Samuli Vahonen
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) | |
Denoir, your first shot shows almost like a swirly bokeh. I\'ll have to experiment if that could be produced by 100MP. If it can be the subject to background distance is very close on your photo.
denoir wrote:
From what I gathered from Lloyd\'s review and the comments here is that the planar is not very good wide open but rapidly improves when stopped down. Also that it\'s not very good close up.
Yes, other than artistic purposes close-ups with planar other than f/8-11 have not been very successful. However the swirly bokeh is interesting, thou when I want it I have other lenses, which are better producing this \"effect\" (e.g. Helios 58/2 and CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50).
denoir wrote:
The MP on the other hand is good throughout the range and good for closeups. So if you are not going to use the planar with apertures larger than f/2 then you might as well get the MP.
For sharpness perspective - for me planars are f/2.5 lenses, that is the aperture in planars when things clear up. I very rarely use them below f/2.5. (in C/Y lenses I just estimate and put aperture ring between f/2 and f/2.8, a little closer to f/2.8).
For DOF perspective this is not the case. Planars rapidly improve at f/2.5 and also bokeh quality improves. With 50MP it seems that from f/2.0 to f/3.2 the corners have different bokeh, like bokeh getting back to DOF in corners. This is either caused by field curvature or mechanical vignetting (lens also vignettes quite a lot in these aperture) causing vignetting act as aperture and therefore having less blurry bokeh in corners. I\'m still newbie with 50MP so this is just what I found from first few hundred photos.
And for the record what is written above I have not scientifically tested, it\'s based on thousands of photos shoot and analyzed.
denoir wrote:
What is interesting about your test is that you have demonstrated quite a difference in DOF between the two. I did not expect them to differ that much. This of course complicates the question of which lens to get as it shows that there may be an aesthetic preference reason to get the planar.
Me too - I really don\'t get it. Must be same kind of thing as retrofocus wide angles have different DOF (e.g. Biogon vs Distagon). If Toothwalker is reading this, you could explain this to use since you anyway must know why it is 
dcjs, I can just admire your writing skills. You put to one post what I have tried to say in thousands posts.
--------------
50MP images from yesterday\'s shoot. The conditions were not very good for lens testing, but otherwise excellent (I like shooting in rain, it makes a little different look to images than normally - however not having directional lightning does cause some issues).
1. Closer focus distance and f/5.6 allowed to render very well, the blur disc at point where trees and sky are is so large that quantity of bokeh hides any issues there are.
2. Transition from DOF to bokeh is very much different than in planar. I like also this transition, may require adjustments to shooting style thou. I\'m not sure why the tree on left is \"glowing\" like that, in real life it wasn\'t - I had to take another look after seeing this image in LCD of camera. No bokeh highlights, no bokeh issues. f/4.
3. f/2.8 - the bokeh is really ugly at top where there are branches and sky. Overall look otherwise great, but due to higher contrast in bokeh different than what I expected.
4. f/2.8 (I shoot multiple apertures, f/2 was having really serious bokeh issues and from f/4 to f/11 there was not enough depth separation for my taste and the focus point just blended to background). Bokeh almost shows swirly pattern.
5. f/11 - shoot also this by various other apertures but rejected all of them due to horrible bokeh, seems that f/11 the bokeh settled down and neutralized (looking from real image not this thumbnail here). Sharpness is actually quite good (of course worse than in f/5.6 shot) so it seems 50MP is able to fight against diffraction quite well, like for example C/Y Distagon 2.8/28
6. f/8 - very versatile lens and quality at 1:2 seems to be what Zeiss MTF-charts show.
7. f/3.2 - picture again ruined by DOF quality issues
Based on this first shooting seems that 50MP shares some qualities with 100MP:
- brilliance (for definition people - I have not invented this term, see LLoyd ZF and argue with him if you have problem with the word, I perfectly understood it from his explanation)
- colors (maybe even little stronger, I would say most saturated lens of ZE lenses)
- due to being macro lens focus throw at normal shooting distances is short (not as short as in 100MP - and focus feeling is best of ZE lenses helping with this issue)
- bokeh characteristics sometimes seem typical to overcorrected lens (100MP this goes quickly away when closing down with 50MP this doesn\'t seem to happen)
One thing, which is not yet clear to me; do I like the bokeh or not. I prefer to have my bokeh often so that it\'s not much blurred, just slightly blurred. This has worked well with planars, but 50MP it feels that bokeh is having too much definition (not talking about bokeh blur disc size, but how things in bokeh appear). This makes images look \"heavy\", while with planars subjects have less contrasty bokeh around them and have more room to breath. However this was just first shoot, in one kind of light so it\'s way too early to draw conclusions.
Samuli
|
