Adam, I like your choice for composition with this. How do you feel the 24 1.8 performs? I am trying to decide between that and the canon 24 f2 FD. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
photoomaha wrote:
Adam, I like your choice for composition with this. How do you feel the 24 1.8 performs? I am trying to decide between that and the canon 24 f2 FD. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
I absolutely love the 24. But I always give the caveat that the 24 has the classic Sonnar rendering. This is what I love about it, preferring the Sonnar's smoother look to the more in your face Planar/Distagon look that is what people today associate with Zeiss. Half my current lenses are Sonnar's so you can probably guess I like them (The 24/1.8, Nikon's LTM 50/1.4 S.C is a clone and Sony's 85/2.8 SAM is a direct copy of the C/Y 85/2.8 Sonnar, my other current lenses are a CV 35/2.5, Nikkor 50/1.8 AI and 300/4.5 AI'D)
The 24 is very sharp in the centre even wide open, if stopped down it gets superbly sharp across the frame. Good microcontrast, but not to the Planar/Distagon level. Colour is excellent, but has the ZA signature which is more akin to the Hassy Zeiss look than to the ZE/ZF, G or C/Y looks.
After all the angry chattering, scrambling, fence climbing, running, jumping, and barking were done, all parties retreated to relative safety, exhausted, but alert and ready for the next round.
@sebboh, I think the 16mm looks great in a Kubrickian "Shining" sort of way. NIce set. +1 on the great shots in the last page or so.
300mm Ai-s Nikkor 4.5 (cheap), pk-13 extension ring. Not great reproduction ratio, but the working distance is ridiculous. You can shoot skittish moths and butterflies etc. @f8 no flash, ISO 400.
