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.3 #1Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
erichard wrote:
Looks like the 50 MP wins that one fairly clearly to me, as one might expect
Yes, indeed. Quite clearly.
Looks like the 50 MP wins that one fairly clearly to me, as one might expect
Yes, indeed. Quite clearly.
Feb 09, 2010 at 09:30 PM
p.3 #2Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
BTW, for all these shots I only adjusted the the exposure and WB in LR and only did input sharpening in LR using 52/1/25/0 and did not sharpen for web.
Feb 10, 2010 at 04:25 AM
p.3 #3Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Sorry, about the slight WB difference between the shots, I tried to equalize them the best I could but looks like I warmed up the contax N too much relative to the ZE.
Also, tried to make the FOV of the 35 shots equal to the 50mm shots but was also a little off but good enough I think.
Hope these shots show both the corner problem which Boris originally started this thread with and some perspective along with it and also the more central crops which show how good the 50MP is along with the 35/2.
Also, tried to make the FOV of the 35 shots equal to the 50mm shots but was also a little off but good enough I think.
Hope these shots show both the corner problem which Boris originally started this thread with and some perspective along with it and also the more central crops which show how good the 50MP is along with the 35/2.
Feb 10, 2010 at 11:36 AM
p.3 #4Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Thank you very much Wayne, that really helps.
The corner performance of the 35ZE, even wide open is amazing, comparable to the 21 Distagon and the 100MP. I had expected the same from the 50MP. The center performance, escpecially the contrast is great, but for good corners you have to stop down to at least f/5.6.
35ZE oder 50MP? Difficult decision. I would like a 50MP with the corner performance of the 35ZE. Has anybody compared these lenses with the Sigma 1.4/50, which is also highly regarded?
Thanks again Wayne for the effort.
Boris
The corner performance of the 35ZE, even wide open is amazing, comparable to the 21 Distagon and the 100MP. I had expected the same from the 50MP. The center performance, escpecially the contrast is great, but for good corners you have to stop down to at least f/5.6.
35ZE oder 50MP? Difficult decision. I would like a 50MP with the corner performance of the 35ZE. Has anybody compared these lenses with the Sigma 1.4/50, which is also highly regarded?
Thanks again Wayne for the effort.
Boris
Feb 10, 2010 at 12:24 PM
p.3 #5Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Your welcome Boris! Good luck in your your 50mm search. I think you will need both a 35 and a 50 lens like Lotusm50 mentioned as it is a big gap from 21 to 100. I think I have shown that the 50MP matches the contrast and resolution of the 35/2 except for the extreme corners below f5.6, although the 35 has some vignetting at f2 and f2.8. You can see how the 50 MP is easily sharper than the contax N 50/1.4 from f4 to f2 and slightly better at 5.6 and f8.
I think you will have a hard time finding a lens which is as sharp across the frame like the 50 MP despite its extreme corner below f5.6 problem. It also has great sharpness and contrast at wide apertures and has nice bokeh as you have shown. As Lotusm50 said, no lens is perfect. But IMHO that this is the best 50 for landscape out there.
I think you will have a hard time finding a lens which is as sharp across the frame like the 50 MP despite its extreme corner below f5.6 problem. It also has great sharpness and contrast at wide apertures and has nice bokeh as you have shown. As Lotusm50 said, no lens is perfect. But IMHO that this is the best 50 for landscape out there.
Feb 10, 2010 at 01:53 PM
p.3 #6Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Wayne,
Thank you for the comparison. It would seem that the corner softness of the 50/2 mp is really in just the very corner at apertures larger than f5.6. From your corner shots there appears quite a gradient of sharpness (and vignetting) from L to R. This suggests that this area of softness will just minimally effect the edges of the frame furthest from the image center.
The 35 looks really good, did you uprez the images for these crops?
Its good to know the behavior of these individual lenses as we can best use their strengths in planning our shots. Thanks.
Mike K
Thank you for the comparison. It would seem that the corner softness of the 50/2 mp is really in just the very corner at apertures larger than f5.6. From your corner shots there appears quite a gradient of sharpness (and vignetting) from L to R. This suggests that this area of softness will just minimally effect the edges of the frame furthest from the image center.
The 35 looks really good, did you uprez the images for these crops?
Its good to know the behavior of these individual lenses as we can best use their strengths in planning our shots. Thanks.
Mike K
Feb 10, 2010 at 01:58 PM
p.3 #7Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Mike K wrote:
Wayne,
Thank you for the comparison. It would seem that the corner softness of the 50/2 mp is really in just the very corner at apertures larger than f5.6.
Right, Mike. It is only the extreme end of the corner where the softness can be seen at large apertures. It's performance in this regard among 50mm lenses is exemplary. The ZE 35mm is a little better in the extreme corner but the difference isn't really that great that I would run a buy a 35mm lens when I needed a 50mm lens. You will be hard pressed to find a better 50mm lens than the ZE 50 MP.
