Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE

[Maiku]

Thanks denoir.

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/7320/rabacal25fontes050.jpg

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8048/rabacal25fontes028.jpg

Wow, these are freaking fantastic. Good job man.

[Rsyx]

The photos in this thread are absolutely amazing, I think my next lens purchase is going to be a Zeiss!

Just a quick question. Are the Zeiss 50/2 and the Zeiss 100/2 similar in optics? I am now using a crop body and I'm afraid that the 100/2 is a bit too long for me, so I'm considering buying the 50/2.

Keep posting those gorgeous images!

[denoir]

Dumb question, but if your goal was to get a lens to specifically assist in environmental portraiture, would you suggest the 21mm 2.8 ZE D over the 100 2 MP? Just looking for insight from those who own both or have owned them in the past. I know I'm getting the 21mm 2.8 ZE D in two weeks regardless, but I am wondering if the 100 2 MP lends anything special to the realm of portraiture (environmental most specifically) that the 135mm 2L couldn't.

In terms of focal length neither the 100MP nor the 135L are ideal for environmental portraits - they are too long. The 21 on the other hand is an ultra-wide (on FF) so it's even worse. I suppose it could work on a crop camera.

As for the 135L and the 100MP, well, the 135L is a really nice lens - my favorite among the Canons - but in my experience the 100MP does everything the 135L does, but better. The sharpness, colors, contrasts and bokeh are all noticeably better. No AF of course, but that isn't too relevant for portraits.

However, for portraits you have to be aware that it will give a different look than you may be used to. The renderings are more like when you are looking at the real thing than when you are looking at a photo. That's not entirely an accurate description though - it's difficult to explain in words. It may or may not work for you. The photographs as such will be very good but the people being photographed may not appreciate its sharpness. It will show every little detail and that may be undesirable.

[denoir]

The photos in this thread are absolutely amazing, I think my next lens purchase is going to be a Zeiss!

Just a quick question. Are the Zeiss 50/2 and the Zeiss 100/2 similar in optics? I am now using a crop body and I'm afraid that the 100/2 is a bit too long for me, so I'm considering buying the 50/2.

Yes and no. In many ways the 50 MP is the little brother of the 100 MP. Colors and contrasts are similar. The big difference is in bokeh where the 50 MP can't help that it is a 50 mm lens and hence produces so-so bokeh. It's not bad, but not comparable to what the 100 MP can do.

As a general recommendation, I would suggest that you consider getting a FF camera as a higher priority. The Zeiss glass really comes alive on FF. Also you'll notice an overall improvement. I would roughly say that going from crop to FF is a big step in image quality as going from Canon to Zeiss glass.

Anwyay, a picture or two. Since I was speaking of bokeh, let there be bokeh:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-17.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-20.jpg

[J-B]

In terms of focal length neither the 100MP nor the 135L are ideal for environmental portraits - they are too long. The 21 on the other hand is an ultra-wide (on FF) so it's even worse. I suppose it could work on a crop camera.


A 21 even worse? I don't agree at all! It can be excellent for environmental portraiture. Just don't get too close to the people.

Here are some examples from someones blog:

http://www.prophotonut.com/2009/12/02/zeiss-21mm-f2-8-lens-real-world-portraits-high-res-samples/

http://www.prophotonut.com/2009/12/08/shooting-winter-weddings-pictures-exif/

[Illumined]

In terms of focal length neither the 100MP nor the 135L are ideal for environmental portraits - they are too long. The 21 on the other hand is an ultra-wide (on FF) so it's even worse. I suppose it could work on a crop camera.

As for the 135L and the 100MP, well, the 135L is a really nice lens - my favorite among the Canons - but in my experience the 100MP does everything the 135L does, but better. The sharpness, colors, contrasts and bokeh are all noticeably better. No AF of course, but that isn't too relevant for portraits.

However, for portraits you have to be aware that it will give a different look than you may be used to. The renderings are more like when you are looking at the real thing than when you are looking at a photo. That's not entirely an accurate description though - it's difficult to explain in words. It may or may not work for you. The photographs as such will be very good but the people being photographed may not appreciate its sharpness. It will show every little detail and that may be undesirable.
First time I've heard this despite all the excellent examples I've seen. Based on the 21mm 2.8 ZE D's lack of distortion (other than the less-than-oftenly noticed mustache distortion), I thought this lens would be a beautiful candidate for creative environmental portraiture and could cater well to fine-art pieces that have people as part of the subject matter. Are you suggesting that the focal length of 24mm may be better suited for environmental portraiture over 21mm without taking the lens' abilities into account or do you have samples of these bad results when the lens is used in an effort to do environmental portraiture? Is this to say that the 24mm 1.4L II would be a better candidate than the 21mm 2.8 D? Thanks in advance.
A 21 even worse? I don't agree at all! It can be excellent for environmental portraiture. Just don't get too close to the people.

Here are some examples from someones blog:
http://www.prophotonut.com/2009/12/02/zeiss-21mm-f2-8-lens-real-world-portraits-high-res-samples/
http://www.prophotonut.com/2009/12/08/shooting-winter-weddings-pictures-exif/
This is more of what I've seen with my own eyes but personally have never seen these examples and I must say, they seem to be rather contrary to what denoir stated above.

I know 135mm and 100mm focal lengths are not ideal for environmental portraiture and perhaps I through the term 'environmental' out there one too many times in my original post but I was was more-so trying to ask how the 100 2 ZE MP stacks up to the 135mm 2L when it comes to portraiture use in general. I would think it's shorter MFD would lend it some rather creative opportunities, but have already noted myself in this thread (and denoir has confirmed) that it may be unforgiving as a result of how sharp it's in-camera output is.

Just looking for user insight here, that's all.

[denoir]

To clarify - what I meant was that an UWA or a tele lens is not the typical choice for environmental portraits. Typical FL's would be 35-50. That of course doesn't mean that you can't do it with other FLs. I'm sure that you could do environmental portraits with a 600mm with some creativity and distance ;)

As for the 100 MP being too sharp, it depends on your requirements. I personally love the style - the ultra sharpness combined with a graceful DOF dropoff make portraits that have a great deal of spatial qualities. I can understand that it's not for everybody though. If you are doing portraits professionally, the parents of a spotty teenager may not be as appreciative of the style. I know that professionals sometimes shy away from Zeiss lenses because their clients expect something very conventional.

Still, there is a massive amount of variation in style that you can accomplish with changes in light. My suggestion would be to rent the lens if you can and use it in a portrait shoot. Then decide if it is something you can work with or not.

Personally, as much as I like the 135L, I can't see myself using it much in the future - except where AF is critical. Apart from the lack of AF the 100MP wins hands down in any situation I can think of.

[palaima]

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/8048/rabacal25fontes028.jpg

This is AWESOME. O_O

[denoir]

Indeed, fantastic brid shots. Hard to follow up, so I'm not going to try ;)

Instead I'll post what looks to be the first duck of the thread :)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-16.jpg

[BlueTsunami]

You guys wondering about Environmental Portraiture, remember that Zeiss also has a 25 and 28mm lens!

