What's so special about ZEISS lens?

nicksan wrote in post #9938405
Better be...at f/8.

Hahaha...what? I was focusing by scale and making sure anything from 5 feet to infinity was in focus. I could shoot at F2.8 but the bokeh would be as bad and the DOF won't be that shallow. The 21mm isn't known to have good OOF area and smooth bokeh. At 2.8, I have to manually focus either through the viewfinder or the AF confirmation. There is little point in AF shooting with a wide angle lens. At F8, anything beyond 4 feet you are focusing at infinity anyway.

jetcode wrote in post #9938389
@ too many shots

were these images captured handheld or tripod based? ...
nice crisp images with minimal PP (I assume), at least that's been my experience with this lens

Handheld. I can shoot down to 1/20s with this lens handheld. ISO 2000 the most. 1dmarkIII. Most of them a bit overexposed. Can easily adjust them in raw. A bit sharpening in RAW in DPP. White balance tweak in DPP of course given the condition I was shooting in. Normal level and brightness adjustments. That's it. I had Contrast set to 2 in the camera profile but I think I have to set to "0" since everything I have been shooting so far has a lot of contrast... Maybe the glass I have been using.

TooManyShots wrote in post #9938458
There is little point in AF shooting with a wide angle lens. At F8, anything beyond 4 feet you are focusing at infinity anyway.

So what's stopping me from auto focusing on something around 4 - 5 feet then recomposing knowing that at f8, I've got plenty of margin for achieving proper focus?

Just different ways to get to the same place, no?

BTW, nice photos.

Can anyone clue me in on what's so special about these photos (or any other for that matter) that oozes ZEISS quality? And I mean specifically this line of Zeiss lenses...

That's a serious question BTW.

TooManyShots wrote in post #9938458
Hahaha...what? I was focusing by scale and making sure anything from 5 feet to infinity was in focus. I could shoot at F2.8 but the bokeh would be as bad and the DOF won't be that shallow. The 21mm isn't known to have good OOF area and smooth bokeh. At 2.8, I have to manually focus either through the viewfinder or the AF confirmation. There is little point in AF shooting with a wide angle lens. At F8, anything beyond 4 feet you are focusing at infinity anyway.

So the 21 has a good DoF scale?

nicksan wrote in post #9938548
So what's stopping me from auto focusing on something around 4 - 5 feet then recomposing knowing that at f8, I've got plenty of margin for achieving proper focus?

Just different ways to get to the same place, no?

BTW, nice photos.

Can anyone clue me in on what's so special about these photos (or any other for that matter) that oozes ZEISS quality? And I mean specifically this line of Zeiss lenses...

That's a serious question BTW.

Depending what lens you are shooting with? On a wide angle lens like the 17-40 or 16-35, when using AF, the focusing mark on the lens barrel would be at the infinity mark when the subject is about 4 feet away. As soon as you stop down to F4 or smaller. This is only as accurate as the AF on the body. The lens focusing scale provides little information. That strikes me as odd when I was shooting with a 17-40L. The focusing mark is always at infinity regardless at what aperture I was using!!!!! I just didn't shoot anything closer than 2 feet to find AF on a wide angle lens helpful.

On a Carl Zeiss 21mm ZE or any other manual focus only lens, you have the focusing distance scale. You have total control at what distance you need to be within in order to use various aperture settings. If I shoot at F4 or larger, I have to stand back at least 6 feet away from the subject to get a clearer focus. At F16, it is 2 to 3 feet. I generally use hyperfocal focusing when shooting the Zeiss 21mm when shallow DOF isn't desirable or possible.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9938591
So the 21 has a good DoF scale?

Very simple and accurate, at least on a 1.3x crop body. If I place the focusing index at F8, it would show me that 6 feet to infinity would be in focus. On a 1d, I think is more like 5 feet. On a 1.6x crop body, I think it is even closer. I am not doing the math on hyperfocal focusing. Trials and errors. I haven't gotten a blurry shot because I used the wrong focusing index.

