p.16 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
randyp01 wrote:
Took a few shots today, will upload to photobucket or something. Bad purple fringing/CA wide open when shooting against backlight/blown out areas. Haven't got a chance to use it at an event for cinematography yet but for photo.
Shot one or two at infinity and one at 10ish feet. These are really "snap shots" as I was shooting a love story at the same time and just popped a few shots off during location scouting.
Give me a bit of time to resize. Thanks
Wow, I'm surprised to hear about the CA as I was getting the impression that was one area this lens was resistant to. Did you happen to underexpose the shot and then use a lot of post processing fill light or increase exp/brightness?
p.16 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
Edward: I didn't think your comment was funny, just a third alternative to the emerging love or hate sentiments.
Wayne: I understand that we can use different criteria for lens rendering classification, and that we may reach different conclusions based on what aspect of the character we investigate.
However, in LC's comparison (engine in DV) between the 50/1.4P and the 50/2MP, I don't see any difference in the background blur in the Mid Zone. Also, Lloyd does not mention any difference in DoF, just different field curvature.
Yes, and I started a thread on it back when he posted that comparison.
He tries to explain the difference in DOF as FC which it ccan't be in the middle.This engine shot is not a good example shot to show it. Look at Samuli's comparison shots in the Zeiss Z* thread on page 68 I think. He clearly shows the quicker transition to OOF of the 50/1.4 and it's less contrasty bokeh compared to 50 MP.
p.16 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Thanks, page 58, I have seen those and that kind background blur difference *should* have been observed in the distant background, mid area with LC's samples. I don't agree that we can say that LC's test scene isn't suitable to show it. The relative distance between Samuli's focus point and background, and LC's focus point and background is not far apart. The very large and apparent difference in backround blur with Samuli's example cannot be seen at all with LC's example. I can see the difference in rendering of the near object in LC's, but that's not what I am talking about, and it is not enough to conclude, as the distant background again is nearly identical, and it should have been different if Samuli's example is reproducible.
We have two data points for the 50's that don't agree. Since we now have one data point for focus rolloff with the ZE35 1.4, I am not convinced about anything yet.
p.16 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I must say that I'm not sure that I find LC's conclusions rhyming with the samples when he compares the 35/1.4 and 35/2 ZEs with the 35/1.4 L from Canon. Especially in the last comparison, the Canon is just as good resolution wise as the 35/1.4 and it's boke is also quite similar. To me it seems like LC really, really wants this 35 1.4 ZE to be the GOAT, but so far his own samples does not really confirm this.
p.16 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
I must say that I'm not sure that I find LC's conclusions rhyming with the samples when he compares the 35/1.4 and 35/2 ZEs with the 35/1.4 L from Canon. Especially in the last comparison, the Canon is just as good resolution wise as the 35/1.4 and it's boke is also quite similar. To me it seems like LC really, really wants this 35 1.4 ZE to be the GOAT, but so far his own samples does not really confirm this.
I think GOAT means something Very different in Norwegian than English.
p.16 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
I must say that I'm not sure that I find LC's conclusions rhyming with the samples when he compares the 35/1.4 and 35/2 ZEs with the 35/1.4 L from Canon. Especially in the last comparison, the Canon is just as good resolution wise as the 35/1.4 and it's boke is also quite similar. To me it seems like LC really, really wants this 35 1.4 ZE to be the GOAT, but so far his own samples does not really confirm this.
Yeah, the images tell the tale and I do think he has some of the best test images around. I like reading his thoughts but take them with a huge chunk of salt. I have seen in a lot of his previous Zeiss tests, for example, many of the Zeiss samples, when viewed at 100%, are super grainy which leads me to believe the lens has required much more sharpening than it should to give the result he describes. Either that or his Nikon D3x (the body used in those instances) is capable of only producing super noisy images at low ISO.
p.16 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Yeah, the images tell the tale and I do think he has some of the best test images around. I like reading his thoughts but take them with a huge chunk of salt. I have seen in a lot of his previous Zeiss tests, for example, many of the Zeiss samples, when viewed at 100%, are super grainy which leads me to believe the lens has required much more sharpening than it should to give the result he describes. Either that or his Nikon D3x (the body used in those instances) is capable of only producing super noisy images at low ISO....Show more →
Indeed, and when he actually admits to using a different sharpening regime for his 35 1.4 ZE (and the results wide open are still far inferior in the contrast/microcontrast/sharpness-areas to the nikkor 35 1.4 af-s..) I think that something is somewhat wrong.
Too bad there are no retailers that hold zeiss lenses here in Oslo (or Norway in general), making it hard to actually try this lens. I would love to test the ZF 35 1.4 and the nikkor 35 1.4 af-s against each other.
p.16 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
ulrikft2 wrote:
Right now I mostly do Brazilian jiu jitsu and some muay thai when I get time. We're lucky with a hugely experienced BJJ-crew here in Oslo!
Cool!
I myself did judo for years and am currently first dan in aikido. BJJ is very much in fashion around here as well. Wanted to try it but I guess I'm too old for that
p.16 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
Cool!