[Illumined]

You guys wondering about Environmental Portraiture, remember that Zeiss also has a 25 and 28mm lens!
The Zeiss 25mm ZE isn't out yet is it?

[jdizzle]

The Zeiss 25mm ZE isn't out yet is it?
I was thinking about that lens too. Buy it in in ZF mount and get an adaptrer for EOS. :)

[Illumined]

I was thinking about that lens too. Buy it in in ZF mount and get an adaptrer for EOS. :)
You are truly the ultimate devil's advocate. I can't go to any thread without you hindering my decisions and steering down a path not yet taken.

It's okay, I think that's part of the reason why I love you. (No Homo)

[jdizzle]

You are truly the ultimate devil's advocate. I can't go to any thread without you hindering my decisions and steering down a path not yet taken.

It's okay, I think that's part of the reason why I love you. (No Homo)
ROFL!! :lol:

[Double Negative]

You guys wondering about Environmental Portraiture, remember that Zeiss also has a 25 and 28mm lens!

The 2,8/25 hasn't been released yet... But if it's ANYTHING like the ZM version, I'd buy one without even flinching. I have the ZM version and it's easily the sharpest lens I've ever shot. It's ridiculous.

[jdizzle]

The 2,8/25 hasn't been released yet... But if it's ANYTHING like the ZM version, I'd buy one without even flinching. I have the ZM version and it's easily the sharpest lens I've ever shot. It's ridiculous.
That would be nice. Would you say the IQ is on par with the 24 1.4 L II?

[Double Negative]

That would be nice. Would you say the IQ is on par with the 24 1.4 L II?

On par? No. More like a hole-in-one. Every time.

It's hard to compare Canon and Leica shots between the two lenses - although the crop is similar (1.3x vs 1.33x) and resolution close (8.2MP vs 10.3MP), the Canon has the stupid AA filter in front of the sensor. Because of this, even a lousy Leica shot is sharper than a good Canon shot "out of the box." But even with the usual PP, the ZM easily blows away the 24L. It's ridiculously sharp (I don't need any sharpening in post), nicely contrasty and saturated - and nearly impossible to flare. The field is flat and it's sharp across all of it with no distortion or falloff worth mentioning. Zeiss themselves are very fond of this particular lens. How well this translates to the ZE version of course, I have no idea. But like I said, if it's anything close - I'm sold.

Check this out; Resolving Power Record with ZEISS Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/30536193ED0C97A7C125711C006FC2C2)

The MTF data on the second page of the datasheet (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Biogon2.8_25mm_ZM_e/$File/Biogon2.8_25mm_ZM_e.pdf) is also interesting.

[BlueTsunami]

The 2,8/25 hasn't been released yet... But if it's ANYTHING like the ZM version, I'd buy one without even flinching. I have the ZM version and it's easily the sharpest lens I've ever shot. It's ridiculous.

Unfortunately I think they are different designs (the ZF/ZK 25/2.8 being updated from the Contax\Yashica era) where the Biogon is its own beast. The updated 25/2.8 (or faster?) should be interesting.

[jdizzle]

On par? No. More like a hole-in-one. Every time.

It's hard to compare Canon and Leica shots between the two lenses - although the crop is similar (1.3x vs 1.33x) and resolution close (8.2MP vs 10.3MP), the Canon has the stupid AA filter in front of the sensor. Because of this, even a lousy Leica shot is sharper than a good Canon shot "out of the box." But even with the usual PP, the ZM easily blows away the 24L. It's ridiculously sharp (I don't need any sharpening in post), nicely contrasty and saturated - and nearly impossible to flare. The field is flat and it's sharp across all of it with no distortion or falloff worth mentioning. Zeiss themselves are very fond of this particular lens. How well this translates to the ZE version of course, I have no idea. But like I said, if it's anything close - I'm sold.

Check this out; Resolving Power Record with ZEISS Biogon T* 2,8/25 ZM (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/30536193ED0C97A7C125711C006FC2C2)

The MTF data on the second page of the datasheet (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Biogon2.8_25mm_ZM_e/$File/Biogon2.8_25mm_ZM_e.pdf) is also interesting.
Wow! Really impressive. Thanks for posting that DN.:)

[Double Negative]

Unfortunately I think they are different designs (the ZF/ZK 25/2.8 being updated from the Contax\Yashica era) where the Biogon is its own beast. The updated 25/2.8 (or faster?) should be interesting.

Unfortunately, you're right about the design... Wide angle SLR lenses are typically retrofocus designs (something RF lenses need not worry about) which makes it impossible to do a "Biogon" design. Indeed, looking at the designs provided by Zeiss (see attachments) they do look quite different. I'm thinking mostly from a performance standpoint of them being "close." We'll see what happens...

Wow! Really impressive. Thanks for posting that DN.:)

No problem. :)

These shots are mostly all done with the 2,8/25 ZM. (http://litpixel.com/ee/list.php?exhibition=88&ee_lang=eng)

The ZM is the first, the ZF the second:

[denoir]

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-33.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-32.jpg

[jdizzle]

Unfortunately, you're right about the design... Wide angle SLR lenses are typically retrofocus designs (something RF lenses need not worry about) which makes it impossible to do a "Biogon" design. Indeed, looking at the designs provided by Zeiss (see attachments) they do look quite different. I'm thinking mostly from a performance standpoint of them being "close." We'll see what happens...



No problem. :)

These shots are mostly all done with the 2,8/25 ZM. (http://litpixel.com/ee/list.php?exhibition=88&ee_lang=eng)

The ZM is the first, the ZF the second:
That lens is sharp and the corner performance is amazing. I hope Zeiss releases this lens. It would be a nice alternative to the Canon 24 L primes.

[BlueTsunami]

That lens is sharp and the corner performance is amazing. I hope Zeiss releases this lens. It would be a nice alternative to the Canon 24 L primes.

Sony is getting a new 24/2 (thats been hinted at for a while now). Its too bad they aren't going for speed with some of these lenses but being balanced lenses seems to be the intention.

[jdizzle]

Sony is getting a new 24/2 (thats been hinted at for a while now). Its too bad they aren't going for speed with some of these lenses but being balanced lenses seems to be the intention.
I agree. If Zeiss releases a ZE mount, it would change my mind about buying a 24 L. :)

[Illumined]

Sony is getting a new 24/2 (thats been hinted at for a while now). Its too bad they aren't going for speed with some of these lenses but being balanced lenses seems to be the intention.
You don't consider a 24mm 2 fast or are you referring to the other AF ZA mount Zeiss lenses they offer?

[Illumined]

I agree. If Zeiss releases a ZE mount, it would change my mind about buying a 24 L. :)
If they did release a 24mm 2 (or a 25mm 2.8/2), it would MF as Sony has exclusive rights to Zeiss AF lenses unfortunately.

It'd be terribly tempting to cross into the realm of Sony if Zeiss offered them more fast ZA primes, wouldn't it?

[BlueTsunami]

You don't consider a 24mm 2 fast or are you referring to the other AF ZA mount Zeiss lenses they offer?

Oh I consider it fast but I'm comparing it to Canon's and Nikon's 24mm offerings


If they did release a 24mm 2 (or a 25mm 2.8/2), it would MF as Sony has exclusive rights to Zeiss AF lenses unfortunately.

It'd be terribly tempting to cross into the realm of Sony if Zeiss offered them more fast ZA primes, wouldn't it?

I've had this thought too but mainly because the 85mm and 135mm lenses are newer designs and are at the top of their respective focal lengths. The 24mm will definitely fill a the void on the wider end.

[jdizzle]

If they did release a 24mm 2 (or a 25mm 2.8/2), it would MF as Sony has exclusive rights to Zeiss AF lenses unfortunately.

It'd be terribly tempting to cross into the realm of Sony if Zeiss offered them more fast ZA primes, wouldn't it?
For sure but, I don't mind MF over AF since I'd be using it for landscapes anyway. :)

[Illumined]

Oh I consider it fast but I'm comparing it to Canon's and Nikon's 24mm offerings
The thing about Canon and Nikon's offerings is that they initially (omitting the 24mm 1.4L II due to lack of experience with it) were not top performers wide open or even when stopped down by a 1/3 or so. Their selling point was their fast aperture in specs, but when it comes to Zeiss (and Leica even in the RF realm), it becomes quite clear that they don't need to boast a large aperture to sell like hotcakes or carry an astounding reputation.

Am I saying that Zeiss should not move forward and push out even faster aperture primes? Absolutely not. I'm just stating my opinion on a subject that I'm sure some will agree and disagree with.

I honestly think if the 1Ds IV doesn't bring something new to the table, Sony is gonna capitalize on the marginal improvements Canon is making and monopolize on the dSLR market seeing they are already making most of Nikon's sensors as is.

[jdizzle]

The thing about Canon and Nikon's offerings is that they initially (omitting the 24mm 1.4L II due to lack of experience with it) were not top performers wide open or even when stopped down by a 1/3 or so. Their selling point was their fast aperture in specs, but when it comes to Zeiss (and Leica even in the RF realm), it becomes quite clear that they don't need to boast a large aperture to sell like hotcakes or carry an astounding reputation.

Am I saying that Zeiss should not move forward and push out even faster aperture primes? Absolutely not. I'm just stating my opinion on a subject that I'm sure some will agree and disagree with.
I also have to throw in the 24 TS-E II which is MF and I don't mind that too. :)

[Double Negative]

While Zeiss and Leica certainly CAN make fast lenses (heck, check out the Noctilux)... They both prefer to be more conservative and produce lenses that are highly corrected and usable from wide open through the entire aperture range.

[denoir]

How about posting some pictures guys? You know, lens sample thread and all ;)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-35.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-36.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-37.jpg

[Illumined]

How about posting some pictures guys? You know, lens sample thread and all ;)
CHUDDUP DENOIR! >_<
(I luh you.)

[denoir]

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-42.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-43.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-45.jpg

[Symphonic]

This lens is from another world lol. Great shots, denoir.

[denoir]

Thanks Tony. Yes, it can produce bokeh like no other lens I've ever used. That combined with extreme sharpness of the in-focus areas produces a special look.

[MR do little]

Nice Gitzo bokeh :D

Also shows the one flaw the 100/2 Makro planar has.

LoCa.

[MR do little]

The photos in this thread are absolutely amazing, I think my next lens purchase is going to be a Zeiss!

Just a quick question. Are the Zeiss 50/2 and the Zeiss 100/2 similar in optics? I am now using a crop body and I'm afraid that the 100/2 is a bit too long for me, so I'm considering buying the 50/2.

Keep posting those gorgeous images!


They share the general Zeiss charateristics when it comes to contrast and color.

The 50/2 makro-planar is however better corrected when it comes to LoCa while not a true APO design its shows very little to none compared to its big brother.

Bokeh difference has more to do with focal length (subject isolation) then the 100/2 makro planar being superior in optical terms.

[Rsyx]

Thank you for your replies denoir and MR do little, this will help me to make a better informed decision.

[jdizzle]

Also shows the one flaw the 100/2 Makro planar has.

LoCa.
Does LoCa mean Low CA? :)

[Lofty]

I realized that it also helps to live in a beautiful place to photograph......great content makes great pictures a hell of a lot easier.

I live in South Florida where nothing but weeds grow and flowers die in 5 minutes from the heat. Our wildlife consists of roaches, mosquitos, ugly muskovy ducks and aligators that want to eat you.

I need to get outa here.

[banpreso]

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-37.jpg

sure this isn't a painting?

[MR do little]

Does LoCa mean Low CA? :)

Ill let Denoir's image answer that question..;)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-42.jpg

[denoir]

Actually, I have never been bothered by LoCa. Regular CA/PF on the other hand...
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-46.jpg

To be fair, almost all fast tele primes suffer from this wide open, it very rarely happens and you can relatively easy remove it in post. Of 1500+ photos I've now encountered the problem two or three times, so it's not exactly something of great concern. It is a flaw though and as far as I'm concerned it's the only flaw of importance.


Bokeh difference has more to do with focal length (subject isolation) then the 100/2 makro planar being superior in optical terms.

Yes, as I said, the 50 can't help it's a 50. Having said that, the 100/2 is superior in optical terms and not by a small margin. The 50/2 is fantastic but the 100/2 is one of the best prime lenses made.. like ever in the history of lenses.

100/2 MTF vs 50/2 MTF @f/2


http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/mtf1.jpg http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/mtf2.jpg

[denoir]

I realized that it also helps to live in a beautiful place to photograph......great content makes great pictures a hell of a lot easier.

I live in South Florida where nothing but weeds grow and flowers die in 5 minutes from the heat. Our wildlife consists of roaches, mosquitos, ugly muskovy ducks and aligators that want to eat you.

I need to get outa here.

:) Yes, you are right of course. I'd love to have some mountains here, but no such luck. Flat, flat, flat.

[MR do little]

Denoir i dont have to study mtf charts to know the difference, iv used these lenses since 2007.

While the sharpness is better with the 100/2 planar (especially at wider apertures), its also worse when it comes to LoCa which affects the bokeh.

As for LoCa its there alright, even if your not bothered by it. For portrait work i can honestly say i havent been either. For other subjects and for closeups it can be quite a distraction though.

While i share your enthusiasm over the 100/2 planar performance, my view are a little more balanced.

The 100/2 like any other lens is a optical compromise. Bokeh for example is heavily affected by LoCa...so there are certainly lenses that is euqally good or better when it comes to bokeh.


Infinity performance isnt as good wide open and near since the lens is optimized for close distance. Nikkor 105/2,5 ais outperforms it at infity at wider apertures for example( Martin Agfors made a test in proffsfoto 2008 )

Its a great lens, in fact its excellent, but its not perfect and there are lenses who measure up to its performance while they may be few.

