p.19 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
There are a lot of subtle things with those also. And even if we talk about more "normal" lenses. It's not like you need a special skill or a understanding with Zeiss lenses compared to all other brands. Many other lenses also needs understanding to get the best from them. There is no "secret skill" you need to shoot with Zeiss.
I'm sorry but you are taking my words out of context in a typical straw man argument.
p.19 #3 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I think that "you have to understand the zeiss"-theory that is gaining some momentum in the forum lately is mostly a rewriting of "zeiss has lenses with weaknesses, just like everybody else". As I have said before, this can be said about most lenses, my 35 1.4 ais, my 50 1.2 ais, my 105 2.5 ais... They are great for some things, amazing at some specific things and bad at others. But when zeiss lenses display the same characteristics, it is suddenly about "understanding how to use it"..
I think I'll go with Lars here, to get the most out of any lens, you have to gain a good understanding of how it draws, when it will display weaknesses and what it's strengths are.
p.19 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
There are a lot of subtle things with those also. And even if we talk about more "normal" lenses. It's not like you need a special skill or a understanding with Zeiss lenses compared to all other brands. Many other lenses also needs understanding to get the best from them. There is no "secret skill" you need to shoot with Zeiss.
Not all Zeiss lenses, and certainly not Zeiss as a brand. For the planars I would disagree though. I'll give you three examples of the 85 Planar two good, two bad shot in similar conditions - all at MFD and wide open. Now, you tell me why two of the shots look good at MFD wide open and two look like crap. The ones that look like crap are from an image set that I took and presented in the ZE/ZF thread to demonstrate the "wrong" use of this lens.
Now, why do they look like crap unlike the first two. Perhaps you already know the answer as you own this particular lens. If not I'll provide an answer later.
p.19 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
I don't own the lens. It must be somebody else you are thinking of. I could always guess on focus shift of course
Ah, OK, I thought that you said in another thread that you were disappointed by the 85/1.4, so I assumed that you owned it
No, the problem is not focus shift, it's spherical aberrations and more precisely the size of the aberration in relation to the distance to the objects.
In images #1 and #2 we have a set of foreground objects separated by a fairly large distance to the background. The background is far back enough for the SA to produce a pleasant background blur. In #3 and #4 we objects in the background that are close to the focal plane (the berries, the plants and the moss) where the radius of the aberration is small enough to interfere with the projection. The rays which are supposed to hit the same point after passing through the lens overshoot but they don't miss by much and in effect you get a double image in the areas slightly out of focus and it just looks like crap.
What learn with this lens is that you can safely use it wide open and close up as long as you take care not to have too many detailed objects out of focus but near the focal plane. At MFD the berries at that distance are about the worst size you could have. After a while of using it you learn what sizes at what distances work.
This is of course not the only thing that you need to learn. Optimizing backgrounds for medium distance, avoiding LoCA is for instance a necessity.
I think Edward is quite right what he says about Zeiss and aberration correction. I have by new used quite a respectable amount of different lenses from different manufacturers and there are two that stand out in a specific way. It's Zeiss and Minolta. And that specific way is that they have some lenses that change behavior radically depending on the aperture and focusing distance. This is precisely because they have been selective about correcting aberrations and many aberrations such as SA depend on aperture and focusing distance. All other lens manufacturers seem to have the priority to correct everything as far as their budget allows.
Of course this isn't true for all Zeiss lenses. The Makro Planars for instance are highly corrected for SA (although not for LoCA) as is the 21 the 35/2 etc..
p.19 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
denoir wrote:
No, the problem is not focus shift, it's spherical aberrations and more precisely the size of the aberration in relation to the distance to the objects.
In images #1 and #2 we have a set of foreground objects separated by a fairly large distance to the background. The background is far back enough for the SA to produce a pleasant background blur. In #3 and #4 we objects in the background that are close to the focal plane (the berries, the plants and the moss) where the radius of the aberration is small enough to interfere with the projection. The rays which are supposed to hit the same point after passing through the lens overshoot but they don't miss by much and in effect you get a double image in the areas slightly out of focus and it just looks like crap.
What learn with this lens is that you can safely use it wide open and close up as long as you take care not to have too many detailed objects out of focus but near the focal plane. At MFD the berries at that distance are about the worst size you could have. After a while of using it you learn what sizes at what distances work. ...Show more →
this is actually true of most ultra fast 50's though (not so much the f/1.4s). the same could be said about the canon FL 55/1.2 and i believe the nikkor 50/1.2.
p.19 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
The 85 planar is, well an 85 mm Anyway, it's true for most older ultra fast 50's. Modern ones are usually relatively well corrected. Zeiss is probably the exception with their selective correction of some aberrations while leaving other ones completely uncorrected. A Canon (EF) 85/1.2L would for instance not show those types of heavy aberrations close up - nor would the 50L for that matter.
p.19 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I sold my 35 f2 zf in hopes that this would be just as good as that lens wide open. From my initial shooting and first impressions, I don't see myself purchasing this lens. If the 35 1.4 doesn't make me happy until f2, I might as well have the weight savings of the 35 f/2 at the expense of less DOF and light.
