 09, 2010 at 10:34 AM
p.2 #10Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Lotusm50 wrote:
Lose contact in a snowstorm for a few days and this is what gets discussed? ;-)
Someone is complaining about soft corners with a 50mm lens? Don't ALL 50mm lenses still have soft corners at f4.0? Yes, the 50MP is no different, performance drops off into the extreme corner -- but right up to that corner is is outstanding. I have both the 50MP and the 35-70 VS and at 50mm the 50MP is miles ahead of the 35-70 at f4.0 -- which also has weak corners, not to mentioned weak edges). The 50/1.4 P isn't much different in this regard,...Show more →
All my other lenses have a much better corner performance than the 50MP at f/4. This includes several wide angle lenses like the 21mm Distagon, the TSE-lenses (ok, they have a greater image circle) and even the 14-24 zoom-lens.
Maybe you need to check your eyes if you don't see the difference in the two corner crops. As I said, the contrast of the 50MP is much better than the contrast of the 35-70 and the center performance is also great, but the corner sharpness is significantly better on the 35-70 crops.
Boris
Lose contact in a snowstorm for a few days and this is what gets discussed? ;-)
Someone is complaining about soft corners with a 50mm lens? Don't ALL 50mm lenses still have soft corners at f4.0? Yes, the 50MP is no different, performance drops off into the extreme corner -- but right up to that corner is is outstanding. I have both the 50MP and the 35-70 VS and at 50mm the 50MP is miles ahead of the 35-70 at f4.0 -- which also has weak corners, not to mentioned weak edges). The 50/1.4 P isn't much different in this regard,...Show more →
All my other lenses have a much better corner performance than the 50MP at f/4. This includes several wide angle lenses like the 21mm Distagon, the TSE-lenses (ok, they have a greater image circle) and even the 14-24 zoom-lens.
Maybe you need to check your eyes if you don't see the difference in the two corner crops. As I said, the contrast of the 50MP is much better than the contrast of the 35-70 and the center performance is also great, but the corner sharpness is significantly better on the 35-70 crops.
Boris
Feb 09, 2010 at 11:18 AM
p.2 #11Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
magiclight wrote:
Boris,
You've got me worried as Ive just purchased a 50MP from B&H and Mr UPS says it will arrive tomorrow!
I will be looking at those corners!
Dave
(down in NZ)
I reviewed my comparison test shots of the 50/2 MP, the contax N 50/1.4, ZF 35/2, Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2, and Minolta 28/2. I equalized the FOV and took shots from wide open to f8.
I spent time last night getting the exposures and WB equal for all the shots. I will show the results tonight if I get the time to finish with the crops. In the case of the 50 MP, it is only the corners which are soft from wideopen to f4, at f5.6 it is pretty good and at f8 it is perfect. You have to realized we are talking about only a section about 2"x2" in the corner while viewing the picture at 100% on a 30" cinema display. The 50/1.4 corners reach terminal sharpness at 5.6 but are not that great at f4. The 35/2 is good at f4 in the corner and perfect at f5.6.
More later, got to go.
Boris,
You've got me worried as Ive just purchased a 50MP from B&H and Mr UPS says it will arrive tomorrow!
I will be looking at those corners!
Dave
(down in NZ)
I reviewed my comparison test shots of the 50/2 MP, the contax N 50/1.4, ZF 35/2, Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2, and Minolta 28/2. I equalized the FOV and took shots from wide open to f8.
I spent time last night getting the exposures and WB equal for all the shots. I will show the results tonight if I get the time to finish with the crops. In the case of the 50 MP, it is only the corners which are soft from wideopen to f4, at f5.6 it is pretty good and at f8 it is perfect. You have to realized we are talking about only a section about 2"x2" in the corner while viewing the picture at 100% on a 30" cinema display. The 50/1.4 corners reach terminal sharpness at 5.6 but are not that great at f4. The 35/2 is good at f4 in the corner and perfect at f5.6.
More later, got to go.
Feb 09, 2010 at 12:00 PM
p.2 #12Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
wayne seltzer wrote:
You've got me worried as Ive just purchased a 50MP from B&H and Mr UPS says it will arrive tomorrow!
I will be looking at those corners!
Dave
(down in NZ)I reviewed my comparison test shots of the 50/2 MP, the contax N 50/1.4, ZF 35/2, Minolta Rokkor 58/1.2, and Minolta 28/2. I equalized the FOV and took shots from wide open to f8.
I spent time last night getting the exposures and WB equal for all the shots. I will show the results tonight if I get the time to finish with the crops. In the case of the 50 MP, it is only the corners which are soft from wideopen to f4, at f5.6 it is pretty good and at f8 it is perfect. You have to...Show more →
Wayne, that would be great, thanks! Has your N 50/1.4 the same optics as the 50/1.4 ZE?
Boris
magiclight wrote
Boris,You've got me worried as Ive just purchased a 50MP from B&H and Mr UPS says it will arrive tomorrow!
I will be looking at those corners!
