Re: Zeiss Lens Photos and Discussion (see also ZE/ZF/ZM thread)
With respect to Aham\'s statement I made some little tests this evening. And yes, as I have to commit the known field curvature becomes more significant the closer you get of course. But I am not sure, if I would call it underwhelming in my case. What springs to the eye firstly is the extreme sharpness of the close-ups. And very often with close-ups I would like the center of the image to be tad sharp. If my lens has a significant field curvature, which I know of before, I would work my way around it by considering that with the arrangement of my composition as might be seen at my ivy photo, which was taken with a lens distance of probably some 10 or 12 inch.
So, if you are going to specialise on ivy-bent-around-trees subjects, the 2.8/25 would make for an ideal lens for you, Carsten! Anyway. Many lenses have their specific characteristics and I love to find my way to work with them to their best. So it isn\'t really an issue in my special case. Apart from that with most deficient photos I find in the depths of the internet weird bokeh or field curvature is the least I would criticize. In most cases by far the deficit is outside the lens or camera in use.
Re: Zeiss Lens Photos and Discussion (see also ZE/ZF/ZM thread)
With respect to Aham\'s statement I made some little tests this evening. And yes, as I have to commit the known field curvature becomes more significant the closer you get of course. But I am not sure, if I would call it underwhelming in my case. What springs to the eye firstly is the extreme sharpness of the close-ups. And very often with close-ups I would like the center of the image to be tad sharp. If my lens has a significant field curvature, which I know of before, I would work my way around it by considering that with the arrangement of my composition as might be seen at my ivy photo, which was taken with a lens distance of probably some 10 or 12 inch. Saying that it was a perfect subject of course for the ivy being bent around a tree, following perfectly well the field curvature.
So, if you are going to specialise on ivy-bent-around-trees subjects, the 2.8/25 would make for an ideal lens for you, Carsten! Anyway. Many lenses have their specific characteristics and I love to find my way to work with them to their best. So it isn\'t really an issue in my special case. Apart from that with most deficient photos I find in the depths of the internet weird bokeh or field curvature is the least I would criticize. In most cases by far the deficit is outside the lens or camera in use.
Aug 10, 2011 at 07:29 PM
Previous versions of Vincent Kluwe's message #9829861 « Zeiss Lens Photos and Discussion »
Anyway. Many lenses have their specific characteristics and I love to find my way to work with them to their best. So it isn\'t really an issue in my special case. Apart from that with most deficient photos I find in the depths of the internet weird bokeh or field curvature is the least I would criticize. In most cases by far the deficit is outside the lens or camera in use.