Wayne,
Thank you for the comparison. It would seem that the corner softness of the 50/2 mp is really in just the very corner at apertures larger than f5.6.
Right, Mike. It is only the extreme end of the corner where the softness can be seen at large apertures. It's performance in this regard among 50mm lenses is exemplary. The ZE 35mm is a little better in the extreme corner but the difference isn't really that great that I would run a buy a 35mm lens when I needed a 50mm lens. You will be hard pressed to find a better 50mm lens than the ZE 50 MP.
Feb 10, 2010 at 02:32 PM
p.3 #8Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
wayne seltzer wrote:
You can see how the 50 MP is easily sharper than the contax N 50/1.4 from f4 to f2 and slightly better at 5.6 and f8. I think you will have a hard time finding a lens which is as sharp across the frame like the 50 MP despite its extreme corner below f5.6 problem.
I think that people will have a hard time finding a 1.4/50 that performs as badly as your sample.
You can see how the 50 MP is easily sharper than the contax N 50/1.4 from f4 to f2 and slightly better at 5.6 and f8. I think you will have a hard time finding a lens which is as sharp across the frame like the 50 MP despite its extreme corner below f5.6 problem.
I think that people will have a hard time finding a 1.4/50 that performs as badly as your sample.
Feb 10, 2010 at 02:53 PM
Andi Dietrich
Offline
[X]
Details
p.3 #9Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
a very hard time indeed
Feb 10, 2010 at 04:01 PM
p.3 #10Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Toothwalker wrote:
I think that people will have a hard time finding a 1.4/50 that performs as badly as your sample.
I kind of agree. At f2.8 and f4.0, near the center, the N 50/1.4 should be quite sharp, yet your sample looks soft. Images from my N 50/1.4 are quite sharp -- if I had access to my files I would post a few example crops to illustrate what I'm talking about. Suffice to say, I think there is an issue with your N 50/1.4 sample image that is not consistent with the normal design performance of this lens.
wayne seltzer wrote
You can see how the 50 MP is easily sharper than the contax N 50/1.4 from f4 to f2 and slightly better at 5.6 and f8. I think you will have a hard time finding a lens which is as sharp across the frame like the 50 MP despite its extreme corner below f5.6 problem.I kind of agree. At f2.8 and f4.0, near the center, the N 50/1.4 should be quite sharp, yet your sample looks soft. Images from my N 50/1.4 are quite sharp -- if I had access to my files I would post a few example crops to illustrate what I'm talking about. Suffice to say, I think there is an issue with your N 50/1.4 sample image that is not consistent with the normal design performance of this lens.
Feb 10, 2010 at 04:08 PM
p.3 #11Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
One more peice of info; I had a email from Lloyd Chambers who advises that the 50 f1.4 ZE has more field curvature than the 50MP.
I presume it's something to do with the macro design.
I presume it's something to do with the macro design.
Feb 10, 2010 at 05:51 PM
p.3 #12Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Just got my 50mm 2.0 today.. will be doing some testing the next few days
Feb 10, 2010 at 06:48 PM
p.3 #13Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
magiclight wrote:
One more peice of info; I had a email from Lloyd Chambers who advises that the 50 f1.4 ZE has more field curvature than the 50MP.
I presume it's something to do with the macro design.
Macro lenses are specifically designed to have a flat field, which is critical for many macro applications.
One more peice of info; I had a email from Lloyd Chambers who advises that the 50 f1.4 ZE has more field curvature than the 50MP.
I presume it's something to do with the macro design.
Macro lenses are specifically designed to have a flat field, which is critical for many macro applications.
Feb 10, 2010 at 07:03 PM
p.3 #14Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Ok, I agree the f2 and f2.8 center crops don't look right for the contax N 50 1.4 but the rest of the crops for that lens and the others look fine and ok. Check out the corners for the Contax N 50/1.4 at f2 and f2.8 and they are ok. I am wondering if field curvature is coming into play like Magiclight says and I may have been focusing using LV zoomed in on spot closer to the corners. I will recheck those two shots for that lens.
But common, the rest of the test shots for the contax N 50/1.4 seem right and good for a 50/1.4 lens.
Toothwalker and Andi, did you bother to look at the other crops beside the f2 and f2.8 for the contax N 50/1.4 including the corner crops?
But common, the rest of the test shots for the contax N 50/1.4 seem right and good for a 50/1.4 lens.
Toothwalker and Andi, did you bother to look at the other crops beside the f2 and f2.8 for the contax N 50/1.4 including the corner crops?
Feb 10, 2010 at 09:41 PM
Andi Dietrich
Offline
[X]
Details
p.3 #15Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
I did and that is why it smells fishy to me. By f4 the 1.4 50 hasnt any trace of softness near the center, also you can not blame curvature of filed for this, except if you set focus on the most extreme corner spot. Maybe you have to use the micro adjust feature and reprogamm focus for this lens
Feb 11, 2010 at 03:55 AM
p.3 #16Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Thanks for these comparisons, Boris and Wayne! The MP 50 is on my list for combined landscape and semi-macro (nature) use. I am satisifed with the corner sharpness shown here, when stopped down to f/8.