Dave
(down in NZ)
I spent time last night getting the exposures and WB equal for all the shots. I will show the results tonight if I get the time to finish with the crops. In the case of the 50 MP, it is only the corners which are soft from wideopen to f4, at f5.6 it is pretty good and at f8 it is perfect. You have to...Show more →
Wayne, that would be great, thanks! Has your N 50/1.4 the same optics as the 50/1.4 ZE?
Boris
Feb 09, 2010 at 12:07 PM
p.2 #13Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Supposedly they are the same optical formula. Only difference I see is the new Z* ones are warmer in color than the older contax N and C/Y versions.
Feb 09, 2010 at 12:49 PM
p.2 #14Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Lotusm50 wrote:
Lose contact in a snowstorm for a few days and this is what gets discussed? ;-)
Someone is complaining about soft corners with a 50mm lens? Don't ALL 50mm lenses still have soft corners at f4.0? Yes, the 50MP is no different, performance drops off into the extreme corner -- but right up to that corner is is outstanding. I have both the 50MP and the 35-70 VS and at 50mm the 50MP is miles ahead of the 35-70 at f4.0 -- which also has weak corners, not to mentioned weak edges). The 50/1.4 P isn't much different in this regard,...Show more →
Hello Lotusm50, welcome back!
+1 to all above.
I would like to add that I think with 50mm I would not usually shoot a landscape shot with an aperture wider than f5.6 because you need the DOF. Sure with wider lenses you get a lot more DOF so you could shoot them with wider apertures.
I'm starting to feel like the 50 MP is the Rodney Dangerfield lens in the Zeiss lineup as it has not been getting the respect it deserves just because people either don't like the focal length or want to compare it to other focal lengths like the 100MP which is not fair as a focal length of 100mm has a completely different set of design problems to solve than a 50mm lens.
I also respectfully disagree with the 50/1.4 being called a better landscape lens than the 50/2MP. The 50/2MP is sharper throughout the frame, except for below f5.6 in the extreme corner, and has a larger DOF at the same aperture with a more gradual transition to OOF making it easier to get a whole large DOF landscape shot in sharp focus from front to back.
Lose contact in a snowstorm for a few days and this is what gets discussed? ;-)
Someone is complaining about soft corners with a 50mm lens? Don't ALL 50mm lenses still have soft corners at f4.0? Yes, the 50MP is no different, performance drops off into the extreme corner -- but right up to that corner is is outstanding. I have both the 50MP and the 35-70 VS and at 50mm the 50MP is miles ahead of the 35-70 at f4.0 -- which also has weak corners, not to mentioned weak edges). The 50/1.4 P isn't much different in this regard,...Show more →
Hello Lotusm50, welcome back!
+1 to all above.
I would like to add that I think with 50mm I would not usually shoot a landscape shot with an aperture wider than f5.6 because you need the DOF. Sure with wider lenses you get a lot more DOF so you could shoot them with wider apertures.
I'm starting to feel like the 50 MP is the Rodney Dangerfield lens in the Zeiss lineup as it has not been getting the respect it deserves just because people either don't like the focal length or want to compare it to other focal lengths like the 100MP which is not fair as a focal length of 100mm has a completely different set of design problems to solve than a 50mm lens.
I also respectfully disagree with the 50/1.4 being called a better landscape lens than the 50/2MP. The 50/2MP is sharper throughout the frame, except for below f5.6 in the extreme corner, and has a larger DOF at the same aperture with a more gradual transition to OOF making it easier to get a whole large DOF landscape shot in sharp focus from front to back.
Feb 09, 2010 at 01:17 PM
p.2 #15Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Here are some more pictures with the two lenses (with LR dafault sharpening 25/1.0/25, shot from a tripod with liveview-focus but with some movement of the roses due to wind possible):
50MP @ f/4:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4343941089_fb84fa7c77_o.jpg
35-70 @ 50mm & f/4:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4343942273_7e41c1340d_o.jpg
50MP @ f/4 (100% crop of oof bokeh detail):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2714/4343942601_b615fba192_o.jpg
35-70 @ 50mm & f/4 (100% crop of oof bokeh detail):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2694/4344678542_0d0f153060_o.jpg
50MP @ f/4 (100% crop of the center):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/4344679122_5355fe9858_o.jpg
35-70 @ 50mm & f/4 (100% crop of the center):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2725/4343944249_6d2e0f905a_o.jpg
Bokeh is much better on the picture of the 50MP.
Boris
50MP @ f/4:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4343941089_fb84fa7c77_o.jpg
35-70 @ 50mm & f/4:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4343942273_7e41c1340d_o.jpg
50MP @ f/4 (100% crop of oof bokeh detail):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2714/4343942601_b615fba192_o.jpg
35-70 @ 50mm & f/4 (100% crop of oof bokeh detail):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2694/4344678542_0d0f153060_o.jpg
50MP @ f/4 (100% crop of the center):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2802/4344679122_5355fe9858_o.jpg
35-70 @ 50mm & f/4 (100% crop of the center):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2725/4343944249_6d2e0f905a_o.jpg
Bokeh is much better on the picture of the 50MP.
