Switch to English Language Passer en langue franηaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,646   Posts: 1,481,271   Online: 772
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    It's difficult to know what you mean by contrasty, but if it's the high contrast look of, say, 1960s fashion photography or some branches of reportage, the process may have more to do with the look than the lens. Nikon lenses were recognised as among the most high contrast glass available - it was a form of criticism by Leica fans - and were often the lens of choice for the types of photography I've described.

    If you already own Nikon glass, I don't think you'll get more of it from Contax. I suggest you might want to look closer at film choices, development and printing or digital post processing.
    No, this simply isnt right, no offense but you've never shot Zeiss, its that apparent. The only lens that comes close to the micro-contrast of the Zeiss in Nikkor is the 35/1.4 ais. This isnt just opinion and I'm afraid you'll have a bit of an uphill battle on your hands.
    Its not Contax either, they are only for conversion to Canon mount and do not fit the Nikons.

    To the OP, We get heaps of crap for it but the Zeiss are a micro-contrast lens, its just unheard of in Nikkors except the 35/1.4ais that I already mentioned. Some have suggested that the other Nikkor is the 200/2 but its not either and they are confusing its colour and it also lacks this level of contrast.

    Just go look, you'll see it straight away and if you don't then throw out your monitor.
    —-oooO—-
    —-(—)—-
    —–\–(–
    ——\_)-
    ———–Oooo—
    ———–(—-)—
    ————)–/—-
    ———-(_/-
    Ant.
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ

    oneant.com.au

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by dreamingartemis View Post
    Well, for the manual lenses, I already have a nikkor ais 28 f/2.8, 50 f/1.2, 105mm f/1.8 . Also forgot to mention context, recently saved up some money and wanted to find out if what they say about zeiss are true or not.
    I had the 50/1.2. In comparison to the Zeiss its dull and flat. I bought it for the 1.2 but at everything else it was too soft. At 1.2 I hated the OOF or bokeh, the donuts in the specular highlights alone were driving me nuts. It doesnt have the colour or the contrast of any of the zeiss. Lovely to hold but I bought it for pictures and sold it the day after I took it into the city, was already too used to seeing the Zeiss.

    The only pic I got from it was this...
    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...ANT_7919-1.jpg
    and
    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...ANT_7920-1.jpg
    the others I deleted.
    —-oooO—-
    —-(—)—-
    —–\–(–
    ——\_)-
    ———–Oooo—
    ———–(—-)—
    ————)–/—-
    ———-(_/-
    Ant.
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ

    oneant.com.au

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    some more to bring you up to speed ...

    MTF is measured as actual on Zeiss but with Canikon its predicted mtf. Also sometimes its necessary to do a units conversion on mtf charts to compare, Zeiss uses a measure that is more critical then Canikon and Canikon use a unit count that is more shall we say ...generous.

    The lens cap is utter crap, its so bad you must buy a Nikon pinch cap the same day you buy the zeiss and put the Zeiss cap in the box for resale (that'll never happen).

    The zf35/2 betters the Canon 35L

    Biting sharp and at f2.

    Floating front element for correction at mfd

    Of the Zeiss the 35/2 is regarded as the best to focus, focus just pops in. 1.4 is a bit trickier for focus.

    1.4 is a king of bokeh lens for the Zeiss, I'm not so much a bokeh tog. The f2 has a stunning bokeh as well.

    Aperture ring works fine but its narrow and too close to the camera body. You dont notice it much but I wish they gave a bit more thought.

    If anyone is buying just one Zeiss, its always the 35/2 that gets the consensus

    All still performing well on the D800 where many of the Nikkors are falling away.

    some more zf35/2 pics...

    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...ANT_3531-2.jpg
    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...t/_ANT2264.jpg
    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...A/_ANT1535.jpg.

    Thats it ...I'm all out (grin).
    —-oooO—-
    —-(—)—-
    —–\–(–
    ——\_)-
    ———–Oooo—
    ———–(—-)—
    ————)–/—-
    ———-(_/-
    Ant.
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ

    oneant.com.au

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by oneANT View Post
    I only use Zeiss, on a D700 and now an F100.