I was also surprised by the performance of your Contax N 50 1.4, Wayne. Even in the corner crops, at f/5.6, the MP is noticeably more contrasty once you are inside the absolute extreme corner. Could the difference in contrast be explained by new coatings on the MP?
I was also surprised by the performance of your Contax N 50 1.4, Wayne. Even in the corner crops, at f/5.6, the MP is noticeably more contrasty once you are inside the absolute extreme corner. Could the difference in contrast be explained by new coatings on the MP?
Feb 11, 2010 at 05:29 AM
p.3 #17Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
Andi Dietrich wrote:
I did and that is why it smells fishy to me. By f4 the 1.4 50 hasnt any trace of softness near the center, also you can not blame curvature of filed for this, except if you set focus on the most extreme corner spot. Maybe you have to use the micro adjust feature and reprogamm focus for this lens
Actually, I think my contax N 50/1.4 might not being reaching proper infinity focus at f2.8 and wider. This test scene was far enough way to be considered infinity. I will test this theory out more today. I think the f4 and above shots are ok because the DOF covered for this problem. I also want to point out that the middle crops I posted from the scene are not true middle of the scene because of location of the center archways so it is a spot closer to the top edge and left of true center, look at full picture to see what I mean.
I did and that is why it smells fishy to me. By f4 the 1.4 50 hasnt any trace of softness near the center, also you can not blame curvature of filed for this, except if you set focus on the most extreme corner spot. Maybe you have to use the micro adjust feature and reprogamm focus for this lens
Actually, I think my contax N 50/1.4 might not being reaching proper infinity focus at f2.8 and wider. This test scene was far enough way to be considered infinity. I will test this theory out more today. I think the f4 and above shots are ok because the DOF covered for this problem. I also want to point out that the middle crops I posted from the scene are not true middle of the scene because of location of the center archways so it is a spot closer to the top edge and left of true center, look at full picture to see what I mean.
Feb 11, 2010 at 10:32 AM
p.3 #18Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
alundeb wrote:
Thanks for these comparisons, Boris and Wayne! The MP 50 is on my list for combined landscape and semi-macro (nature) use. I am satisifed with the corner sharpness shown here, when stopped down to f/8.
I was also surprised by the performance of your Contax N 50 1.4, Wayne. Even in the corner crops, at f/5.6, the MP is noticeably more contrasty once you are inside the absolute extreme corner. Could the difference in contrast be explained by new coatings on the MP?
I will post some comparison shots of actually landscape scene where the focus is not at infinity and you will see less contrast difference between the two, just slightly less sharpness and a difference in DOF and how quickly the DOF rolls off.The new 50MP ZE seems to be a little warmer than the older 50/1.4's.
Hopefully my above comparison shots demonstrate the 50MP performance and the extreme corner problem below f5.6 to which everyone can decide if they are ok with it or not. I also wanted to show the 50 MP performance relative the 35/2.
I will keep working on showing better the 50MP's better performance vs the 50/1.4, especially for landscape.
Thanks for these comparisons, Boris and Wayne! The MP 50 is on my list for combined landscape and semi-macro (nature) use. I am satisifed with the corner sharpness shown here, when stopped down to f/8.
I was also surprised by the performance of your Contax N 50 1.4, Wayne. Even in the corner crops, at f/5.6, the MP is noticeably more contrasty once you are inside the absolute extreme corner. Could the difference in contrast be explained by new coatings on the MP?
I will post some comparison shots of actually landscape scene where the focus is not at infinity and you will see less contrast difference between the two, just slightly less sharpness and a difference in DOF and how quickly the DOF rolls off.The new 50MP ZE seems to be a little warmer than the older 50/1.4's.
Hopefully my above comparison shots demonstrate the 50MP performance and the extreme corner problem below f5.6 to which everyone can decide if they are ok with it or not. I also wanted to show the 50 MP performance relative the 35/2.
I will keep working on showing better the 50MP's better performance vs the 50/1.4, especially for landscape.
Feb 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM
p.3 #19Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
My N 50/1.4 reaches infinity (although not sure I ever actually used it exactly at infinity focus) and, in fact, should focus slightly past infinity. Can't produce a quick sample right now because it's packed up.
Your new sample at f1.4 is more like what I'm used to from the lens.
Your new sample at f1.4 is more like what I'm used to from the lens.
Feb 12, 2010 at 05:52 AM
p.3 #20Zeiss 2.0/50mm MP ZE
The 50 is the sharpest lens I have had. You must have a dudd.
http://www.jorgetorralba.com/img/v7/p587225408.jpg
http://www.jorgetorralba.com/img/v7/p587225408.jpg
Feb 13, 2010 at 10:46 AM