TooManyShots wrote in post #9938675
Very simple and accurate, at least on a 1.3x crop body. If I place the focusing index at F8, it would show me that 6 feet to infinity would be in focus. On a 1d, I think is more like 5 feet. On a 1.6x crop body, I think it is even closer. I am not doing the math on hyperfocal focusing. Trials and errors. I haven't gotten a blurry shot because I used the wrong focusing index.

Good to know and the reason I ask is thats exactly the way I usually work when I'm shooting landscapes or anything where its absolutely important to have everything sharp or for me to know what is going to be sharp. The ones on my 35L and 24L are not nears as good as the ones that were on my old FD or Hasselblad Zeiss lenses.

Heres shot of the DoF scale on my old 24L fd lens and if you notice I have it set at f/16 and the way I have it positioned/focused everything from about 2.25 ft to infinity at f/16 will be in focus.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9938729
Heres shot of the DoF scale on my old 24L fd lens and if you notice I have it set at f/16 and the way I have it positioned/focused everything from about 2.25 ft to infinity at f/16 will be in focus.

Hehe...I articulated wrong. I was referring to the min distance is actually the center of the frame. At F8, 6 feet is at the center of the frame. The entire focus range is from 3 feet to infinity.

The distance scale should be the same. F16, 2 feet to infinity. Center of the frame is 3.5 feet.

nicksan wrote in post #9938548
Can anyone clue me in on what's so special about these photos (or any other for that matter) that oozes ZEISS quality? And I mean specifically this line of Zeiss lenses...

That's a serious question BTW.

If you have to ask, you're not a photographer. You're just another person who wouldn't run into a burning house to save his snaps that are already backed up elsewhere.

cdifoto wrote in post #9938808
If you have to ask, you're not a photographer. You're just another person who wouldn't run into a burning house to save his snaps that are already backed up elsewhere.

man thats some chip

TooManyShots wrote in post #9938759
Hehe...I articulated wrong. I was referring to the min distance is actually the center of the frame. At F8, 6 feet is at the center of the frame. The entire focus range is from 3 feet to infinity.

The distance scale should be the same. F16, 2 feet to infinity. Center of the frame is 3.5 feet.

Thats one thing that I really miss about newer lenses is that fact the scales are not as accurate or as easy to read.

cdifoto wrote in post #9938808
If you have to ask, you're not a photographer. You're just another person who wouldn't run into a burning house to save his snaps that are already backed up elsewhere.

Hey Nick, next time we are out again, I let you use my Carl Zeiss 21mm. The 21mm has this special ability to render the blue very brilliantly even as though you were using a circular polarizer filter. Micro contrast. The ability to bring out shadowy area of the subject.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9938821
man thats some chip

Elementary sarcasm, Watson.

TooManyShots wrote in post #9938997
Hey Nick, next time we are out again, I let you use my Carl Zeiss 21mm. The 21mm has this special ability to render the blue very brilliantly even as though you were using a circular polarizer filter. Micro contrast. The ability to bring out shadowy area of the subject.

Nick I recommend this too. You have to use this lens to get a sense of why it gets such airplay in photography circles. It's bright, sharp, great color, solid highlight and shadow detail, and in my experience very little PP compared to the L lenses I used for landscape (35L, 85L). I never used a 50L for landscape and the 135L was really the best of the lot in terms of IQ in my opinion.

zincozinco wrote in post #9934772
Id say this is key, nothing to do with lens maker, there has been quite an hype on the Zeiss lenses of last in this forum but really its about the locations. They are very good MF primes but so is canon primes. But for the cheaper value it think they are a great choice.

Nothing in 35mm will touch a properly exposed 8x10 chrome enlarged to 16x20 (2x), 30x40 or 40x50 (8x). The detail and clarity will blow you away. Absolutely stunning.

As much as the many don't want to hear about Zeiss IQ the buzz isn't going away anytime soon. I say shoot what works for you and leave everyone to their own choice, no wars.