Paul, other than to yourself, would you attribute the vibrance and 3D effect of these wonderful shots more to the lens or the camera? (asking in part because I came very close to buying a similar body recently offered on the B&S forum).
I'm impressed with the continued beauty you tease out of street scenes in NYC (it's becoming your signature work).
Paul Yi wrote:
few more from C/Y Planar 100/2.0 ....and Kodak SLR/c ...
The lens plays the big part...
One of the reasons why I keep the Planar 100, even though I have Contax N85 ...
Kodak camera is not really user-friendly compared to modern cameras, but the results are just fantastic...
I now have 4 of them....
Docspics said,
Paul, other than to yourself, would you attribute the vibrance and 3D effect of these wonderful shots more to the lens or the camera? (asking in part because I came very close to buying a similar body recently offered on the B&S forum).
akul, I hope you like your Distagon as much as I do, it really delivers in spades. Very nice 3D on the building waterfront shot, gives me vertigo!...
the church in my image is a Shia mosque in the upper Suru Valley in India, it's actually very stable despite appearances and the rumbling glacier (!). I lost the highlights sadly, huge scene DR. best regards, philip.
Philip - Yes, I love my distagon 28 f2.8. It is very small and light compare to the Z siblings, with still the signature Zeiss rendtition. It is also very strong in close to medium distance objects. For long distance ( buildings ) I have not had too much success, but I have not tried thoroughly to form any opinion on that part. I was happy to see how beautifully it handled landscape on your shot. I should bring it and try nature shooting next time I go away. I also just got NEX and I am excited to try it out with NEX.
akul, yes, you should do so, I positively encourage you, as most older regular usage CZ lenses are fabulous at infinity!
I am always interested in lenses that 'review experts' either do not like or hedge their conclusions about, and this certainly happened to the Z series version of the 28, the 28/2. I also feel that 28mm is a paramount focal length for wide angle shooters, it's the 'normal' wide angle if you will.
I came across the now-fading thread in which actual users (people like us) were showing images shot with the 28/2 and they were remarkable! Of course, the reviewers are after some kind of sterile perfect measurement lens heaven, and downgrade anything as crass as curvature of field - the very 'fault' that I believe adds the depth you see so easily in the 28mm Distagons - old and new...the thread is here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/954714/0
Where the 28mm works is with subjects with inherent shape to central objects that curve off around the subject. To be honest I have never seen anything do it so well - must not be very observant, I guess, and ready to be shot down - hah.
Perhaps CZ were aiming for this effect, and the MTF is pretty dramatic for both old and new Distagons out past the central part of the image, curvature showing up, I presume. But what a majestic centre resolution, much stronger than the ZE35/2...I really like how their lenses have different personalities.
I think it comes down to wanting optical perfection or unmeasurable character. I agree how its interesting how the two lenses, not too far apart in focal length, have priorities placed so differently. I'm definitely a fan of the Zeiss 28/2, so much so that I really don't want to settle for the Nikon 28/2 AI over it (ha, settle! The 28/2 AI(s) deserves better than that, I guess). Its siren song has captured me.
Is there anyone that has used both, the new zeiss ze 35 f2 and the c/y 28 f2.8 and can compare them. I have the 35, but I'm looking for a wider look for mostly landscapes. Are they too similar? jd
