DSLRUsers.com

want "MICRO CONTRAST" ?!?!?!? want water-colour-esque bokeh ? want gorgeous colour ?
3 shots from a zeiss zf35 wide open and SOOC. stick that in your pipe and smoke it Nikon. lol

yeah ok i am jealous...

they are pretty darn amazing...screw PP this is the way too go.

biggerry wrote:yeah ok i am jealous...

they are pretty darn amazing...screw PP this is the way too go.

looks like the move to the Zeiss will make your job even easier!

Is this lens AF?

That is very impressive.

But no, none of the Zeiss lenses are autofocus. Great for landscapes, maybe not so good for action.

Makes a second set of lenses seem tempting if you disregard the minor side-effect of cost.

Did you buy it Rooz or is it borrowed?

not mine murray. but after seeing this sort of thing, time to make some investment. lol
cam: as murray notes, all zf glass is MF and its Ai-s controlled by the aperture ring, not the body.

Great stuff John. It would be interesting to see the same image done with a nikon/canon lens.

Great stuff, seriously thinking of going ZF lenses and maybe some of the Leica R lenses as well.

surenj wrote:Great stuff John. It would be interesting to see the same image done with a nikon/canon lens.

There's lots of info on Zeiss glass here. You have to be a subscriber to see it all. Not sure how much you can see because I do subscribe. Havn't paid much attention to this so far. Maybe I should....

Correction: I realise I'm not a subscriber because it's a separate subscription. Maybe this wasn't such a useful post. There is likely to be useful free info here but you'll have to dig around - and the paid part is not cheap.

surenj wrote:Great stuff John. It would be interesting to see the same image done with a nikon/canon lens.

i ran several uninteresting tests against the 35/2. in a nutshell where the zeiss wiped the floor with the nikon is colour and contrast. have alos run a few comparisons with the zf28 and this makes the nikon version seem like a complete POS. havent tried the 25 yet but i intend to. the contrast, or rather "micro contrast" that i never even knew existed until i was recently educated, is impossible to recover or recreate in post. the colour rendition is also quite difficult to emulate even after i fiddled around.

what i expected was a much sharper image but that is not the case. the sharpness was pretty even.

That's a very interesting comment and suggests that perhaps you'd need to shoot with both lenses to really understand the difference.

... and bokeh? (or is that included in contrast?)

You can crank up microcontrast in Photomatix and in theory end up with a "realistic" result but I'm not proficient with Photomatix and don't really know to what extent if any this is a relevant comment.

There is a 21mm f2.8 just being in the process of being released (about $A1,800 from Adorama, whereas the 35mm f2 is around $A1,000). Lloyd Chambers says "The ZE 21/2.8 Distagon is an outstanding lens, clearly a standout with few peers in the ultra-wide realm."

Murray Foote wrote:That's a very interesting comment and suggests that perhaps you'd need to shoot with both lenses to really understand the difference.

which comment ?

... and bokeh? (or is that included in contrast?)

i thought the bokeh was pretty similar. there are some instances where the zf was nicer, like in the image #1 where the light hits a backdrop. but under direct lighting and shadow, most times they looked very similar. the zf was consistently smoother.

You can crank up microcontrast in Photomatix and in theory end up with a "realistic" result but I'm not proficient with Photomatix and don't really know to what extent if any this is a relevant comment.

yeah me neither. no idea about photomatix. the nutcase that owns all this zf stuff, (pat if you;re reading i mean that in an endearing way ! ), says there's no way to replicate it. an interesting test we ran was taking a picture of a paper greeting card, (am trawling thru my files to see if i can find it. ), and what the zf dis was pick up the texture of the paper, just small, (but clear), minute little bumps. the nikon shot was basically flat white. my first reaction was that this was sharpness or resolving power, apparently not so. no amount of sharpening would bring that detail back. my next try was that the nikkor image had clipped the highlight, dropped the exposure down and it still didnt pick it up. i thought that was quite astonishing really. i remember this clearly cos it was exactly the sort of differences i found with the mkII vs the d700. (on that occasion it was beads on a wedding dress).

i dont profess to be an expert in this btw, i have no idea but pat is one of those eccentric weirdos that loves this stuff and has very expensive taste...unfortunately this appears to be contagious.

There is a 21mm f2.8 just being in the process of being released (about $A1,800 from Adorama, whereas the 35mm f2 is around $A1,000). Lloyd Chambers says "The ZE 21/2.8 Distagon is an outstanding lens, clearly a standout with few peers in the ultra-wide realm."

yes, have been looking very seriously at that. this is the thing here i suppose. the MTF of the nikkor is going to be equal or better. but my eyes have now been opened a little into some of the more subtle differences in lens'. things like how much different the colour tone can be...i mean WHY is that ? i have alot of reading to do.

and dont even get me started on build quality...dont even go there....

What if they started making an auto focus version with electronic bits for the aperture.....

surenj wrote:What if they started making an auto focus version with electronic bits for the aperture.....

Then the build quality will probably change...comparing my AI 135mm to my 70-200VR and my 24-70 f2.8 the difference in build is still quite startling.

Rooz wrote:

Murray Foote wrote:That's a very interesting comment and suggests that perhaps you'd need to shoot with both lenses to really understand the difference.

which comment ?

I just mean the whole preceding post pointing to the differences in microcontrast and colour.

surenj wrote:What if they started making an auto focus version with electronic bits for the aperture.....

I don't think it's so easy to develop AF technology. That's why Olympus dropped right away after the mid to late 80s for example. They'd probably have to license it from someone like Panasonic. Even then it would be a very slow development process and might quite possibly compromise their image quality. They could be already developing it but my guess is they see a market niche for the highest quality landscape lenses and it doesn't need to include AF.

aim54x wrote:

surenj wrote:What if they started making an auto focus version with electronic bits for the aperture.....

Then the build quality will probably change...comparing my AI 135mm to my 70-200VR and my 24-70 f2.8 the difference in build is still quite startling.

the build of the nikkors is not in the same ball park. well...let me clarify...maybe technically they are built just as strong...but holding a zeiss lens and holding my 24-70 or even the 300/2.8 is a marked difference in how they feel and the "impression" of build quality. think 85/1.4, which is in itself a beautifully crafted hunk of glass, and take it up a few notches.

its like comparing a Mercedes to a Toyota. we all know corollas are built great but...well...you get the picture....

the zeiss lens is a thing of beauty. truly...they are a masterpiece. i want one purely for the thrill and enjoyment of holding it. sick huh ? lmao when i get a couple lets go out shooting and you;ll see what i mean.

i think as murray pointed out, i'm pretty sure the lack of AF has to do with licensing. if they were an AF lens they'd be double the price.

Rooz wrote:the zeiss lens is a thing of beauty. truly...they are a masterpiece. i want one purely for the thrill and enjoyment of holding it. sick huh ? lmao when i get a couple lets go out shooting and you;ll see what i mean.

I am imagining the ZF would be like AI or AIS build but up a few notches...after handling AI lenses I have to admit that the AF Nikkors (and EF Canons) leave me wanting.

I'll hold you to that offer!

Rooz wrote:if they were an AF lens they'd be double the price.

At this level, I don't think price is a consideration.