Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › *Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that expensive!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that... - Page 5

post #61 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega View Post

Can't get too hung up on lens resolution.  How often are you going to have a stationary target in full illumination and a tripod?  Rarely, if you shoot like I do.  Things like lens speed, focus, durability, focal length...these all directly impact your ability to get shots.  Resolution is undoubtedly nice, but beyond a threshold, it's only good for pixel peeping.  And with all the lenses discussed in this thread, we're beyond that threshold wink.gif

 

That Zeiss is a nice lens, good find.  I often shoot a Pentax Limited 35mm f/2.8, which probably shares some DNA with the Tokina 35.  They're all great lenses.  35mm is handy focal length on a cropped sensor.

 

Regarding manual focusing...I find that with many things (fast moving children, sports, animals, adults) I am actually better able to frame a shot and get sharply focused subjects through the depth of field when I focus manually.  It takes some practice, sure.  But once you get the hang of focusing manually with a nice well-damped lens, I bet you will find the same!  A human can predict what will be in focus to make the shot, while autofocus mechanisms are always reactive.

 

True they are all great lenses as far as resolution.  I do find some perceptible differences in color, however, especially among brands, which I guess depends partly on the lens coating used.  Anyway, UPS should be delivering the Zeiss today (fingers crossed), but now I'm finding out I will *need*(?) a focusing screen such as Katzeye, which unfortunately runs $155 with Optibrite.  I don't particularly want to open my the camera and do the operations, presumably voiding warranty, so I'll try to get away with live view shots and the LCD magnification for critical focusing..
 

post #62 of 97

Need?

 

With practice or with knowledge you could focus on the Zeiss without a focusing screen. The amount of keepers will depends solely on how well you can see when something is out of focus.

 

It shouldn't be too hard to use the printed distance scale for a good guesstimation. Live view also works well for things like this.

 

Another good photographers rule of thumb is:

 

"f8 and be there."

post #63 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planar_head View Post

 

 

"f8 and be there."


Except most of my shots will be indoors.  I do like most things about my T2i, except for the viewfinder, which is small and hard to work with.  On the upside, autofocus is so much slower in live view than with viewfinder, so manual focus in live view will actually be much faster than AF in live view in my case.

post #64 of 97

In terms of performance, the Zeiss peaks between F2.8 and F4. Resolution is still excellent at F8 (and the corners are much better there than at larger apertures) but you're also going to be fighting CAs at F8 which aren't much of an issue wide open. It's really the viewfinder quality that sets entry level cameras like the Rebels apart from the more pro grade stuff. Live view will probably come in handy a lot. 

post #65 of 97

As much as I like to shoot with the highest performing aperture all the time, there's no way that will happen if you need the depth of field.

 

As is, getting enough depth of field is hard enough. Shooting only at f2 through f4 will make it hard.

 

Though, on the positive, wide-angle lenses should be able to be more easily hand-holdable in low light than a longer lens.

The best bet here would be to get a tripod for low-light large depth of field shots or develop a very good hand holding technique.

 

Either would be good.

 

Hopefully it will arrive soon so we can see some test shots... smily_headphones1.gif

post #66 of 97
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planar_head View Post

 

 

Hopefully it will arrive soon so we can see some test shots... smily_headphones1.gif



Well, UPS ignored my note to leave the box at the porch, so next attempt will be after this weekend :(

post #67 of 97
Thread Starter 

Unfortunately, the Zeiss 35mm F/2 that was advertised as "brand new" was actually well-used with scratches on the body.  So I returned it, but I did take some test shots. Just to make things interesting, I will also post photo's taken with the lowly Canon 50mm F/1.8 II. 

 

With Zeiss

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #68 of 97
Thread Starter 

Now with Canon 50mm F/1.8 II

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #69 of 97

Nice shots. It's amazing how well the Canon holds up in pretty much every aspect except the bokeh, which seems smoother on the Zeiss.

post #70 of 97

Funny, because I think the Zeiss has an edge in all shots.

 

I love Zeiss colors.

post #71 of 97
Thread Starter 

I really don't know how people are doing hand-held shots with the very-heavy Zeiss and turning the manual focus precisely at the same time.  A tripod is quite necessary for any kind of shooting comfort.  I *am* finding the Canon 50mm F/1.8 II quite over-achieving and still looking for 35mm version of similar sharpness with a bit better/stronger colors.  

 

Anyway, more gratuitous Zeiss shots.

 

oii1.jpg

 

 

 

he601.jpg

post #72 of 97

You get used to it after a while. Using a 200mm manual focus is even harder.

Not to show off...

k30zvc.jpg

 

My lens is 550g, according to http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/S-M-C-Super-Takumar-200mm-F4.html

 

Your lens is 530g, according to http://lenstip.com/179.2-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Distagon_T*_35_mm_f_2_ZF_ZK_ZS_ZE_Pictures_and_parameters.html

post #73 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planar_head View Post

Funny, because I think the Zeiss has an edge in all shots.

 

I love Zeiss colors.



I think they're a tad oversaturated, with a tendency to overexpose highlights. I think we can agree to disagree on that.

post #74 of 97

Please tell me you were kidding on overexposure. The lens doesn't overexpose, it's the camera that doesn't have enough dynamic range or the photographer that didn't dial in a -0.5 EV compensation to compensate for the camera's lack of ability to handle that dynamic range.

 

The T2i sensor doesn't have nearly the dynamic range of the K-x sensor, I'm sure of that.

 

I also find your 100mm WR macros to be well saturated as well, just in a different way.

post #75 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Planar_head View Post

Please tell me you were kidding on overexposure. The lens doesn't overexpose, it's the camera that doesn't have enough dynamic range or the photographer that didn't dial in a -0.5 EV compensation to compensate for the camera's lack of ability to handle that dynamic range.

 

The T2i sensor doesn't have nearly the dynamic range of the K-x sensor, I'm sure of that.

 

I also find your 100mm WR macros to be well saturated as well, just in a different way.


 

That's not strictly true. Firstly, I don't believe that the T2i's sensor has a significantly different potential for dynamic range. Secondly, there can certainly be a level of dynamic range attributed to the contrast characteristics of the lens, which can, in turn, lead to a seemingly overexposed portion of the image, despite the balance of the overall picture not being "off." By using that negative compensation there would certainly be a level of underexposure as well, and I can't stand tone mapping done in post. The photographer himself said on another forum that he said that the colors from the Zeiss were not as they were in real life.

 

 

Would it have been better on a sensor with more dynamic range, such as a full frame sensor? Sure it would have. Looking at the flowers, they could do with a tad of exposure compensation, but the exposure overall is not dissimilar to that in the Canon shots.


Edited by revolink24 - 11/18/10 at 8:38pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › *Post Lens Comparison Photos* (Previously) I had no idea Camera (Canon DSLR) lenses were that expensive!