Boris
Feb 09, 2010 at 04:11 PM
p.2 #16Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Bobu wrote:
Wayne, that would be great, thanks! Has your N 50/1.4 the same optics as the 50/1.4 ZE?
and
wayne seltzer wrote:
Supposedly they are the same optical formula. Only difference I see is the new Z* ones are warmer in color than the older contax N and C/Y versions.
I have the N 50/1.4, the c/y 50/1.4, and the ZF 50/1.4 (as well as the 50MP). It has long been said that the N 50 is the same design as the c/y 50. A recent side by side comparison I did showed that the N 50 outperformed the c/y 50. Further, rendition and DOF characteristics suggested to me that there must have been a design change, however slight. the ZF/ZE design is more of a change from the c/y and N lenses, and there are noticeable differences in the published MTF's. It performs differently from both the N and the c/y 50's, especially wide open. Bokeh is different, and highlight seem to be handled differently. And as Wayne pointed out the ZF/ZE's are warmer than the 2 Contax lenses. A week or so ago I had a thread with sample shots from each that clearly show the added warmth of the ZF/ZE design. I would assume that at the very least there were some changes in the glass formulations used (advances, or elimination of banned materials) that would have necessitated a re-calculation of the design and as a by-product slight differences in performance and rendition. If I had to pick one of these 3 lenses to keep, I think it would be the N.
Wayne, that would be great, thanks! Has your N 50/1.4 the same optics as the 50/1.4 ZE?
and
wayne seltzer wrote:
Supposedly they are the same optical formula. Only difference I see is the new Z* ones are warmer in color than the older contax N and C/Y versions.
I have the N 50/1.4, the c/y 50/1.4, and the ZF 50/1.4 (as well as the 50MP). It has long been said that the N 50 is the same design as the c/y 50. A recent side by side comparison I did showed that the N 50 outperformed the c/y 50. Further, rendition and DOF characteristics suggested to me that there must have been a design change, however slight. the ZF/ZE design is more of a change from the c/y and N lenses, and there are noticeable differences in the published MTF's. It performs differently from both the N and the c/y 50's, especially wide open. Bokeh is different, and highlight seem to be handled differently. And as Wayne pointed out the ZF/ZE's are warmer than the 2 Contax lenses. A week or so ago I had a thread with sample shots from each that clearly show the added warmth of the ZF/ZE design. I would assume that at the very least there were some changes in the glass formulations used (advances, or elimination of banned materials) that would have necessitated a re-calculation of the design and as a by-product slight differences in performance and rendition. If I had to pick one of these 3 lenses to keep, I think it would be the N.
Feb 09, 2010 at 04:32 PM
p.2 #17Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Wayne, just a respectfully, and deferentially as well, I beg to differ, and we shall agree to disagree...
IMHO the f:1.4 has the more seamless transition from in-focus to OOF. And I prefer "more seamless" to your "more gradual". I also disagree on the Rodney Dangerfield of Zeiss lenses. That dubious distinction also belongs to the Z* 50 f:1.4, a sadly underestimated lens, particualrly in light of its low price and weight relative to superlative IQ (with its well-noted weakness up close and wide open).
Boris, one more round of thanks for a very interesting comparison Thanks for taking the time and trouble. Very informative and educational, for me at least.
IMHO the f:1.4 has the more seamless transition from in-focus to OOF. And I prefer "more seamless" to your "more gradual". I also disagree on the Rodney Dangerfield of Zeiss lenses. That dubious distinction also belongs to the Z* 50 f:1.4, a sadly underestimated lens, particualrly in light of its low price and weight relative to superlative IQ (with its well-noted weakness up close and wide open).
Boris, one more round of thanks for a very interesting comparison Thanks for taking the time and trouble. Very informative and educational, for me at least.
Feb 09, 2010 at 05:14 PM
p.2 #18Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
I know Photozone gets a bad rap but for the sake of this discussion, their own test of the 2/50 MP shows that corner to corner sharpness is reached by f/5.6
Feb 09, 2010 at 05:25 PM
p.2 #19Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Photozone only has 1.5x crop tests, so their results are irrelevant for this discussion. Their 'bad rap' is fairly well deserved as far as I'm concerned.
My experience is that the Z*50MP is corner to corner sharp even at f/2.8 and almost already at f/2.
My experience is that the Z*50MP is corner to corner sharp even at f/2.8 and almost already at f/2.
Feb 09, 2010 at 05:43 PM
p.2 #20Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Looks like the 50 MP wins that one fairly clearly to me, as one might expect.
Bobu wrote:
Here are some more pictures with the two lenses (with LR dafault sharpening 25/1.0/25, shot from a tripod with liveview-focus but with some movement of the roses due to wind possible):
Bokeh is much better on the picture of the 50MP.
Boris
Bobu wrote:
Here are some more pictures with the two lenses (with LR dafault sharpening 25/1.0/25, shot from a tripod with liveview-focus but with some movement of the roses due to wind possible):
Bokeh is much better on the picture of the 50MP.
Boris
Feb 09, 2010 at 09:02 PM