I'll try and do a myriad of tests at a local park by my friends house. Some center punched, some off center, and etc. I'll try to shoot them during late afternoon sun in order to have them not be as flat as those scouting shots I posted.
p.19 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
denoir wrote:
The 85 planar is, well an 85 mm Anyway, it's true for most older ultra fast 50's. Modern ones are usually relatively well corrected. Zeiss is probably the exception with their selective correction of some aberrations while leaving other ones completely uncorrected. A Canon (EF) 85/1.2L would for instance not show those types of heavy aberrations close up - nor would the 50L for that matter.
i figured the 50 probably performed the similarly to the 85. anyone that doesn't shoot canon or leica is pretty much out of luck if they want a modern ultra fast lens. nikon, pentax, and sony users are stuck using older ones.
p.19 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think Zeiss are caught in their own game. I have always thought that one of the main secrets of the Zeiss look is in the deliberate under correction of some aberrations, that other manufacturers work hard to eliminate, like field curvature, spherical aberrations... Etc. It is somewhat admitted in one of the interviews with their chief designers (I think it was last year). You can see that Zeiss lenses for Sony have less of that Zeiss look, because they are well corrected, but that's what Sony wants, more universal lenses for their own line to please a wider clientele not necessarily looking for a specific look. But Zeiss has to keep that traditional look they started in the Z* lines, as the customers would expect to find the high micro contrast and strong 3D rendering, like in previous lenses. As mentioned by Luka, the lenses have many quirks and are difficult to work with. They require more understanding and skill levels from the users in order to unleash their potential....Show more →
and
denoir wrote:
The 85 planar is, well an 85 mm Anyway, it's true for most older ultra fast 50's. Modern ones are usually relatively well corrected. Zeiss is probably the exception with their selective correction of some aberrations while leaving other ones completely uncorrected. A Canon (EF) 85/1.2L would for instance not show those types of heavy aberrations close up - nor would the 50L for that matter.
These thoughts regarding Zeiss' design strategies and philosophy for the Z* lenses may or may not be true. I don't know. I rely on those informed to comment. Zeiss really doesn't say much at all about it. But following my earlier comment, I wish they would. What IS their intent? What are they trying to achieve, what are they shooting for? Whatg do they consider to be important characteristics to achieve -- in this lens line -- and what aren't important to their thinking? A little more transparency, a little more dialogue with their customers would really he helpful.
p.19 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
randyp01 wrote:
I sold my 35 f2 zf in hopes that this would be just as good as that lens wide open. From my initial shooting and first impressions, I don't see myself purchasing this lens. If the 35 1.4 doesn't make me happy until f2, I might as well have the weight savings of the 35 f/2 at the expense of less DOF and light.
I'll try and do a myriad of tests at a local park by my friends house. Some center punched, some off center, and etc. I'll try to shoot them during late afternoon sun in order to have them not be as flat as those scouting shots I posted.
Having also sold the 35/2 with the same elevated expectation (? hope), am crestfallen to read your conclusions now added to LC and the select few who have shot with it thus far. All the talk of the "classic" appearance at f/2 and wider, is peculiar; obtaining accurate focus from 1.4 to 2 seems exceedingly difficult by LC's own account, the weight differential over the earlier version is nearly 50% and for exactly what?
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but being able to obtain usably sharp images wide-open and no less importantly being able to hit focus at the wider apertures should have been a meaningful design goal for so costly an optic.
The Nikkor 35/1.4 G is looking like the better option every day...
p.19 #17 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
LC's conclusion on his portrait series is exceptionnally positive...all at f:1.4, too...
Apr 03, 2011 at 10:46 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.19 #18 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
denoir wrote:
The 85 planar is, well an 85 mm Anyway, it's true for most older ultra fast 50's. Modern ones are usually relatively well corrected. Zeiss is probably the exception with their selective correction of some aberrations while leaving other ones completely uncorrected. A Canon (EF) 85/1.2L would for instance not show those types of heavy aberrations close up - nor would the 50L for that matter.
Even the new better corrected 50s, you still have to learn and understand. Just look at the Canon 50 f/1,2 with it's focus shift. That lens also "change behavior depending on the aperture and focusing distance" and you must learn that if you like to use the lens for clos-up shots at certain apertures
Apr 03, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.19 #19 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
jffielde wrote:
New f/1.4 photos up on Lloyd's site. Staggering amount of noise from the 5DII.
Yes look at the noise (portrait shots) on the ISO 200
A lot of sharpening in those I would expect
p.19 #20 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
philber wrote:
LC's conclusion on his portrait series is exceptionnally positive...all at f:1.4, too...
I must admit Philippe, the portraits look impressive to me to, ignoring the noise that is. I'm sure my 1DS 3 doesn't have noise at ISO 200 pushed +1 like that.
