wfrank wrote:
And Gary, the last one really wants me wanna go Sony 16/2.8. I think I'll order one.
Thanks. Just to clarify - only the first one was taken with the 16mm... I think I took the second with the Nikkor 105mm AI-S but it also may have been the ZF50MP. Thanks for looking.
art decco, yum
fully functional except meter, with lens final cost 137USD. Lens Restoration was 220USD.
Sorry for silly shallow DOF here, was just a snap. Nikkor 105 "C" mounted w/ canon 100mm finder.
These late contax are cheap right now, down from high prices 10 years ago. Good way to go for inexpensive RF entry. Shutter goes to 1250! Camera is smaller than leica M slightly heavier.
wfrank wrote:
Really hate to post after sebboh and his jupiter. Thanks for the crops, it's definitively soft but still, full images becomes art. I'd add a tad more contrast/clarity to the image of your supercute daughter though.
thanks, love that guitar shot. both shots are actually discards from old shoots and haven't been processed other than my default conversion with RPP. i chose them to show crops because the subjects were better aligned with the focus plane than the keepers. here is the shot i chose from that shoot of my daughter: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/969329/83#9982096
uhoh7 wrote:
here's daddy, just back from restoration; 1937 uncoated CZJ 50/1.5 Sonnar
missed focus there a bit, its actually a bit sharper than that. Bokeh superb IMHO
pull your blacks a tad and *poof* it's 1967 baby!
that's overcast conditions. I love the little monster.
Both shots wide open
looks pretty sweet. bokeh does look a bit smoother than the nikkor, but still has that artsy sonnar funk. i'd love to see a comparison and find out how it performs at infinity.
Its good at infinity, in fact as good as Canon LTM 50/1.4, to my great surprise when i shot them side by side. Little PP here, I think all i did was bring the sky down a bit on top.
Thats near dusk, partial overcast at about f/5.6 Not that its a landscape lens per say, but it does fine, and that's a nice flexiblity the nikkor does not have. I'm pretty sure the nikkor out resolves the zeiss at 1 meter, but the zeiss is fine there too.
At first I thougt it was soft at edges in the long shots, but when I looked close, not so.
I will find a wild bokeh situation at some point and shoot it side by side with nikkor
But I see why this was really the greatest normal 35mm lens for near 20 years. Someday I'll find a late 50s coated version too.
Now according to Henry, the zeiss guy, this lens is sharper now than new, because it was never cleaned and the outer surfaces were very finely oxidized. This phenomenon was what gave rise to coatings in the first place, so they say--well you know all that, but i didn't.
uhoh7 wrote:
Its good at infinity, in fact as good as Canon LTM 50/1.4, to my great surprise when i shot them side by side. Little PP here, I think all i did was bring the sky down a bit on top.
Thats near dusk, partial overcast at about f/5.6 Not that its a landscape lens per say, but it does fine, and that's a nice flexiblity the nikkor does not have. I'm pretty sure the nikkor out resolves the zeiss at 1 meter, but the zeiss is fine there too.
At first I thougt it was soft at edges in the long shots, but when I looked close, not so.
I will find a wild bokeh situation at some point and shoot it side by side with nikkor
But I see why this was really the greatest normal 35mm lens for near 20 years. Someday I'll find a late 50s coated version too.
Now according to Henry, the zeiss guy, this lens is sharper now than new, because it was never cleaned and the outer surfaces were very finely oxidized. This phenomenon was what gave rise to coatings in the first place, so they say--well you know all that, but i didn't. ...Show more →
hmm, your contax looks about the same as my jupiter-3 in the center but better on the edges (actually only the left edges at infinity). was it pretty windy? the right edge looks sharper closer while the left edge looks sharper at infinity. might just be that the grass was moving more on the left side of the frame, might be funky field curvature, or could be decentering?
i envy your landscapes. i haven't been able to shoot anything but the city full of haze and heat distortion with my j-3.
sebboh wrote:
hmm, your contax looks about the same as my jupiter-3 in the center but better on the edges (actually only the left edges at infinity). was it pretty windy? the right edge looks sharper closer while the left edge looks sharper at infinity. might just be that the grass was moving more on the left side of the frame, might be funky field curvature, or could be decentering?
i envy your landscapes. i haven't been able to shoot anything but the city full of haze and heat distortion with my j-3.
Well it certainly could be de-centered, since the second element from the back has been out of the lens.
But now I go back and look again and find some softer edges on, for example this one. I left that one untouched except converting to jpg. WB is LR auto. Dead center is pretty impressive really, but for sure the edges come soft--they seem about equal. More so than the posted landscape. I need to try it at f/8. I think this one was f/4 or so. I did seem to notice considerable focus shift as I stopped down, but I had the hawks on and may have moved it when I changed aperture.
I will remember to shoot some f/8 with careful focus to really look. But now I'm back to calling the edges soft, hehe.
not bad for wide open in 1937--it seems to me anyway. And maybe just right for some nice portraits.
Re landscape: the grass is always greener. I'd love to wander around a big old city again But more practical is is to get out on the back roads and shoot the old dying towns and farms. But you sit in the car too much getting around---I don't care for driving really.
None of the shots with the 35 had cornerfix applied. I didn't crop the edges. In the tractor shot you can just notice the darker sky leaning towards magenta-ish. In some situations the color shift isn't really evident, other times it is. I did make a cornerfix profile for the lens, but the wall I used was a light neutral color and I believe it's having the effect of lightening the photo overall when applied. More homework to do there...
Jacob D wrote:
...CV 40/1.4 @ 1.4 (into the sun)...
Nice shots. How do you like the CV 40 1.4? I usually use a CZ 35 f/2.4, but for indoor shots I need faster glass in the 30-40mm range. I'm thinking about the CV 40 1.4 or the 35 1.4.
Thanks Michael. I like the 40 for low light indoors. I thought the 60mm eq. fov would be a little more interesting than ~50, and it was a little lighter, less expensive than the 35. Those were my motivations to purchase it. Both lenses lean toward a classic rendering. Ok sharpness at the center, falling off quickly, and a bit glowy wide open. For portraits I like it a lot.
Here's a set that my wife took of my father making some chile rellenos...
michael49 wrote:
Nice shots. How do you like the CV 40 1.4? I usually use a CZ 35 f/2.4, but for indoor shots I need faster glass in the 30-40mm range. I'm thinking about the CV 40 1.4 or the 35 1.4.
The 40 is technically the better lens, it seems, the 35 is critisized for distortion and perhaps SA which results in soft corners.
I like it though, and having a wider lens is nice. The 40 is cheaper by 75 or so, I notice. The 35 also has passionate fans at RFF.
Jacob D wrote:
Thanks Michael. I like the 40 for low light indoors. I thought the 60mm eq. fov would be a little more interesting than ~50, and it was a little lighter, less expensive than the 35. Those were my motivations to purchase it. Both lenses lean toward a classic rendering. Ok sharpness at the center, falling off quickly, and a bit glowy wide open. For portraits I like it a lot.
....
uhoh7 wrote:
...
The 40 is technically the better lens, it seems, the 35 is critisized for distortion and perhaps SA which results in soft corners.
I like it though, and having a wider lens is nice. The 40 is cheaper by 75 or so, I notice. The 35 also has passionate fans at RFF.
..
Thanks for the info guys. I would use the 35 or 40 mostly indoors and primarily for portraits, as long as sharpness in the center is OK then I should be good.
