BTW Charles, you were talking about struggling with the PP with the M9 but I think these three are very well done. WB in the first one and contrast in the second are right on.
Thanks Rod. Yes I am really liking the DNG files with the M9. I am finding them a lot better than the 5DII, although it is difficult to really view the difference on the web
denoir wrote:
Some of the images are just fantastic, pure Zeiss love. Look for instance at this image.
I'd be exceptionally thrilled if my 5DII + 35/2 ZE Distagon could make that kind of picture.
What you are seeing is the same sort of rendering that makes me love the 50/1.4 Planar ZF. I also own the 35/2.8 ZM, and if the 35/2 is sort of similar, it will give a different look than the ZE/ZF. Not as "punchy", but with a bokeh to die for compared to the SLR lens. Probably the 35/2 ZM has to be stopped down a bit to get what you want, so why not go for the 35/2.8?
I've posted these before, but here we go again; 35/2.8 ZM wide open on M8:
And mind you, this was before I knew how to properly sharpen an image!
charles.K wrote:
Where do I start! Luka, the ZM 35/2 is really a lens you have to try out, if you are looking at the examples on Steve Huff's site. I purchased the ZM 35/2 based on this review. In reality compared to the ZM 25/2.8 on the M9, the ZM 35/2 is not the Zeiss, I would expect. Some of my first posts, were with the ZM 35/2, and really they were so lacking IMO. The ZM 25/2.8 is just an extraordinary lens, with mind blowing details and colours. My analogy would be comparing the ZE 21/2.8 to the ZE 28/2.0. As much as I love Zeiss, this is not the pick. The 35 Summicron Asph is so much more, in sharpness and in beautiful rendering. Maybe my copy was not true to form? ...Show more →
Thanks Charles and really nice shots with the 50 lux.
The thing is, there are so far only three M lenses that I've seen whose rendering I'm impressed with (based on samples). It's the Zeiss 35/2 Bigon, The 50/0.95 Noctilux and 50/1.4 Summilux. I'm not at all especially awed by the 35 cron nor by the 35 lux (the latter seems very weak compared to the Zeiss 35/1.4 Rollei/Contax). The two fast Leica 50's have a really beautiful drawing style but they are also the only two Leica lenses that I'm currently attracted to.
As you know from my selection of MF glass that I use with my 5DII (The Zeisses and the Rokkor 58/1.2) I really like each of my lens to have a character i.e. some unique rendering quality be it the fine micro contrast and 3D of the 21 Distagon, the medium format look of the 35/1.4 Distagon or the painterly bokeh of the Rokkor 58/1.2. What I'm seeing from most Leica glass is just exceptionally high quality but in a very neutral way. That worries me a bit. Perhaps I need to look at more samples.
The Zeiss 35/2.8 falls for me in the category of excellence without personality. It's definitely a Zeiss but seems to be a very generic one - I can't say that I'm floored by what I've seen of its rendering style.
h00ligan wrote:
Denoir, I think you should sit tight, 2 more months at least. I am still fumbling around in sharpening trying to get anywhere near your sharpness. Additionally I am so sick of seeing the jaggies when I resize but can't seem to find a solution that doesn't require quite a bit of time. I personally find your work to be awesome (traditional meaning not stupid over usage) and I am not one for landscapes usually. I think the results you share with the x1 are way ahead of most of those I see from others with the m9 (other forums are my main source, well flickr too). ...Show more →
Thanks h00ligan! The problem is that I have actually very little incentive to use the X1. Landscapes (as they don't move) is the only I don't find extremely frustrating but for that a DSLR with proper high res live view, working manual focus and a greater selection of lenses is superior. The metering of the X1 is also so-so meaning that the shots usually require various PP interventions (exposure adjustment, fill light, nd grads etc). But even so, image quality is not my complaint but usability. The sensor and lens are both exceptionally good considering that it's a compact. But IQ is not enough if usability issues prevent you from using the camera...
Makten wrote:
What you are seeing is the same sort of rendering that makes me love the 50/1.4 Planar ZF. I also own the 35/2.8 ZM, and if the 35/2 is sort of similar, it will give a different look than the ZE/ZF. Not as "punchy", but with a bokeh to die for compared to the SLR lens. Probably the 35/2 ZM has to be stopped down a bit to get what you want, so why not go for the 35/2.8?
Hmm. I agree that the rendering of the 35/2.8 ZM is somewhat related to the 50/1.4 Planar Z* but the best shots I've seen from the latter is around f/5.6-f/8 and typically with no or little OOF region. The 35/2.8 strikes me as just a generic Zeiss. That shot with the 35/2 ZM was sort of more of a "medium format look" if one should call it that. There is definitely plenty of 3D in the shots that you posted but not more so than I'd expect from any moderate wide Zeiss
By the way Makten, how come you gave up on your M8?
denoir wrote:
Hmm. I agree that the rendering of the 35/2.8 ZM is somewhat related to the 50/1.4 Planar Z* but the best shots I've seen from the latter is around f/5.6-f/8 and typically with no or little OOF region. The 35/2.8 strikes me as just a generic Zeiss. That shot with the 35/2 ZM was sort of more of a "medium format look" if one should call it that. There is definitely plenty of 3D in the shots that you posted but not more so than I'd expect from any moderate wide Zeiss.