I myself did judo for years and am currently first dan in aikido. BJJ is very much in fashion around here as well. Wanted to try it but I guess I'm too old for that
Now back to the topic before the complaints start
Cool! You should check it out! BJJ is far more joint/body-friendly than judo (those throws keeps killing me no matter how well i break the falls.. :P ) And one is never too old for anything But yeah, back to topic!
p.16 #16 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
alundeb wrote:
Thanks, page 58, I have seen those and that kind background blur difference *should* have been observed in the distant background, mid area with LC's samples. I don't agree that we can say that LC's test scene isn't suitable to show it. The relative distance between Samuli's focus point and background, and LC's focus point and background is not far apart. The very large and apparent difference in backround blur with Samuli's example cannot be seen at all with LC's example. I can see the difference in rendering of the near object in LC's, but that's not what I am talking about, and it is not enough to conclude, as the distant background again is nearly identical, and it should have been different if Samuli's example is reproducible.
We have two data points for the 50's that don't agree. Since we now have one data point for focus rolloff with the ZE35 1.4, I am not convinced about anything yet. ...Show more →
No, the blur difference is seen mostly within the theoretical DOF because after that both lenses start going OOF very quickly and render similar lack of sharpness. Thus the easiest shots to see the difference are at f8 and f11 with lots of bushes or trees spaced out front to back. I first came across this behavior when I was comparing landscape shots that I took of a mossy stream with both lenses. It was a landscape scene where I wanted maximum detail front to back in the scene. I wanted the moss on the foreground rock to be sharp and also keep sharpness on the moss in the trees in the background. I could see with liveview that I could accomplish this easier with my 50/2 MP than the N 50/1.4 at f8 and f11.
Take a look at the f8 shots LC took of the engine in DEVA medium range which you can download and take a look at the wood pole with the nails sticking out just behind the engine on the left side. Even if this part of the scene was more towards the center of the frame, you would get this sharpness difference. The problem with this scene is that the engine blocks the view from front to back in the range of the theoretical DOF. By the time you see the background, that is way behind the engine outside the theoretical DOFand rendered similar.
Seeing this difference in rate of sharpness falloff within the theoretical DOF is not always easy to see in every shot and depends on quite a few different things. I think my CZ 35/1.4 and ZF 35/2 comparison shots of the fallen tree at f8 show this behavior difference between those two lenses also. I have duplicated Samuli's shots with my own test shots of a scene with trees spaced out from front to back so this is not a fluke or some BS we came up with. I am not sure if you believe the fact that two lenses can have different rates of sharpness falloff in the theoretical DOF?
I think LC needs to understand that fact, instead of always blaming sharpness mismatches either on FC or because one lens is sharper than the other in that part of the scene.
I think LC needs to understand that in performing large DOF landscape type scene lens comparisons you can have one lens whose sharpness falls off faster within the theoretical DOF and so the corners will look less sharp. You need to separate this phenomena from FC which is different but can also cause corners to lose sharpness and to separate both of those properly from the lens just losing sharpness across the frame into the corners. I think you need to do planar wall tests where you first adjust for center sharpness and take the shots at all apertures and then do the same except adjust for maximum corner sharpness. Then when you do field shots you need to test for this falloff behavior and keep that in mind along with if the lens has FC problems.
Without taking all these factors into account, then analyzing the different parts of the scene like LC likes to do just gives you weird mixed results which seem to make no sense.
When he takes the church wall shots he tilts the camera way up so the bottom corners are on the wall of the church. I don't like this type of testing as then the focus plane is not parallel with the wall of the church and thus the farther you go from the center point towards the corner you are either front focusing or back focusing some. Yes, this is the same for each lens but then some lenses may have faster focus falloff behavior.
p.16 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Wayne, thank you for taking the time to write this out. No, I don't think it is some made up BS, but I still think there is something else going on in Samuli's sample as the background blur is so different way out of focus. But we can let that go.
My main point was that maybe one comparison by LC is too little to say anything definitely about the ZE 35 1.4, since various scenes can yield so different impressions depending on where and how you look.
LC has now updated with a page 12, "Moss Tree by Creek".
Take a look at the "Bokeh in mid zone" crops, and particlularly on the left hand side of the crops, where you can see both in focus and slightly ouf of focus details. What do you think? Is that FC or different rolloff between the ZE 1.4 and ZE 2?
p.16 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Now, I downloaded the full images of the latest comparison, at it is clear after examining the trunks in the center at f 2.8 that the focus point is different. The 1.4 is front focused and the 2.0 is backfocused, relative to each other.
I also agree with Ulrik that the bokeh of the ZE 1.4 and the 35L is not that different.
p.16 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Thanks for your input everyone, my understanding of lens behaviour is increasing massively!
Zeiss has released RGB MTF data on a few lenses showing that red, green and blue have significantly differing MTF´s. Depending on the graf type they also show where the colour has it´s optimum in relation to the focus of white light (LoCA) for the specific lens. Both phenomenons should have an impact of the OOF transition of different lens designs.
Moss, with much red in the green could inflict a different OOF transition than leaves with more blue in the greens. I often find lenses struggling with the brown violet of birch branches in spring time. Colour has definitely an impact on both in focus sharpness and OOF transition. The influence of the sensor is probably as important too.
But yeah, back to topic!