This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010C/Y Zeiss Image Post
p.27 #1C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Hi I an new to this forum a friend pointed me here. I just bought a C/Y 50mm 1.7 here are a few test shots.
50mm 1/320 sec ISO 200 f/1.7
IMG_7814.jpg by davesans, on Flickr
50mm 1/80sec ISO 200 f/1.7
IMG_7830.jpg by davesans, on Flickr
50mm 1/320 sec ISO 200 f/1.7
IMG_7814.jpg by davesans, on Flickr
50mm 1/80sec ISO 200 f/1.7
IMG_7830.jpg by davesans, on Flickr
Apr 11, 2011 at 07:17 AM
p.27 #2C/Y Zeiss Image Post
It has been a little while to post here. Great to see many wonderful photos.
CY28
Akul
CY28
Akul
Apr 12, 2011 at 09:57 PM
p.27 #5C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Here is the 50/1.7 with a set of Fotodiox tubes. Pleasantly surprised at its performance this close...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5639097048_96eb67f7e7_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5638520005_7aa549e48c_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5304/5638520297_c5c10f9dd2_b.jpg
There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5224/5639097048_96eb67f7e7_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5638520005_7aa549e48c_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5304/5638520297_c5c10f9dd2_b.jpg
There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.
Apr 20, 2011 at 05:39 PM
p.27 #6C/Y Zeiss Image Post
C/Y Zeiss 35mm f1.4
Sculptures15 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures10 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures3 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures2 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures1 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures15 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures10 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures3 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures2 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Sculptures1 by Anh Tri, on Flickr
Apr 20, 2011 at 06:26 PM
p.27 #7C/Y Zeiss Image Post
my 50 1.4 T
 |
||
| http://banpreso.smugmug.com/Other/04-17-2011-bp/04-17-2011-45-of-48/1256177544_zLnxrZx-XL.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://banpreso.smugmug.com/Other/04-17-2011-bp/04-17-2011-1-of-1/1256178185_5K58PDC-XL-1.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://banpreso.smugmug.com/Other/12-25-2010-Christmas-Walk/12-25-2010-43-of-71/1137461690_yofLx-XL.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://banpreso.smugmug.com/Other/12-25-2010-Christmas-Walk/12-25-2010-67-of-71/1137466249_VeZpd-XL.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://banpreso.smugmug.com/Other/12-25-2010-Christmas-Walk/12-25-2010-50-of-71/1137462999_9t6Ug-XL.jpg | ||
|
Apr 20, 2011 at 10:32 PM
p.27 #8C/Y Zeiss Image Post
bluetsunami wrote:
Here is the 50/1.7 with a set of Fotodiox tubes. Pleasantly surprised at its performance this close...
There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.
Looks good (except I don't like the bokeh in #1). Much better than the diverse shots taken with the lens reversed that someone posted; those showed a lot of yellow/blue CA outside the centre and unimpressive sharpness.
Here is the 50/1.7 with a set of Fotodiox tubes. Pleasantly surprised at its performance this close...
There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.
Looks good (except I don't like the bokeh in #1). Much better than the diverse shots taken with the lens reversed that someone posted; those showed a lot of yellow/blue CA outside the centre and unimpressive sharpness.
Apr 21, 2011 at 06:44 AM
p.27 #9C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Planar 100/2 on the 5D wide open:
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Alternative-Lens-Images/i-rr9hLwd/0/XL/_mg_9682-XL.jpg
JayT
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Alternative-Lens-Images/i-rr9hLwd/0/XL/_mg_9682-XL.jpg
JayT
Apr 25, 2011 at 03:16 PM
p.27 #10C/Y Zeiss Image Post
AhamB wrote:
There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.Looks good (except I don't like the bokeh in #1). Much better than the diverse shots taken with the lens reversed that someone posted; those showed a lot of yellow/blue CA outside the centre and unimpressive sharpness.
The Bokeh in #1 was stopped down to f/2 I believe. From what I've experienced the bokeh gets a little more under control at f/2.8 and beyond.
Here's another one with the 50/1.7 with tubes...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5302/5667053528_19941fcfd0_b.jpg
And without tubes...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5667053292_2cf7c424f1_b.jpg
bluetsunami wrote
Here is the 50/1.7 with a set of Fotodiox tubes. Pleasantly surprised at its performance this close...There is definitely a loss of contrast at and beyond MFD but it gracefully takes a tone curve adjust to bring it back. Sharpness is still very much there at f/2.8 and beyond. At f/1.7 to f/2 there's the spherical aberration but its definitely not bad when used in conjunction with the thin DoF at such apertures. It can very pretty and abstract.
The Bokeh in #1 was stopped down to f/2 I believe. From what I've experienced the bokeh gets a little more under control at f/2.8 and beyond.
