rscheffler wrote:
Adam, just wanted to highlight something you wrote that I previously quoted:
I think what you've seen has at times been exaggerated by post processing. Take a given image and in LR crank up the contrast and especially the clarity sliders and you'll find that tonality variations in background bokeh suddenly become a lot harsher and more obvious.
Thanks Joe. I agree that film has a different look. It's probably partly due to the nonlinear tonal reproduction that digital doesn't have.
Thanks Charles. While I have a fair amount of prepress experience, I wouldn't say I'm a post processing whiz. My experience is primarily in the news industry where it's not desired to push images too far. My general feeling about getting a film-like look from digital is pretty basic - add contrast, especially through an aggressive tone curve. I think that will get you most of the way. ...Show more →
Yes it could be processing, but it's more likely the way the lens renders the background, as I see it pop up frequently in photos all over the web.. The 50/2 ZM is really very good at keeping all that in check. I've been happy so far with my limited use. So I'm wondering how much of a problem the 35/2 will be for me if I get it.
About processing for news papers... Funny story, every time a PR agency or HR person calls me up to let me know that my shot ran in a news paper, I've already thrown it out, and can't find a copy at the news stand. So I've never once seen a news print of my work!
For me digital is photography and film is just a hassle. I have two film cameras (medium format and 35mm) but I rarely use them because of the impracticality of it compared to digital.
Nope. It's perfectly symmetric and in line with what the MTF curves show.
Generally speaking the bokeh of the ZM line is, well, not very good compared to the ZE lenses. Loads more longitudinal CA mixed in with a ton of spherical aberrations. This gives the bokeh 'blobs' fairly harsh edges.
Anyway, a few more shots at MFD showing the 35/2 bokeh:
If somebody had showed me the shots above before I had ZM lenses, I would have guessed they were shot with a Voigtländer lens and not a Zeiss. None of my ZE lenses produces anything similar to it....Show more →
These last shots don't show what I'm talking about much, if at all only the first one a tiny bit. So it really just comes and goes, must be focus distance or perhaps subject dependent.
Also, I agree that even with the busiest of lenses in the ZE line, the bokeh isn't jarring, it's still very pleasant. The 50/2 ZM so far seems close to the ZEs in rendering though.
adamdewilde wrote:
These last shots don't show what I'm talking about much, if at all only the first one a tiny bit. So it really just comes and goes, must be focus distance or perhaps subject dependent.
Probably both. I had the ZM 35/2 for a year and shot almost solely with that lens and can't say I ever noticed stuff like what denoir is showing. Then again, I didn't shoot the kinds of subjects he is showing above.
I just looked through some shots I took with it. The ones I have with similar backgrounds (leaves against the sky kind of thing) I have were probably stopped down a couple stops, f/4 or so by the look of it. The bokeh is fine in my opinion. The ones I have shot wide open and near minimum focal distance have tamer backgrounds and exhibit smooth bokeh (in my opinion). Though all these had minimal post processing and were on film, where grain helps equalize things a bit.
adamdewilde wrote:
Here are a few samples, from the same guy, who seems to really work the .95
Those definitely show more swirly bokeh and 'character' than other shots I've seen with 0.95. I'd definitely agree with your assessment. Those are some nice shots. Too bad it's $10k
I wish I could find that 1.0/0.95 comparison. It was really amazing how sharp the 0.95 was in the plane of focus. Leica really pulled off something getting that kind of performance at f/0.95. While I've never been interested that much in the 1.0 (though I wouldn't pass one up if they were going for around $2k), I would be interested in the 0.95. But never for that price, unless I hit the lottery.
Charles, great shots, but I think I preferred the B/W versions you posted earlier.
adamdewilde wrote:
These last shots don't show what I'm talking about much, if at all only the first one a tiny bit. So it really just comes and goes, must be focus distance or perhaps subject dependent.
Also, I agree that even with the busiest of lenses in the ZE line, the bokeh isn't jarring, it's still very pleasant. The 50/2 ZM so far seems close to the ZEs in rendering though.
When the focus plane is further away the bokeh blobs become smaller while the edge doesn't shrink as much. So it becomes quite busy - especially after you sharpen the image. The 50 Sonnar is not like that nor is the 25/2.8 which has a very smooth bokeh. The 50 Sonnar bokeh suffers from heavy spherical aberrations wide open which produces fairly poor bokeh at MFD. At medium distances it is OK though.
adamdewilde wrote:
So I'm wondering how much of a problem the 35/2 will be for me if I get it.
