It may depend on the body. You may recall the issues 5D2 bodies had that 1Ds's didn't with some lenses. I don't have any more modern bodies but it works OK on my 1Ds3, and you can always shave the lens protrusions.
Shot today on the Dutch island of Texel. Love this lens, but definitely prefer to use it on a tripod and take time to adjust the focus. Texel Beach Sheds by Johann D, on Flickr
Today, a portrait. Never noticed the field curvature before - compare the face that is in focus and the feet that are soft. This was at the short end around 100 mm. F4.5 or 5.6.
jotdeh wrote:
Today, a portrait. Never noticed the field curvature before - compare the face that is in focus and the feet that are soft. This was at the short end around 100 mm. F4.5 or 5.6.
Might not be field curvature: small differences in camera angle can produce this effect at wider apertures. The field of focus might be flat, but at what angle it cuts through the subject is another matter!
DavidBM wrote:
Might not be field curvature: small differences in camera angle can produce this effect at wider apertures. The field of focus might be flat, but at what angle it cuts through the subject is another matter!
In this case the camera was angled up (me being fairly close to the ground), so with a flat field I'd expect the ground to be in focus behind her feet, not in front, right?
Still seems strange...
jotdeh wrote:
In this case the camera was angled up (me being fairly close to the ground), so with a flat field I'd expect the ground to be in focus behind her feet, not in front, right?
Still seems strange...
Yep; if the camera was angled up that's exactly what you'd expect so I withdraw my suggestion!
Interesting. Of course it might have more field curvature at closer portrait distances. Another possibility I suppose is that the particular sample has some skew...
DavidBM wrote:
Yep; if the camera was angled up that's exactly what you'd expect so I withdraw my suggestion!
Interesting. Of course it might have more field curvature at closer portrait distances. Another possibility I suppose is that the particular sample has some skew...
That is my concern, that somehow my copy is off since others have not mentioned such extreme curvature. Which would be surprising as it came mint-looking, and it performs as I expect for landscape shots (=amazingly sharp and contrasty). I'll get out to make some test shots this week and keep you posted.
Hello all,
I have been craving for this Zeiss zoom for quite some time now, desperately chasing items based in Europe at a decent price (less than 1000 €). Though it is very scarce.
Being a Sony hybrid user, I am considering an alternative. But in order to keep quality this alternative would be a medium format lens such as the Mamiya 105 210 ULD (the non AF version).
I would like to know your opinion on that.
The Mamiya price is a third of the Contax, and focal lengths should equate the Contax too (not too sure though), but I am not sure either I could get similar results in terms of IQ, contrast, signature
EDIT: my mistake it should still be 105 210 on my Sony A7 maybe an x2 extender ? (it is cheap) Or maybe adding a 300mm on top of it. I still get a combo half the price of the Zeiss zoom ... not as friendly though...
floppyears wrote:
Hello all,
I have been craving for this Zeiss zoom for quite some time now, desperately chasing items based in Europe at a decent price (less than 1000 €). Though it is very scarce.
I own this lens and have the ebay tripod collar. I don't like it because it truncates the zoom. I haven't checked on this for awhile and maybe there is another option. I only got about 1/4 of the way through the thread and saw what looked like that was the only option still available. Is anybody using anything else for tripod mounting?
Milkman wrote:
I own this lens and have the ebay tripod collar. I don't like it because it truncates the zoom. I haven't checked on this for awhile and maybe there is another option. I only got about 1/4 of the way through the thread and saw what looked like that was the only option still available. Is anybody using anything else for tripod mounting?
Thanks,
I use the Novoflex adapter with its matching tripod collar firmly mounted on tripod. My only complaint is the tight clearance of the tripod collar between camera and lens makes rotation tight - but it keeps the weight of the lens off the body.
dbehrens wrote:
I use the Novoflex adapter with its matching tripod collar firmly mounted on tripod. My only complaint is the tight clearance of the tripod collar between camera and lens makes rotation tight - but it keeps the weight of the lens off the body.
I tried one of those earlier, but it didn't fit the adapter I had. I have since updated the adapter so it might be a better option I will put one on order.
I have had the chance to test one today. Did a quick test and the pictures just like the bokeh seem consistent with the lens. (I was not shooting anything special, just street, but definitely could see the snap)
Though the lens, even if no scratch or cleaning marks, had quite a bit of dust specs. Most located between the front and rear block.
I guess this is casual for a zoom pump. Don't think this affected images.
Though glass looked a bit busy and was wondering if it could be cleaned. especially considering the most of dust was located between the blocks ? ...
Lets not forget this thread. The resolution and contrast are both mighty impressive - even compared to fixed Zeiss lenses. A7II and tuned IBIS handheld.
maybe an x2 extender ? (it is cheap) Or maybe adding a 300mm on top of it. I still get a combo half the price of the Zeiss zoom ... not as friendly though...