    Many of us chose not to move from the /2 to the /1.4, very different lenses and more than a simple matter of speed. The 35/1.4 and the 25/1.4 stand quite differently from the others and we see them as another family.

    Your "needs" description is absolutely the 35/2 ...absolutely no doubt.
    The 1.4 didn't give us a lens worth upgrading to and instead its a very different render. The /2 excels in subject isolation where it produces a 3D effect, the feature of the 1.4 is the fine detail it produces. This description I've given is vague I know but means everything.

    The 1.4 has been very difficult to use for applications like street and seems to be more a landscape lens.
    The detail it produces is something else but its transition between subject and surrounds is very gentle and somehow too gentle for street.

    The zf35/2 was my 1st zeiss along with the ....zf28/2 (because I couldn't decide between the two).

    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...ill-life-5.jpg

    Ive since sold the 28. Anyways I went and bought more and the poor 35 has sat in my bag as I've bought

    ..the 100/2

    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...t/ANT_4996.jpg

    ...then the 21/2.8

    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...t/ANT_2120.jpg

    and the 50Makro-Planar

    I love 35/2 but its only now I've taken it out of the bag again and its giving me some really good stuff...

    This is SOOC.

    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...A/_ANT1312.jpg
    http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...t/_ANT2039.jpg

    and plenty more on my site.
    Its a bit of money to spend so come visit us at the FredMirands alt forums
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55

    Hope I helped but absolutely get the zf35/2, its the lens that dragged us all into buying more of them
    Wow....that is wow...

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by oneANT View Post
    No, this simply isnt right, no offense but you've never shot Zeiss, its that apparent. The only lens that comes close to the micro-contrast of the Zeiss in Nikkor is the 35/1.4 ais. This isnt just opinion and I'm afraid you'll have a bit of an uphill battle on your hands.
    Its not Contax either, they are only for conversion to Canon mount and do not fit the Nikons.

    To the OP, We get heaps of crap for it but the Zeiss are a micro-contrast lens, its just unheard of in Nikkors except the 35/1.4ais that I already mentioned. Some have suggested that the other Nikkor is the 200/2 but its not either and they are confusing its colour and it also lacks this level of contrast.

    Just go look, you'll see it straight away and if you don't then throw out your monitor.

    I've been hearing that a lot, but I'm not familiar with the term micro contrast......

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by blockend View Post
    It's difficult to know what you mean by contrasty, but if it's the high contrast look of, say, 1960s fashion photography or some branches of reportage, the process may have more to do with the look than the lens. Nikon lenses were recognised as among the most high contrast glass available - it was a form of criticism by Leica fans - and were often the lens of choice for the types of photography I've described.

    If you already own Nikon glass, I don't think you'll get more of it from Contax. I suggest you might want to look closer at film choices, development and printing or digital post processing.

    Well the interest in contrastsy shots for me started whe I fumbled up the hc110 dilution and got very contrastsy negs. After I fixed that problem, I then developed at the correct dilution and noticed everything felt flat, or boring. So I instead modified my process by 30%, it's not the sweet spot, sometimes it I over do it. I'm still trying to find the correct percentage.

    I'm trying to find a way to produce consistent results but I see what you mean that it's the process rather than the lens itself.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Just on the point of this micro-contrast. It becomes apparent to many by a 3D effect where the edge definition and background contrast has a dramatic fall off. The 3D effect that can be seen in many images is discussed but what we see in nearly all our zeiss images is a depth, not the effect of dof but rather the perception of depth. With Nikkors an image is very flat regardless of dof and its funny when they might say that such a thing is not possible but have you ever looked at an image from the Nikkor 60?

    We become hooked because of this affect and the 35/2 has it more than any other which if you think about it is as I describe, has nothing to do with the effect of dof as you might expect with say a telephoto lens because we are afterall discussing a wide.

    awesome awesome lens, I dont care how much I might sound like exaggeration, you'll never be able to come back and tell me I was wrong.
    —-oooO—-
    —-(—)—-
    —–\–(–
    ——\_)-
    ———–Oooo—
    ———–(—-)—
    ————)–/—-
    ———-(_/-
    Ant.
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl ǝɥʇ ɯoɹɟ

    oneant.com.au

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    1,212
    Images
    47
    I have shot the 35 and 85, Helen Keller could see the difference. They are that good.