Well I suppose it depends on what you shoot. I'm not crazy about it for close ups, but that in fact holds for all my current ZM/M glass. It's very sharp stopped down and at infinity. Medium distance wide open is a mixed bag. OK as far as sharpness goes and a nice sharpness-to-blur transition. Fairly harsh bokeh. Coma aberrations towards the edges. Zero distortion.
kidtexas wrote:
Those definitely show more swirly bokeh and 'character' than other shots I've seen with 0.95. I'd definitely agree with your assessment. Those are some nice shots. Too bad it's $10k
I wish I could find that 1.0/0.95 comparison. It was really amazing how sharp the 0.95 was in the plane of focus. Leica really pulled off something getting that kind of performance at f/0.95. While I've never been interested that much in the 1.0 (though I wouldn't pass one up if they were going for around $2k), I would be interested in the 0.95. But never for that price, unless I hit the lottery....Show more →
Nice link, I've seen his shots before. Not all shots are swirly, but the .95 seems to like doing it.... Agreed at $10K it's just something I'm not going to be buying. Even if I had the extra cash. And yes at 2-3k I wouldn't mind the f/1.... Would love to see the site that tests the two. If you find the link please post it.
EDIT: BTW those film shots are quite smooth in the bokeh, aside from the first one.
joe88 wrote:
Guess I need to go back and tweak that digital file some more.
The giveaway for me is the use of shadow recovery and the resulting halos. Film never has this look unless someone uses a contrast mask in the darkroom.
Luka, those minimum focus distant shots are a lot tamer than your first sample. I agree with Adam, it must depend a lot on subject content and also the relative distances between camera, subject and background objects.
Charles, those definitely look different from what you posted earlier. I particularly like the first two. Have you experimented much with C1's new localized adjustments? Is the range of adjustments similar as LR?
Joe, it was mostly a coincidence that I bought the IV instead of the ASPH. Since I had already decided I wanted a 35 and 50 with my M9 and that the 50 would be the Lux I felt like I wanted to buy a used 35 to save some money and then it happened that I found a mint IV and just decided to go for it. I haven't given the ASPH much thought after I bought my IV actually so I've forgotten what the major difference is between them.
Personally I am debating with myself if I would like a 75 or 90 and what version, I am very indecisive to say the least.
Ryan, great photos with the ZM 25, that is another tempting lens.
Ron, great colours and composition. My absolute favourite is the slightly tilted one of the doors two pages back.
Charles, great b&w portraits. Magnificent colours in the beach photos, the first one is also a great photo in itself.
Joe, I like the market photo.
Gregory, the close up of the tree with all the trash around it and the b&w of the straight road are great.
Luka, interesting comparison between the 35's but very hard to pick a "winner" among the 3 primes even if I favour the Rollei a little
Luka, I couldn't see your 35 shootout on the iPad but I see it now. I didn't look at which lens was which until the end. My results are:
favorite overall - ZM 35 Biogon (VERY surprised). I love the way the lens handled the stars and the M9 is far superior to both the D700 and 5DMII in rendering highlights. Look at where the street lights are in the background, the M9 shows far more detail than the 5DMII which shows nothing but blown light. I noticed the M8 performs almost identical to the M9 in this regard and the D700 identical to the 5DMII. I'm a big sucker for stars and the ZM lenses perform better IMO than the ZE/ZF counterparts
Your ZE 35 Distagon shows why I didn't like using this lens for night photography as much as the other Zeiss lenses. Not much character to me.
The Rollei was a dead giveaway with the triangle bokeh. Adds character to the shot but very vanilla otherwise. You can clearly see a difference in colors with the ZE... I'm assuming due to the new coatings
I saw the 4th pic and was thinking what the hell is that lens. The rendering looks nothing like the others and is very boring/plain looking. It looks like you either had shaking going on or the bokeh is very nervous looking.
Ryan, I don't think one can say too much about the highlights/shadows here as the exposure was not the same. The M9 shot was pushed up one stop in post to match the 5DII exposure. Generally, in my experience the 5DII is a lot better than the M9 in the highlights but much worse in the shadows. As for the bokeh, here is a 100% crop of an OOF region with the four lenses: (The M9 shot has been upscaled to match the 5DII resolution)
If you ignore the odd triangle shaped bokeh, I'd say the 35/1.4 definitely wins in the bokeh department. Using that lens at f/2.8 is really wrong - it should be used wide open and then there are no triangles. The worst bokeh in the series is IMO provided by the Canon zoom.
