p.20 #1 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
denoir wrote:
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.
Completely agreed. Actually this in my experience is one of Zeiss characteristics. A lens might perform beautifully in one photo, and very poorly in the next. My experience with the Sony 50/1.4 and 35/1.4G is very similar. They are both old Minolta designs. Curiously both lenses exhibit pronounced 3D similar to Zeiss lenses, as well as complex field curvature. They do lack the high micro contrast, but I suspect this is due to different coatings.
p.20 #2 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
magiclight wrote:
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.
I haven't seen the photos, but someone here indicated here that the noise is from aggressive sharpening, not the pushing.
p.20 #3 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
The OOF rendering on LC's portrait sets the ZE 35 1.4 apart from my 35L, in a positive way. I think that the sharpening is either overdone or done at an unfortunate processing stage, as the portraits overall have an unpleasing look to me. Maybe I should write to Mr. Chambers and request unsharpened full-size portrait images available to subscribers?
p.20 #4 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Has no one else began their review yet so I get to see some (paid for by commercial) photo samples?? This is disturbing, like watching a tennismatch by observing the audience.
p.20 #5 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Holy file-massaging noise in the new portraiture pictures. I really wonder how he has processed these.
Apr 04, 2011 at 05:39 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.20 #6 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I also find his exposure settings odd. Why is he pushing these a stop when he doesn't shoot above ISO 400 and 1/125 is his slowest shutter speed? It seems he could shoot at 1/80 and at least use ISO 800 instead of pushing in post. It is hard to tell what the noise would be like with a proper exposure and what reasonably sharpened photos would look like.
p.20 #7 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
The heavy vignetting combined with oblique rays light loss from the wide aperture is a recipe for underexposed background.
This is a bad combination with the 5DII read noise signature, and the lens should come with these user instructions: "Always dial in 1 stop exposure compensation when using at f/1.4".
p.20 #8 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Yeah, the noise is atrocious - he should have just shot at higher ISO. Anyway, if you are interested why Zeiss chose a design with spherical aberrations: Zeiss: Bokeh & DOF
At one point they comment that highly corrected lenses show a rapid sharpness-to-blur transition. Leica rendering is a perfect example of that. If you however want a smoother more gradual transition then you can't correct for SA. It is the aberrations that make the transitions smoother.
p.20 #9 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Thanks Luka, that answers my question some pages back, about the special bokeh contra wide open sharpness
Now, I have some thoughts regarding the focus rolloff, as it seems to be a term used to describe at least 3 different effects:
1) SA and smooth focus transition wide open in the micro scale.
2) The DoF rolloff character stopped down (What Wayne describes)
3) Generally more or less DoF throughout to infinity due to different pupil magnification.
You who appreciated the special rendering of the old C/Y and other old versions, did you refer to 1), 2) or both?
Did the old lens show 2) or 3)? To me it seems to have shown less DoF as in 3). This is important, because the "3D" effect stopped down can or cannot be replicated just by changing aperture dependant on this.
p.20 #10 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Lars Johnsson wrote:
There is no "secret skill" you need to shoot with Zeiss.
Maybe you do need a special skill (or at least experience) to be able to see what the big deal is about Zeiss lenses, especially with the 50 and 85 1.4's. Maybe people really are taking close-ups from some mundane objects, see some glow which they don't see in their CaNikon lens, and are disappointed. I see quite many ZF and ZE 50/1.4's being sold on different forums and I wonder if it's because of some such reason like the above.
p.20 #11 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Rodluvan wrote:
Has no one else began their review yet so I get to see some (paid for by commercial) photo samples?? This is disturbing, like watching a tennismatch by observing the audience.
p.20 #12 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
I can see some double contours in the oof areas in lloyds pictures, especially number 2 (sleaves/hands) or number 4 (boot on ball) - where do you guys think does that come from? Is this astigmatism or is it also due to spherical abberations?
I wish someone would post some pics in good light for a change...
p.20 #13 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
cyra wrote:
I can see some double contours in the oof areas in lloyds pictures, especially number 2 (sleaves/hands) or number 4 (boot on ball) - where do you guys think does that come from? Is this astigmatism or is it also due to spherical abberations?
I wish someone would post some pics in good light for a change...
Yes, he seems to shoot a lot of his lens review shots in low poor light handheld which I don't like either. Most of the Nikon 24G shots on his site looked terrible to me and didn't due the lens justice.
Luckily, I rented the lens myself and then saw what it could really do.
Some of that was due to AF focusing problems with Nikons pro cameras but I thought he should have "focused" more on the lens's drawing and rendering qualities, rather than its AF problem.
p.20 #14 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
Rodluvan wrote:
Has no one else began their review yet so I get to see some (paid for by commercial) photo samples?? This is disturbing, like watching a tennismatch by observing the audience.
Complain all you like, I don't get paid to post any pictures nor review this lens for photography. Pictures will come when they come but with an attitude like this, I'd tell you just to go sign up and pay for LC reviews if you haven't already.
Have some appreciation for people who spend their own free time to post impressions and pictures rather than complain about imagery. Rather, why don't YOU tell the reviewers what you want to see in terms of content.
p.20 #15 · Zeiss ZE/ZF.2 35mm f/1.4 (according to Roger Cicala/lens rentals.com)
randyp01 wrote:
Complain all you like, I don't get paid to post any pictures nor review this lens for photography. Pictures will come when they come but with an attitude like this, I'd tell you just to go sign up and pay for LC reviews if you haven't already.
Have some appreciation for people who spend their own free time to post impressions and pictures rather than complain about imagery. Rather, why don't YOU tell the reviewers what you want to see in terms of content.
Cheers.
Calm down cowboy and have a laugh with me instead. I'll make sure to add some smiles next time.