  9. #19
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Micro-contrast is another way to say "acutance" and contrast is generally a different thing, unless we want to debate words endlessly. Photographers don't confuse the two things. I personally dislike the word "micro-contrast" because it just leads to confusion. If it is acutance, be it called acutance instead of by another name. Will not smell differently, but it will be clearer.

    Judging definition of a lens by an image less than 1 mp is not different than judging colour balance of a film comparing uncalibrated and not colour-managed scans. In both cases the exercise is moot.

    In the first case, what is judged is the degree of "sharpening" of the image to make it appear sharp on screen (this is done by increasing acutance, by the way). In the other case, what is judged is just the random colour mistake of scanners - monitors plus the ability of the scanner operator.

    Differences in lens qualities are subtle and need a much higher pixel resolution to be judged. Even in that case, a decent amount of digital sharpening improves the sharpness. Convolution-based sharpening also helps. Those interventions are necessary for a good rendition on a monitor, but insert an intermediate layer which contributes to prevent judging a lens through the web.

    In one sentence: the only proper test of the sharpness of a lens is the light table and the loupe. If really a comparison must be made through the web, the maximum resolution obtained by the camera or scanner should be shown, but the result will be, in any case, mediated by the post-processing.

    The general consensus is that very fine lenses, like Zeiss and Leica, do have higher acutance than high-quality lenses by the Japanese producers. "Very good" is good but it is not up to "Exceptional". Whether one needs "exceptional" is obviously debatable and I am sure somebody will add a comment saying that art has nothing to do with resolution (which would be true and obvious).

    Overall contrast in my experience normally goes with number of lens elements: the higher the lens element count, the higher the "black point" (blacks less black) so less perceived contrast (coeteris paribus). A Tessar scheme is normally very contrasted. I like contrast. Overall contrast has nothing to do with acutance and micro-contrast should not be mentioned when talking contrast.

    Overall contrast for me is the perceived distance between maximum black and maximum white. Maybe for other photographers "contrast" means something different, such as the diffusion of light from bright zones to shady zones ("flare", "blooming"). How do we define this: "local contrast", probably? Local contrast is certainly a metre of lens quality. I suppose it mostly depends from the lens coating and from the number of lenses, and the number of air-glass surfaces. It ultimately is linked to overall contrast as they both depend from how much refraction there is, and refraction depends from number of lens elements, number of air-glass surface, quality of coating, suppression of scattering light within the lens (black painting).

    Overall contrast in a digital image can be and should be "optimized" by properly setting the "levels" of the image. It can also be pushed to obtain a "graphic" effect (as in this image posted by oneANT: http://oneant.com.au/content/Street/...t/ANT_4996.jpg). If the shadows are violently pushed to pure black, and there is some very bright high lights, the effect is of great contrast. That same effect can be obtained with any lens, if you can properly use the "sliders".

    Which again leads me to repeat that judging lens qualities by a 1mp digital image makes no sense.

    My personal opinion is that a conversation is much more enjoyable if everybody avoids making comments about lens quality as if it was something scientifically debatable. No point in "challenging" another forum user in general, and certainly no point in "challenging" him on something which us purely subjective, adding some 1mp digital images as a "demonstration" of one's point

    Please let's not transform this into another religion war: Zeiss fanatics against Canonikon fanatics etc. Fanatism is bad for photography.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 09-11-2012 at 03:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    ɹǝpun uʍop puɐl
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post

    My personal opinion is that a conversation is much more enjoyable if everybody avoids making comments about lens quality as if it was something scientifically debatable. No point in "challenging" another forum user in general, and certainly no point in "challenging" him on something which us purely subjective, adding some 1mp digital images as a "demonstration" of one's point
    ...enjoyable, what part of this are you suggesting that might be?

    I'm offended, so make no error in my choice of language now.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin