kop.cppua wrote: PetKal wrote:
Would it be fair to say that once we shed the shackles of \"sharpness\" and \" optical focus\", we can move our photography forward ?
Wow, what a great morning, lots of stunning images.
Sometimes we lose focus that the lens and camera are just a tool. I have seen some well taken pictures even from an iphone.
Henry, if you are considering the 21mm Distagon for landscape photography then it is an obvious answer, yes. But if you are considering for close up photography you may want to consider Zeiss 100mm f2. I guess everyone is raving about the 3D-ness from the Zeiss lens. Looks like Mike may have also caught the Zeiss bug. I understood from others that the 100mm f2 ZE (canon) mount may be coming out soon. You may just want to wait for it, if not, the C/Y version is also pretty good too .. but you have to use it together with an adapter to mount the lens to your camera.
As for me, I am more concern with the purple fringing seen like in the 85L images taken at high contrast. It really irritates me to see the purple edges.
CP
What I really need is a 21mm to 24mm lens with a small filter size so that it doesn\'t vignette when I use my Singh Ray Vari-N-Duo. Shots like the one below are what I need to go wider on as right now I am limited to about 35mm with my current lenses. This led me to the Zuikos which I am actively pursing and in doing so, gave me the itch for a 21mm Zeiss but that has an 82mm filter thread.
For me, it is a very impractical purchase as I don\'t shoot a lot of wide scene landscapes and when I do I am almost always stopped down. Still want it though as it would be a real hoots and giggles street lens and because I want it! (Note to self, keep reminding yourself that that is reason enough.)
In terms of the Zeiss 3D look, I have been taken by some of the images but have found that in large measure the Canon lenses have much of the same capability, it is just hidden. The Zeiss lenses natively produce a file with much better controlled micro-contrast which gives the impression of both greater sharpness and greater image depth. The Canon lenses need a some help in post to bring the same traits out. The shot below is from a 24-105L. The image on the right got 45 sec (timed) worth of work and appears to be both significantly sharper and richer. This is less time than it would have taken to change prime lenses in the field. The image isn\'t finished and neither is sharpened with conventional tools but the goal was to see if it brought closer to that \"Zeiss\" look with a minimal effort. To a certain degree, the answer turns out to be yes - at least to me.
The point isn\'t that a 24-105 is the equal of a Zeiss prime, it is that most lens tests don\'t compare the \"best\" final images that the lenses can produce. This is a major failing as there is no guarantee that the improvement potential available to each is linear. The final outcome could end up that the Zeiss are even better than we think or that the Canons aren\'t as bad as we have been led to believe. Who knows?
In the end, if the tool does the job it doesn\'t matter which name is on the tool.
PS. Mike, don\'t dump the 85L, you are doing great things with it.
Dec 18, 2009 at 06:56 PM
Previous versions of Hrow's message #7905985 « Post your best Flower shot »