Here's another one with the 50/1.7 with tubes...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5302/5667053528_19941fcfd0_b.jpg
And without tubes...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5069/5667053292_2cf7c424f1_b.jpg
Apr 28, 2011 at 08:36 PM
p.27 #11C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Time to get this thread some more love. Don't tell me everyones upgraded to the Z series already? I don't think I'll ever let go of my Planar 100/2 unless maybe for the MP ZE 
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Alternative-Lens-Images/i-GLs6kJ6/0/XL/arboretum%20tulips%201-XL.jpg
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Alternative-Lens-Images/i-BRLPsRp/0/XL/arboretum%20gate-XL.jpg
JayT
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Alternative-Lens-Images/i-GLs6kJ6/0/XL/arboretum%20tulips%201-XL.jpg
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Photography/Alternative-Lens-Images/i-BRLPsRp/0/XL/arboretum%20gate-XL.jpg
JayT
May 02, 2011 at 02:45 AM
p.27 #13C/Y Zeiss Image Post
helimat wrote:
Some test shots from my new C/Y acquisitions.
Contax 300/4
Cheers
sweet! i've always wondered about that lens. how's the CA on it?
the hollywood looks quite nice.
Some test shots from my new C/Y acquisitions.
Contax 300/4
Cheers
sweet! i've always wondered about that lens. how's the CA on it?
the hollywood looks quite nice.
May 03, 2011 at 05:54 PM
p.27 #14C/Y Zeiss Image Post
helimat wroteContax 28/2 'Hollywood'
I really need to get this lens. As much as I like my Nikkor 28/2 AI your C/Y 28/2 seems to render similarly to my 50/1.7 in regards to very fine detail. My Nikkor just doesn't pick that up although it has a great tonal rendition.
That aside, love the inclusive composition in the bench photo and the colors in the flower photo are lovely and perfect focus.
Here are two more Macro photos with the 50/1.7. Just around 14mm worth of tubes really turns this lens into a workhorse. You can even rotate the focus ring to manipulate the magnification a good bit with that amount of tubes too.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5686237050_2fa55027f9_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5686236808_af7ce188e8_b.jpg
I really need to get this lens. As much as I like my Nikkor 28/2 AI your C/Y 28/2 seems to render similarly to my 50/1.7 in regards to very fine detail. My Nikkor just doesn't pick that up although it has a great tonal rendition.
That aside, love the inclusive composition in the bench photo and the colors in the flower photo are lovely and perfect focus.
Here are two more Macro photos with the 50/1.7. Just around 14mm worth of tubes really turns this lens into a workhorse. You can even rotate the focus ring to manipulate the magnification a good bit with that amount of tubes too.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5686237050_2fa55027f9_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5147/5686236808_af7ce188e8_b.jpg
May 03, 2011 at 06:36 PM
p.27 #15C/Y Zeiss Image Post
I have to ask! Why is the 28/2 called "Hollywood"? It makes me want one!
@helimat: Nice photos! How do you like the C/Y 300/4? Usable as a long-distance landscape lens?
@helimat: Nice photos! How do you like the C/Y 300/4? Usable as a long-distance landscape lens?
May 04, 2011 at 07:11 AM
p.27 #16C/Y Zeiss Image Post
sebboh wrote:
Contax 300/4
Cheerssweet! i've always wondered about that lens. how's the CA on it?
the hollywood looks quite nice.
Thanks... I must say the 300/4 doesn't like white subjects much.
However the inside of the front element is kinda dirty, so I wonder if a good cleaning would help a lot. It is a beast though, good thing it has a built it tripod mount. This one *might* go back, not totally sure yet.
bluetsunami wrote:
I really need to get this lens. As much as I like my Nikkor 28/2 AI your C/Y 28/2 seems to render similarly to my 50/1.7 in regards to very fine detail. My Nikkor just doesn't pick that up although it has a great tonal rendition.
That aside, love the inclusive composition in the bench photo and the colors in the flower photo are lovely and perfect focus.
Here are two more Macro photos with the 50/1.7. Just around 14mm worth of tubes really turns this lens into a workhorse. You can even rotate the focus ring to manipulate the magnification a...Show more →
Thanks, and nice work with the 50/1.7. I like the 28/2's close focus capabilities, so it seems like a keeper... For the immediate future anyways.
kiddik wrote:
I have to ask! Why is the 28/2 called "Hollywood"? It makes me want one!
@helimat: Nice photos! How do you like the C/Y 300/4? Usable as a long-distance landscape lens?
Thanks.
I believe it was nicknamed the 'Hollywood' due to it's use in cinema applications. Long distance landscape is what I bought the 300/4 for, and it seems like it should work well if I can figure out how to reduce the CA... Or avoid whites.
helimat wrote
Some test shots from my new C/Y acquisitions.Contax 300/4
Cheers
the hollywood looks quite nice.
Thanks... I must say the 300/4 doesn't like white subjects much.
However the inside of the front element is kinda dirty, so I wonder if a good cleaning would help a lot. It is a beast though, good thing it has a built it tripod mount. This one *might* go back, not totally sure yet.bluetsunami wrote:
helimat wrote
Contax 28/2 'Hollywood'That aside, love the inclusive composition in the bench photo and the colors in the flower photo are lovely and perfect focus.
Here are two more Macro photos with the 50/1.7. Just around 14mm worth of tubes really turns this lens into a workhorse. You can even rotate the focus ring to manipulate the magnification a...Show more →
Thanks, and nice work with the 50/1.7. I like the 28/2's close focus capabilities, so it seems like a keeper... For the immediate future anyways.
kiddik wrote:
I have to ask! Why is the 28/2 called "Hollywood"? It makes me want one!
@helimat: Nice photos! How do you like the C/Y 300/4? Usable as a long-distance landscape lens?
Thanks.
I believe it was nicknamed the 'Hollywood' due to it's use in cinema applications. Long distance landscape is what I bought the 300/4 for, and it seems like it should work well if I can figure out how to reduce the CA... Or avoid whites. May 04, 2011 at 09:55 AM
p.27 #17C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Makro Planar C 60/2.8 C/Y with NEX,just to keep the thread up:
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526214.SEQ.0.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526214.SEQ.1.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526214.SEQ.2.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526215.SEQ.3.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526215.SEQ.4.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526345.SEQ.1.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526214.SEQ.0.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526214.SEQ.1.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526214.SEQ.2.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526215.SEQ.3.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526215.SEQ.4.jpg
http://www.zeissimages.com/gallery/951/med_U951I1304526345.SEQ.1.jpg
May 04, 2011 at 10:34 AM
p.27 #18C/Y Zeiss Image Post
Another from the Planar 100/2 on the 5D:
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Nature/Wildlife/i-Mntmcp9/0/XL/magenta%20tulip%20field-XL.jpg
JayT
http://www.jaytaylorphotography.com/Nature/Wildlife/i-Mntmcp9/0/XL/magenta%20tulip%20field-XL.jpg
JayT
May 06, 2011 at 02:31 AM
p.27 #19C/Y Zeiss Image Post
helimat wrote:
Some test shots from my new C/Y acquisitions.
Contax 300/4
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5685495950_ff8baf4001_o.jpg
_MG_3431 by helimat, on Flickr
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5684924657_230815d27b_o.jpg
_MG_3399 by helimat, on Flickr
Contax 60/2.8
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5685492658_cefaeea47c_o.jpg
_MG_3299 by helimat, on Flickr
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5685493076_bb47fbcf9f_o.jpg
_MG_3313 by helimat, on Flickr
Contax 28/2 'Hollywood'
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5684920447_20e9249683_o.jpg
_MG_3213 by helimat, on Flickr
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5684919465_ffd4f84eca_o.jpg
_MG_3202 by helimat, on Flickr
Cheers
Love that 300 shots of the boats with mountains in the background, very crisp looking.
Some test shots from my new C/Y acquisitions.
Contax 300/4
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5685495950_ff8baf4001_o.jpg
_MG_3431 by helimat, on Flickr
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5223/5684924657_230815d27b_o.jpg
_MG_3399 by helimat, on Flickr
Contax 60/2.8
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5222/5685492658_cefaeea47c_o.jpg
_MG_3299 by helimat, on Flickr
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5685493076_bb47fbcf9f_o.jpg
_MG_3313 by helimat, on Flickr
Contax 28/2 'Hollywood'
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5684920447_20e9249683_o.jpg
_MG_3213 by helimat, on Flickr
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5107/5684919465_ffd4f84eca_o.jpg
_MG_3202 by helimat, on Flickr
Cheers
Love that 300 shots of the boats with mountains in the background, very crisp looking.
May 11, 2011 at 02:03 PM
p.27 #20C/Y Zeiss Image Post
My Contax 80-200/4 arrived a couple of weeks ago, and my Leitax/Nikon adapter with Dandelion chip just arrived. I managed to get the adapter on the lens, although it was not really trivial for a newbie like myself, since it was quite a bit more complex than the example on the page, with a couple of gotchas. Anyway, it is on there, programmed as a 140mm f/4 (I will never buy a lens like that, which is why I chose this). Both 80mm and 200mm I might get (80/1.4 Leica and 200/4 Micro, respectively), so just to keep things simple, I chose (80+200)/2 = 140 Here is a photo (sorry about the crappy iPhone 3GS shot):
http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/CW_20110512_iPhone3GS_38350.jpg
Here is a photo (sorry about the crappy iPhone 3GS shot):http://throughthelensdarkly.com/forums/CW_20110512_iPhone3GS_38350.jpg
May 12, 2011 at 03:47 PM