[Lofty]

Im new to the more serious side of photography so a lot of the technical stuff Im learning.

What I am also learning is that you can over analyze a photograph to the point that you destroy the art of it.

Accepting the fact that NOTHING is perfect, especially something man made, you have to come to terms with that.

I imagine most people take photographs to artfully capture a split second in time and show the world what they saw for that moment. In the end though its always going to be nothing more than the camera and lenses interpretation of what the photographer saw through the viewfinder......and again, because the camera and lens is made by man it will will be flawed.

It would seem that you can grind and crush this art under the heel of scrutiny to the point that nothing seems beautiful anymore.

[denoir]

While i share your enthusiasm over the 100/2 planar performance, my view are a little more balanced.


Um, in what way? You mentioned LoCA but did not mention the far more problematic standard CA..


The 100/2 like any other lens is a optical compromise. Bokeh for example is heavily affected by LoCa...so there are certainly lenses that is euqally good or better when it comes to bokeh.

Bokeh comes down pretty much to subjective opinion. Yep, there is plenty of LoCA but as I said it's not something I'm bothered with. I'm not the only one - Lloyd Chambers declared the 100/2 to have the best bokeh of all the lenses he ever used. He mentions the LoCA but doesn't consider it problematic. Now I would not go as far as he does - the 100/2 bokeh can be quite harsh at certain subject/background combinations (possibly LoCA edges contributing, but I'm not sure). In those cases a 135L would produce a better bokeh. In most (again not all) situations however the 100/2 really is the king of bokeh, as Lloyd Chambers put it. There are of course freak lenses such as the Rokkor 58/1.2 that are arguably better in that department, but you have to take all the other aspects into consideration as well.

The 100/2 may not be the best in any specific department (although I must admit I have not seen anything like its MTF curves) it is the package as a whole that makes it such an exceptional lens. It's very very sharp across the whole frame, distortions are zero, amazing colors and contrast and a fabulous bokeh.


Infinity performance isnt as good wide open and near since the lens is optimized for close distance. Nikkor 105/2,5 ais outperforms it at infity at wider apertures for example( Martin Agfors made a test in proffsfoto 2008 )

Well, actually no. I have not read the test you refer to, but a quick glance at the MTF chart (http://www.photodo.com/lens/Nikon-105mm-f25-379/images) shows that the 100/2 blows the 105/2.5 away with both wide open at infiniy:

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/mtf3.jpg vs http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/mtf1.jpg

I mean come on, it's not in the same league. I'm sure there are other lenses that are closer to the 100/2 than that one.

Its a great lens, in fact its excellent, but its not perfect and there are lenses who measure up to its performance while they may be few.

I fully agree with that. In fact apart from some specifics that I've pointed out, we are generally not in disagreement.

[denoir]

Im new to the more serious side of photography so a lot of the technical stuff Im learning.

What I am also learning is that you can over analyze a photograph to the point that you destroy the art of it.

Accepting the fact that NOTHING is perfect, especially something man made, you have to come to terms with that.

I imagine most people take photographs to artfully capture a split second in time and show the world what they saw for that moment. In the end though its always going to be nothing more than the camera and lenses interpretation of what the photographer saw through the viewfinder......and again, because the camera and lens is made by man it will will be flawed.

It would seem that you can grind and crush this art under the heel of scrutiny to the point that nothing seems beautiful anymore.

"Unweaving the rainbow" was the expression that Keats used to criticize that science destroyed natural beuaty. The idea is that if you start analyzing say a flower on the molecular level you miss its beauty by deconstructing it.

I completely disagree. You are not limited to enjoying something on one level. I can appreciate the beauty of the flower and at the same time appreciate the beauty at the molecular level.

The same goes for photography and technology. I can both appreciate the artistic and the technical side of it. In fact, that is why I love photography. It is exactly this dual technical/artistic combination that attracts me to it. The search for technical perfection is a part of it.

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-47.jpg

[MR do little]

Um, in what way? You mentioned LoCA but did not mention the far more problematic standard CA..

The difference between LoCa and CA is that one is often easily corrected, while the other isnt.

Traditional CA (not to be confused with sensor blooming) as you your self stated isnt often a problem, it's usally in very highcontrast scene that it will show.



I might have read into a little to much to your post, as i got the impression you belive the 100/2 makro planar has no peer. Especially when it comes to bokeh and sharpness/contrast.

This i disagree with, not based on reading mtf charts or reading Lloyds blog, but from actual use with many different lenses.




Bokeh comes down pretty much to subjective opinion. Yep, there is plenty of LoCA but as I said it's not something I'm bothered with. I'm not the only one - Lloyd Chambers declared the 100/2 to have the best bokeh of all the lenses he ever used. He mentions the LoCA but doesn't consider it problematic.

Subjective as in the bokeh is pleasing or not, uncorrected LoCa is not a matter of opinion though.

Its still there, and just because Lloyd chambers (im not sure why his opinion regarding his preference of LoCa should weigh more then the next guy ) isnt bothered with it or you for that matter dosent change the fact the 100/2 has this optical flaw.

Which in turn affects the bokeh, now i cant argue the fact that some people might like discoloration in the oof areas.


Now I would not go as far as he does - the 100/2 bokeh can be quite harsh at certain subject/background combinations (possibly LoCA edges contributing, but I'm not sure). In those cases a 135L would produce a better bokeh. In most (again not all) situations however the 100/2 really is the king of bokeh, as Lloyd Chambers put it.

125/2,5 Voigtländer certainly give 100/2 planar some competiton, especially regarding LoCa.


In your opinion and Lloyd the 100/2 is the bokeh king. I dont crown any lenses, but if i would the VG 125/2,5 would be more deserving of that title imo.

And we shouldnt mention the 135/2,8 STF....:D




Well, actually no. I have not read the test you refer to.
I mean come on, it's not in the same league. I'm sure there area other lenses that are closer to the 100/2 than that one.
I fully agree with that.

In actual test the Zeiss 100/2 didnt outperform the 30 year old 105/2,5 ais @ infinty at wider apertures.The older Contax 100/2 are also better at longer distances at wider apertures.

Martin even posted images from this test on DPR.

[Lofty]

"Unweaving the rainbow" was the expression that Keats used to criticize that science destroyed natural beuaty. The idea is that if you start analyzing say a flower on the molecular level you miss its beauty by deconstructing it.

I completely disagree. You are not limited to enjoying something on one level. I can appreciate the beauty of the flower and at the same time appreciate the beauty at the molecular level.

The same goes for photography and technology. I can both appreciate the artistic and the technical side of it. In fact, that is why I love photography. It is exactly this dual technical/artistic combination that attracts me to it. The search for technical perfection is a part of it.




Very valid point......and I share your love of the pursuit of technical perfection. I haven't applied it to photography I would imagine for two primary reasons. The first being that I am new to photography at this level and I honestly do not know enough about it. But for me....and more importantly, since I cannot change the outcome, I cant bring myself to scrutinize the minutia.