I think you'd be surprised if you tried the Planar. Especially since you seem to like the 85/1.4 despite its shortcomings. I tend to use it as if it was an extraordinary 50/2.8 with the possibility to shoot at f/1.4 when needed. The OOF rendition at a couple of meters distance is just fantastic.
OT, but like this at f/3.5:
By the way Makten, how come you gave up on your M8?
I had issues with focus and corner smearing with several lenses. The mount didn't seem to allow real focus at infinity with lenses lacking spherical aberration, which gave terribly blurry images shot close to the infinity setting. Also, I wonder if something was wrong with the microlens array, because the corners where so unsharp that it was ridiculous. I'm now using the ZM on my M6, and there are no issues at all with corner sharpness.
Other than that, I really loved the camera. A viewfinder to die for, perfect size (I don't want my "tool" to be too small) and a very, very nice build quality. The poor LCD was just a good reason not to use it frequently. But I can imagine someone like you going nuts over not having live view.
My M8 was probably a very early one, so I guess these issues where fixed later. I haven't heard of anyone else having the same trouble. I'd definitely buy one again if I knew that it was alright, but for now I'm saving for an M9 update and enjoying film in the meantime.
I'm sure I'll get the 50 Planar one day. I'm not feeling any enormous desire for it right now but it remains there as a nice treat for a day when I feel hungry for new gear. Given its unique signature, I'm sure I will like it very much once I get to know it.
As for the M8, ok, so it was technical issues. I thought it might have been the difficulty to get exact compositions using framelines. I know from your shots that you like tight compositions. Speaking of the M6, from what I understand that you now prefer your Nikon F-whatsitsname to it for film. Some technical complications or simply that you prefer an SLR for your type of photography?
As for live view, I would miss it very much if I insisted on doing the type of landscape photography I do with my 5DII. I maintain and have maintained throughout that a rangefinder is not the right tool for that kind of work. I'm for instance using my X1 almost exclusively with the optical viewfinder because specifically its live view sucks and generally because live view is not all that convenient to use handheld.
Edit, I'm running out of X1 shots to post, but just pro forma here's one
denoir wrote:
Nice shot I'm really a sucker for Zeiss rendering
I'm sure I'll get the 50 Planar one day. I'm not feeling any enormous desire for it right now but it remains there as a nice treat for a day when I feel hungry for new gear. Given its unique signature, I'm sure I will like it very much once I get to know it.
Probably, and then you'll also probably like the ZM 35/2 or 35/2.8 for the same reason, even if they don't render like the more "spectacular" 35/2 and Makro-Planars.
As for the M8, ok, so it was technical issues. I thought it might have been the difficulty to get exact compositions using framelines. I know from your shots that you like tight compositions. Speaking of the M6, from what I understand that you now prefer your Nikon F-whatsitsname to it for film. Some technical complications or simply that you prefer an SLR for your type of photography?
The framline issue isn't too bad, even if I'd prefer a camera just as small but with a VF seeing through the lens. But I guess you can't have it all, and as long as you don't shoot too close up to the camera, the framing is just fine. The frames are a tad to narrow, so you can always crop a bit.
The M6 RF needs to be adjusted (*sigh*), which I plan to do myself. But I don't have the tools for the moment. I like it equally much as the FM2, and they are very similar in size and weight, but the VF of the FM2 is just fantastic. Better than anything I've owned, including a Mamiya 645M. So if I can find a small and good lens, I'll probably get rid of the M6. It's nice, but at ~7000 SEK I can't motivate using it when I got the FM2 virtually for free (450 SEK with a lens that I sold for 1000 SEK). One single system is also a good thing.
I'll keep the ZM 35/2.8 though, as it sooner or later will be mounted on a coming FF EVF camera. I can't imagine a better lens for such an application, provided there will be no microlens issues
Thanks Luka With the issues you have with the X1, what a great shot!!!
Martin, great shot! Love your shots with the 50/1.4 Really nice shots with the 35/2.8 too!
Luka, I could have read your needs with the ZM 35/2 wrong. Looking at the shot again, yes the 35/2 will deliver the rendering. Just when I started using it, at the beach I shot, I found it lacking contrast even at f/5.6. At the time, the 35 I was looking for was a rendering similar to the 25/2.8. There are so many earlier lenses, that would be fun to explore.
Martin, you have got love the FM2. Great camera!
Just thought I would add a shot with the ZM 35/2 taken on the first evening getting the M9.
Charles, very nice with the 50 Lux Asph Like the cafe shot most, nice color and actually there's nothing to dislike about the lens I probably have to start saving for it now
Jeff, very good examples of what the 75 Lux, love the rendering of first shot and the portraits
Makten, looking forward to seeing your shots when you upgrade to the M9.
Luka, stunning b&w shot!!! Love the tones and composition on this one