I dont design or build cameras or lenses. All I can do is try to find the equipment that allows me to render my interpretation of what I see the best way I can learn how to.


Again though, I certainly understand your point and maybe as my experience changes and my knowledge of the subject grows, I will understand it better and share your pursuit.




Until then, keep feeding us those amazing photos.

[denoir]

I might have read into a little to much to your post, as i got the impression you belive the 100/2 makro planar has no peer. Especially when it comes to bokeh and sharpness/contrast.


Yes and no. I would say that there are few lenses comparable to it as a package. I won't claim that it is the best in the individual properties. There are sharper lenses and there are lenses with better bokeh. But put together - sharpness across the frame, bokeh, colors contrast, distortion - etc makes it definitely the best lens (around 100mm) that I've used.


This i disagree with, not based on reading mtf charts or reading Lloyds blog, but from actual use with many different lenses.

That's a bit vague. I can also say that my opinions are primarily based on having used well, at least 50 different prime lenses. MTF charts (measured ones, not so much theoretical) are a good way to bring it to an objective level.


Subjective as in the bokeh is pleasing or not, uncorrected LoCa is not a matter of opinion though.

Its still there, and just because Lloyd chambers (im not sure why his opinion regarding his preference of LoCa should weigh more then the next guy ) isnt bothered with it or you for that matter dosent change the fact the 100/2 has this optical flaw.

Which in turn affects the bokeh, now i cant argue that the fact that some people might like discoloration in the oof areas.


No, I'm not disputing and have not disputed that it exhibits LoCA. I just said that in my personal opinion it isn't an important factor. Your priorities may be different and hence your evaluation of the lens will be different. If for instance LoCA is the only thing you care about in a lens then the 100/2 positively sucks.


In your opinion and Lloyd the 100/2 is the bokeh king. I dont crown any lenses, but if i would the VG 125/2,5 would be more deserving of that title imo.

And we shouldnt mention the 135/2,8 STF....:D


I've personally thought that the VG 125/2.5 has been very overrated when it comes to bokeh. In many cases it's too harsh but without being interesting. The Minolta 135 STF on the other hand.. well, I can't deny that it does do some very very nice OOF. (I have not owned either but I borrowed a VG125 for a few weeks a couple of years ago). But as I said, bokeh comes down to personal preference. I absolutely love the crazy bokeh the 21 Disgaton can produce while most people hate it.

Here is an example of the type of bokeh rendering that I love and that others positively run away from (Distagon 21):

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/IMG_4716.jpg



In actual test the Zeiss 100/2 didnt outperform the 30 year old 105/2,5 ais @ infinty at wider apertures.The older Contax 100/2 are also better at longer distances at wider apertures.

Martin even posted images from this test on DPR.

The MTF charts you see are measured, not theoretical (as Canon's are). So I'll go for proper measurement over anecdotal evidence, if you don't object. ;)

I have not been able to find his tests on DPR. What is Martin's user name?

[MR do little]

Yes and no. I would say that there are few lenses comparable to it as a package. I won't claim that it is the best in the individual properties. There are sharper lenses and there are lenses with better bokeh. But put together - sharpness across the frame, bokeh, colors contrast, distortion - etc makes it definitely the best lens (around 100mm) that I've used.

A lens easily comparable to the 100/2 planar is the Zeiss 135/1,8.



That's a bit vague. I can also say that my opinions are primarily based on having used well, at least 100 different prime lenses.

From what iv read your referring to MTF's and Lloyd chambers. The lenses im referring to iv owned and used. The Voigtländer iv shot side by side for quite sometime.



No, I'm not disputing and have not disputed that it exhibits LoCA. I just said that in my personal opinion it isn't an important factor. Your priorities may be different and hence your evaluation of the lens will be different. If for instance LoCA is the only thing you care about in a lens then the 100/2 positively sucks.

Nope not the only thing that i care about, it's however a thing that can be distracting in the bokeh, which is why i wouldnt claim it to be the bokeh king.

That is also the only flaw i can think of when it comes to this lens, you might not belive it but i have a few thousands frames with this lens despite the LoCa..;)




I've personally thought that the VG 125/2.5 has been very overrated when it comes to bokeh. In many cases it's too harsh but without being interesting.

Interesting to say the least as there is very little that sets them apart name the LoCa imo.

Most people i know who own and use both pretty much shares the same opinion.


The Minolta 135 STF on the other hand.. well, I can't deny that it does do some very very nice OOF.

Its a unique lens which both Nikon and Canon is far from matching.


(I have not owned either but I borrowed a VG125 for a few weeks a couple of years ago). But as I said, bokeh comes down to personal preference. I absolutely love the crazy bokeh the 21 Disgaton can produce while most people hate it.

For flora shots and closeup work id pick the 125/2,5 VG any day of the week, you must have a very good memory remebering the bokeh rendition compared to the 100/2 makro planar. :D





The MTF charts you see are measured, not theoretical (as Canon's are). So I'll go for proper measurement over anecdotal evidence, if you don't object. ;)

I have not been able to find his tests on DPR. What is Martin's user name?

Thats fine no objection, i take practical results over numbers any day of the week, especially when it comes from people i know and trust.


As for anecdotal, i havent seen you as technical writer in Proffsfoto so you have to forgive me if i dont give you the same credit.;)

Martins username is grevture.

If any mod want to delete my posts to clean up this sample thread, please feel free to do so.

Denoir and i can resort to Pm's or even grab a coffee as we live in the same town. :lol:

Back on track, enjoy your very fine lens Denoir!

[denoir]

A lens easily comparable to the 100/2 planar is the Zeiss 135/1,8.

Never used it and have not seen any MTF charts so I can't say.


For flora shots and closeup work id pick the 125/2,5 VG any day of the week, you must have a very good memory remebering the bokeh rendition compared to the 100/2 makro planar. :D

Not at all. I borrowed it for the bokeh and obviously I still have the pictures. They were taken with a crop camera, so I suppose it's not entirely fair to compare it to the 100/2 on an FF.


Thats fine no objection, i take practical results over numbers any day of the week, especially when it comes from people i know and trust.

And I trust more in numbers over practical results any day - provided that the numbers are from a source that I trust. I bad engineering habit, I suppose ;)

Having said that, I found Martin's 100/2 review. It's not exactly like he provides much detail there but I suppose he must have said more in the actual article.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=26800615


If any mod want to delete my posts to clean up this sample thread, please feel free to do so. Denoir and i can resort to Pm's or even grab a coffee as we live in the same town. :lol:
Back on track, enjoy your very fine lens Denoir!

Thank you. It has been interesting, but I'm willing to end this discussion as well.

Why not post a sample or two yourself? ;)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-44.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-38.jpg

[MR do little]

Why not post a sample or two yourself? ;)


Oh but i dont have any from Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE;)

[denoir]

Oh but i dont have any from Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE;)

ZF adapted or are you completely in league with the dark side? ;)



http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-48.jpg

[MR do little]

ZF adapted or are you completely in league with the dark side? ;)



Oh boy if you only knew.. it's such a blasphemy its not even funny...:lol:

Some very fine images btw, i really like the scenery shots.

[denoir]

Thanks Paul.

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough." - Robert Capa

Although I seriously doubt he had macro photography in mind ;)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-49.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-50.jpg

Crop from the above:

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-51.jpg

[jdizzle]

Ill let Denoir's image answer that question..;)
I see what it is now. That's being picky if you ask me. :)

[jdizzle]

^Nice captures Luka.

[MR do little]

I see what it is now. That's being picky if you ask me. :)

That iv been accused of more then once, and i find no shame in it.:lol:

I think anyone using manual primes for that little extra are picky. :D

Imo the LoCa degrades the bokeh and distracts from the subject , another example where it detracts from the subject is the flower shot in post #199 due to the discoloration of the flowers that are oof.

[Illumined]

That iv been accused of more then once, and i find no shame in it.:lol:

I think anyone using manual primes for that little extra are picky. :D

Imo the LoCa degrades the bokeh and distracts from the subject , another example where it detracts from the subject is the flower shot in post #199 due to the discoloration of the flowers that are oof.
Enough talk. ZF or not -- post up some picks you cynical Sith.

[MR do little]

Enough talk. ZF or not -- post up some picks you cynical Sith.

LOL easy there big guy...:lol:

[denoir]

^Nice captures Luka.

Thanks Julian!

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-52.jpg



The 100 Makro Planarrrr:


http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-53.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-54.jpg

[Stan43]

Working with the new Zeiss 100. I love the lens when you get the focus right. I have ordered the Eg-S screen for the 5D2.

[snowboarder]

So nice to see this grow.
Now something unusual, the wildlife photos taken with 100MP ZE...

:)



http://www.lightandpictures.com/Stuff/5DII_4502.jpg


http://www.lightandpictures.com/Stuff/5DII_4533.jpg

[Double Negative]

^ Glad it was the 100 and not the 21 you were shooting with... ;)

[denoir]

Nice bear Andrew :)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-55.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-56.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-57.jpg

[palaima]

^ OMG the quality of bokeh is just amazing! And the clarity! Did you do a lot of pp? Gorgeous colors as well

[denoir]

^ OMG the quality of bokeh is just amazing! And the clarity! Did you do a lot of pp? Gorgeous colors as well

Thank you.

Zero PP, just resize. Developed from RAW to JPG using standard settings in Lightroom.

[palaima]

I am really stunned by this lens. If the funds will just let me...
By the way, is the 25 f 2.8 good? 21 is a bit too wide for me :)

[denoir]

Not as good as the 21 wide open, but quickly improves. At f/5.6 it catches up for the most part except for the extreme corners where the 21 is better. Overall, the 21 is much better at picking up fine detail. It's not that the 25/2.8 is bad at it - it's the 21 that's abnormally good.

The 25 also only comes in Nikon mount (ZF).

Back to the 100 MP:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-62.jpg

[JelleVerherstraeten]

Back to the 100 MP:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-62.jpg

That's a very nice picture!

[jessartisan]

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-55.jpg
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-56.jpg
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-57.jpg
These are amazing :shock:

[denoir]

Thanks Jelle & Jess. :)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-58.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-63.jpg

[Eclipsed]

Has anyone used this on something that isn't a 5D?

[denoir]

Has anyone used this on something that isn't a 5D?

I've tried it on my 7D but gave up pretty quickly as the (non-replaceable) focus screen makes manual focus a pain. As I prefer the look the 5DII gives me anyway and as when using MF lenses you have no benefit of a good AF system and high FPS I have seen little point in using Zeiss glass on the 7D.

[Lofty]

I'll be joining this list very soon now.

Tracking Number:
73849321000XXXX
Carrier:
FedEx
Order Status:
Shipped (Jun 14, 2010)
Thank you for your patience



Woo hoo!

[denoir]

Nice, then we'll be expecting some images :)

[Ouessant]

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-63.jpg

That's exactly what i look like after seeing the pics in this thread. :lol:
That Zeiss 100 Makro is stunning, if one day i decide to go full frame that's the first lens i'll buy. But then denoir, you'll be in great danger because my wife's gonna know it's all because of YOU !!! ;)

[Lofty]

Id love to see this lens used for some more potrait work.

I'll post some as soon as I get it.

[Combatmedic870]

Id love to see this lens used for some more potrait work.

I'll post some as soon as I get it.

+1!!!!!!!!

[denoir]

That's exactly what i look like after seeing the pics in this thread. :lol:
That Zeiss 100 Makro is stunning, if one day i decide to go full frame that's the first lens i'll buy. But then denoir, you'll be in great danger because my wife's gonna know it's all because of YOU !!! ;)

:D

No, no, you need to justify the purchase in the right way. The lens is not for your enjoyment. It's for taking great pictures of ****. **** = her hobby, your children if you have any or simply just her. ;)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-59.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-65.jpg

[IUnknown]

I used this lens on my honeymoon on a 7D with a Z-Finder to focus. Don't see much talk about using loups instead of focusing screens on the forums, and wonder why? I'll post some pictures tonight.

[denoir]

I used this lens on my honeymoon on a 7D with a Z-Finder to focus. Don't see much talk about using loups instead of focusing screens on the forums, and wonder why? I'll post some pictures tonight.

I use a Z-finder on occasion as well, but I'm not too fond of it for that purpose (love it for handheld video though). The problem is that while focusing on getting pixel focus accuracy I move the camera and ruin the overall composition. So when not using a tripod I prefer the optical viewfinder even if I lose accuracy. The exception are macro shots where the DOF is so thin that it's impossible to get it exactly where you want without using live view.

[IUnknown]

Thats true Denoir. I feel like I'm using the force when I'm trying to nail down my composition. What did you mean by non replaceable focus screen on the 7D? Just that it voids the warranty if you do it yourself? I thought I saw instructions somewhere on changing out the focus screen on the 7D, although it was recommended to take it into canon.

[denoir]

The 7D focus screen hasn't been designed to be changed by the user and Canon doesn't offer alternative focusing screens. On the 5DII you just pop it out and place a different one. It's as simple as changing a lens. On a 7D you have to basically perform surgery on the camera. You will definitely void the warranty and I seriously doubt that Canon would assist you to install a third party focus screen.

Having said that, if you are willing to void the warranty and not a afraid of doing a bit of unscrewing of camera parts then there are a number of third party focusing screens designed for the 7D that you can use.

[BlueTsunami]

Not as good as the 21 wide open, but quickly improves. At f/5.6 it catches up for the most part except for the extreme corners where the 21 is better. Overall, the 21 is much better at picking up fine detail. It's not that the 25/2.8 is bad at it - it's the 21 that's abnormally good.

The 25 also only comes in Nikon mount (ZF).

Back to the 100 MP:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-62.jpg

Oh man, this is gorgeous. The blur quality is insane!

[Illumined]

I love and hate this thread at the same time. I can't bring myself to unsubscribe though. >_<

[Ouessant]

I love and hate this thread at the same time. I can't bring myself to unsubscribe though. >_<

+1
Every day I come here to get my slap in the face ! :D

[niwooe]

+1
Every day I come here to get my slap in the face ! :D

SAME! :lol:

[denoir]

Slap time ;)

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-67.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-68.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-58.jpg

[denoir]

Cousin 35/2:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-70.jpg

[jdizzle]

^You need to stop slapping that 35 in my face! :) ;):p

[Illumined]

^You need to stop slapping that 35 in my face! :) ;):p
It is a great lens man...I just need to decide between the EC-S and the EC-C IV to assist in MF on a body that is with LV (ref. 1Ds II).

[denoir]

I'm really addicted to this lens. I can't let one day go by without at least a couple of shots - even if I really have nothing of interest to photograph. Today was sort of a low mark - I only had time to take a few snaps from my balcony..

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-73.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-71.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-74.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-72.jpg

[palaima]

^ Very beautiful!

[denoir]

Thanks Paulius!

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-80.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-81.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-83.jpg

[Lofty]

Well it finally got here.

I didnt have time to play with it much so I was just messing with the focus.....its gonna take some getting used to manual focus. I figured what better subject to try it out on than my 18 month old daughter who could not sit still or stop moving if the fate of the world depended on it.

Out of 30 clicks, maybe 2-3 were even slightly in focus. There wasnt enough light in the room to close down the aperture so I could get more DOF.

Anyways, heres one of the first shots taken with my brand new baby.....of my kinda brand new baby.



While not as artful or pretty as Denoirs stuff, in my extremely biased opinion, the subject matter more than makes up for it. I cant wait to get this thing outside today and see what I can do with it.


http://images53.fotki.com/v1609/photos/2/25033/1861530/IMG_2965-vi.jpg

[denoir]

Congrats Lofty! If you plan on taking manual focus pictures of a child that is up until say 6 years old then you are fighting a losing battle. Typically you don't just need AF but you need a really fast AF and a camera with a good AF system. :)

Speaking of focus, have you replaced the default focusing screen? I was completely unable to get anything into focus until I got the EG-S screen.

Right, pictures... let's find some.

Ok, this one is basically just a technical shot showing off the detail and micro contrast of a 100MP rendering:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-85.jpg

[Illumined]

Speaking of focus, have you replaced the default focusing screen? I was completely unable to get anything into focus until I got the EG-S screen.

This is exactly what I am noticing with the OEM 1Ds II VF. When I shot with the 1D III (a 1.3x crop mind you), I didn't even like the EC-S version compared to that screen that is stock for the 1D III.

Can't wait to get my EC-C IV. :D

[Lofty]

Ive been playing with live view for right now.

The cool thing about makros is that even when you live in a boring place to shoot like Miami, stepping into your back yard can find at least somewhat interesting subjects to shoot.


http://images56.fotki.com/v1600/photos/2/25033/1861530/IMG_3094-vi.jpg

http://images116.fotki.com/v1596/photos/2/25033/1861530/IMG_3091-vi.jpg

[denoir]

Very nice - I see you've discovered the combination of ultra smooth blur out of focus and the critical sharpness of the in focus areas.

[Illumined]

Ive been playing with live view for right now.

I even you. How I missed that now having a 1Ds II that I have a love/hate relationship but hey, it's a step up from having no relationship or interest in using it.

I'll just wait for the 1Ds III prices to drop on the used market; when Canon officially announces the 1Ds IV and in my opinion, a new camera too far off in the future.

P.S.
That's an interesting Anole there.

[Lofty]

Another boring test shot but Im really working on trying to hit moving targets with MF.

Im getting pretty good following my dog around in the back yard. Soon Ill have the courage to work up to following my daughter! That should be an excercise in futility.

http://images54.fotki.com/v551/photos/2/25033/1861530/IMG_3285-vi.jpg

crop

http://images56.fotki.com/v1601/photos/2/25033/1861530/IMG_32851-vi.jpg

[airvincent]

Great lens great shots, should get one :P

[commonjunks]

After looking at these pictures, i am in love with this lens.
I am not sure if it is good to use on 1DM3 or best result will be only at FF?

[denoir]

The best result is on FF, but that's not the main problem. The 1DIII has no live view which is often a necessity for this lens in order to get perfect focus at the exact spot where you want it.

[Lofty]

http://images53.fotki.com/v1610/photos/3/25033/8808438/IMG_3473-vi.jpg

[mblight]

Lovely shots everyone. I'm hoping to pick up the ZF version sometime.

[Lofty]

Hmmm......why am I seeing some artifacts in my picture that when I look at it on my screen, theyre not there. when I download it to my photo server it looks crappy.

Is it an issue with resizing?

[denoir]

Looks like you are using too high jpeg compression. Speaking of resizing, what method do you use?

[Lofty]

Im not resizing them. I just do a minor levels adjustment in photoshop.....maybe one unsharp mask if it needs it and then thats it. I shoot in jpeg so I just save and close. I upload from there to Fotki....my photo server. I have a really fast internet connection so my upload speeds are quick and fotki has no limit, so I dont bother resizing for web.....should I?


When I look at that photo full size with irfanview, its beautiful and glassy looking, no seams or artifacts.

The link posted here looks horrible.

[denoir]

Yes, you should definitely resize for web! And you should not use the default (bicubic) resize function. If you don't do the resizing properly, you are throwing away may of the benefits of the Zeiss glass.

To avoid repeating myself, see this post:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=10409087&postcount=174

The specific problem with the image above however is that it has been compressed to death. Those are nasty JPEG artifacts that you see.

I would also recommend that you start shooting RAW as it has loads more color information. So when you resize less damage is done compared to a JPEG. Not to mention that you'll have much more flexibility in exposure adjustment. Zeiss & Canon metering aren't always best friends so increasing and decreasing the exposure somewhat is something one has to do now and then. If you are stuck with a JPEG your IQ will drop significantly with any modifications...

The RAW thing is just a general suggestion and is actually much more important for when you use Canon glass that unlike Zeiss tends to require PP. The resizing thing on the other hand is really critical for Zeiss images. Otherwise you are destroying the fine detail in the image. Not a great loss with Canon glass, but a significant one with Zeiss.

[Lofty]

OK, I saw that post.....

So not to hijack this thread but when you resize, you only mention width, Im assuming you constrain proportions?

And youre resizing after resharpening, then resize again?

[denoir]

OK, I saw that post.....

So not to hijack this thread but when you resize, you only mention width, Im assuming you constrain proportions?

And you rezing after resharpening, then resize again?

Yepp the proportions are constrained. I have an equivalent function for portrait orientation.

And yes, I resize it in three steps with sharpening before each resize. The reason is to preserve the details. Going directly from full resolution to 1024x.. will result in details getting lost. That's actually a quick-and-dirty resize method. Some people use ten or even twenty resize steps.

[Lofty]

Really......wow, thats great information.

Thanks, I couldnt figure out why my pictures looked so much better when viewing directly from the file on my computer. I look at some of your pics and think, "Man, can you imagine how great the original looks if his web version looks that great?"

[Lofty]

Actually, so that I dont blow this thread out, can I PM you a few questions regarding this topic?

[denoir]

Full size images will always of course look better than their small counterpart, but some of the quality can be preserved if one is careful with resizing. Of course, just PM me. Or just ask it here - if you think the information could be useful to others. Just post a picture now and then to go along with the text ;)


http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-93.jpg

[Lofty]

OK, that makes sense, this could benefit others as well.

OK, heres one I just took but with the new 35mm that came in today.

I resized it with your method and saved it in PS as a JPEG. When I open it in irfanview however, it says its the same size as it was originally and its still close to 13 mbs in file size. The when I upload it to Fotki, the image info says its 800x533.....but I saved it as 1024 in width.

does fotki resize it again?


http://images17.fotki.com/v524/photos/2/25033/305681/IMG_3487-vi.jpg

[denoir]

OK, that makes sense, this could benefit others as well.
does fotki resize it again?


Yes, since it's 800 pixels and should be 1024 pixels.

This is what my resize to 800px (landscape) script looks like. I have used it very little though so it's probably not as optimized as my 1024px script:
http://peltarion.eu/img/sharpen800.JPG

Since it's a new page, I might as well post an image:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-91.jpg

[Lofty]

Hmmm....can you suggest a better picture server that doesnt resize so small?

Also, why does my file size still show 5616 even after saving it in photoshop as 1024?

[denoir]

Hmmm....can you suggest a better picture server that doesnt resize so small?

Dunno. I'm using a regular web site hosting and upload the images by FTP. For my web gallery I use Zenfolio - they butcher the images somewhat but it's not as bad as some other providers.

Photobucket perhaps? I've seen Zeiss users that are very picky about their sharpening techniques using it. Don't have any personal experience of it though.


Also, why does my file size still show 5616 even after saving it in photoshop as 1024?

Where does the size not change?

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-27.jpg

[Lofty]

After I use your resizing method, and save it as a jpeg. The I open the file in ifanview and check the file size....its the same as the original, PS doesnt resize it even though I saved it that way.

[denoir]

After I use your resizing method, and save it as a jpeg. The I open the file in ifanview and check the file size....its the same as the original, PS doesnt resize it even though I saved it that way.

Your last step in the process is that you do an "Image Size" and put 1024px as width. Then you save the file (Save As...)?`

In that case ifanview isn't showing you the correct image - or you are simply looking at the wrong file. What do you see if you look in windows explorer?

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-39.jpg

I'm running out of uploaded but previously unposted images here :D

[Lofty]

Yeah, heres my last step. I click OK, and then "save as" and I rename it so i know Im looking at the right file later.

I cant imagine why PS is not saving it at the right size.

http://images114.fotki.com/v1606/photos/2/25033/1861530/Clipboard01-vi.jpg

[Ouessant]

Ouch ! My eyes hurt. Too sharp... :lol:
Seriously denoir, you're a torturer. :rolleyes:

[denoir]

Yeah, heres my last step. I click OK, and then "save as" and I rename it so i know Im looking at the right file later.

I cant imagine why PS is not saving it at the right size.


I don't know - have you tried using "Save For Web.." instead of "save as"?

By the way, that shouldn't be the last step. In the screenshot the width is 5616. If you followed the steps that I outlined then you should be at an intermediate width (2000px).

Ouch ! My eyes hurt. Too sharp... :lol:
Seriously denoir, you're a torturer. :rolleyes:

:lol:

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-95.jpg

[Lofty]

Im doing something wrong then....if you look at were you input the value its at 1024.

[Lofty]

LOL....never mind....Im an idiot. PS Elements is different than PS CS....Im getting used to it.


Hows this, does it look better than the first version? It seems like it does to me.

http://images116.fotki.com/v1595/photos/3/25033/8808438/IMG_3474-vi.jpg

[denoir]

Loads better. Much less jpeg compression artifacts. Open them in separate tabs and flip between them and you'll see the difference. There is still something going on in the bokeh that looks like compression artifacts but it could be noise banding. Did you increase the exposure in post? Had it not been for that, I would have recommended additional smart sharpening (0.2 radius 100% 1-3 times) to really bring out the sharpness of the in-focus flowers and make them pop. I'm afraid that in this case it will sabotage the background.

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-99.jpg

[Lofty]

Yeah I see it too....unfortunately its in the original photo as well.

That was shot at 200 ISO...which is as low as I can go cause I was using highlight tone priority.

[LamontSanders]

Focused on the eye. No ducks around so she will do. Pretty pleased with the lens, especially for a quick test shot!

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1009/4731417809_8af6b3d208.jpg

[1980]

Hi guys, let me join you with this nice lens.....

[1980]

zeiss

[1980]

100 macro.......

[commonjunks]

The best result is on FF, but that's not the main problem. The 1DIII has no live view which is often a necessity for this lens in order to get perfect focus at the exact spot where you want it.
Thank you denoir for your reply. I can use live view to take snapshot. You mean 1DM3 cannot use live view to shoot?

[t60p]

Thank you denoir for your reply. I can use live view to take snapshot. You mean 1DM3 cannot use live view to shoot?

The Zeiss 100 f/2 works just fine on the 1DM3 with live view.

[denoir]

Sorry, mea culpa, I don't know what I was thinking of. Possibly my mind wandered off to the 5D which has no live view. Yes, of course, the 1D3 has live view - my bad. It's not as high-res as the newer ones but I don't think getting pixel accuracy should be too much of a problem at 10x.

[LamontSanders]

Pretty stellar landscape lens too.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1138/4734975212_772e24327e.jpg

[denoir]

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-104.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-105.jpg

[1980]

WOW!!! Denoir! How you made it with this lens? So close up and detailed! Great work!!!

[denoir]

Thanks 1980 :)

[Stan43]

First post with the 100 Makro. Not as easy to focus as the 21ZE but I will get it. Love the lens!

[Stan43]

Had to post one more!

[Illumined]

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-105.jpg
Did FS this picture, Denoir? Either way, hot stuff.

[denoir]

Thanks. FS? The only modification to the images was a slight exposure adjustment (+1/2 stop) and the resizing to web size.

[Illumined]

Thanks. FS? The only modification to the images was a slight exposure adjustment (+1/2 stop) and the resizing to web size.
FS is short for focus-stacked (at least in my world of acronyms). In any event, it seems that this was not the case so I will reiterate the nice shot you made, Luka.

[denoir]

Thank you :) Nope, single shots, wide open IIRC. I did however have to prod the bug with my finger to get it to move around ;)

Something completely different:

http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-102.jpg


http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-103.jpg

[Lofty]

So you are not doing anything in post regarding color? What about settings in your camera?

You colors are so subdued.....like warm pastels. Very pleasing to the eye.