1. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    He is indeed! I saw him and said “hi” to him and I subconsciously went away and bought one within 5mins.

    It was literally what happened!
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  2. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    :LOL::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:
     
  3. woof woof

    woof woof

    Messages:
    17,354
    Name:
    Alan
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Well, the mirrorless choices may be a bit wider at some point if/when the repeated rumors eventually come to pass. I can't imagine what would tempt me to buy a Canikon CSC though, maybe if my A7 died and there was a really nice Nikon.

    We managed a few hours out over the weekend as it was our anniversary. A7 and Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 but at f8 all day long :D

    Admiring the view.

    DSC01078.JPG

    "Aren't you coming?"

    DSC01081.JPG

    Not at the top yet.

    DSC01088.JPG

    A dull and a bit hazy but warm and close day, looking down at Scarborough.

    DSC01098.JPG
     
    CharleyBird and SsSsSsSsSnake like this.
  4. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    35 art has arrived :banana:
     
  5. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I ordered another zeiss 35 lol
     
  6. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It works :D

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    macvisual, Hogboy and twist like this.
  7. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,926
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Don't quite know what it is but the out of focus areas look a bit weird to me. :thinking:

    There seems to be a sort of pattern around the dog, like small circles. And the trees and top of the house behind the young lady give the appearance of moving. The sharp areas seem very sharp. Can anyone else see it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  8. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I know what you mean, it looks busy, but you can't get the Canon 35L natively onto it so I just have to "settle" for this.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  9. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,926
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Phew, so I'm not seeing things. :eek: :LOL:

    So what combination of camera and lens are they?
     
  10. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    A73 and Zeiss 35/1.4 Distagon.

    (The Canon 35L mk2 is still my fav 35mm)
     
  11. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,926
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thanks, so that must be with an adapter if it is this lens. So which adapter, and does the lens have a similar effect on the oof areas with a Canon? :thinking:

    Sorry for so many questions, but the oof areas seem odd, and if that is the lens I think it is above, and the cost of that, I would be extremely unhappy with those results.

    As long as you and your clients are happy though that is all that matters. :)
     
  12. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Because I prefer the Canon L, most of the time I shoot dual body over the last 2 weddings with these combo.

    Canon/35L
    Sony/85.1,8

    So there weren't that many examples of the 35 Zeiss used.
     
  13. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Don't tell everyone who keeps saying the Zeiss bokeh isn't nervous :LOL:
     
  14. SsSsSsSsSnake

    SsSsSsSsSnake

    Messages:
    7,881
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I can literally imagine myself on that seat in your first photo,lovely view,wish i was there
     
  15. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    EVERY wider lens will do that with busy/detail areas like grass and leaves etc. The Zeiss has really good OOF areas. What are you trying to compare it against? EDIT The bits around the top of the building could be editing or CA, without seeing the original raw we won't know.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  16. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    First one out... 35 ART, POP.

    [​IMG]
     
    nandbytes and JohnBradbury like this.
  17. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,926
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I bow to your superior knowledge about every lens. ;)

    I decided to comment in the first place because each image looked odd (to me) in different ways. I've seen many very nice images from Raymond in this thread and others over the years, but wasn't sure whether I was imagining what I was seeing, so I asked. I had no idea what the set up was with regards to lens, and maybe also an adapter, only that it would most probably be taken with a Sony camera in this thread. If it was the Zeiss lens I linked to earlier I am very surprised for a lens so expensive, and I do not find the artefacts attractive, and indeed slightly distracting.

    Raymond has said it would not be his first choice of lens, but hopefully he is happy enough with what he has had to 'settle' with.
     
    twist likes this.
  18. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thank you ;). You said you'd be extremely unhappy, I was just wondering what you were comparing against. As said, I can definitely see the ugliness around the building which I'd hope was a case of quick PP.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  19. F/1.4

    F/1.4

    Messages:
    1,689
    Name:
    Anthony
    Edit My Images:
    No
    No 35mm lens has amazing bokeh. Its a WIDE angle lol

    There is trade offs in all optical designs, higher sharpness has an impact on Bokeh etc.

    I used the Zeiss 35 for a few hours the other night and it sat in my camera all day today during the wedding. In my opinion is isnt even worth the same price as the Art never mind twice that
     
    jj_glos and twist like this.
  20. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
  21. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,926
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I'm comparing them to similar shallow depth of field pics I've seen over the years. Obviously not that particular combo, because I didn't know what that was, and haven't known exactly what the camera/lenses of other images I've seen in the past, but to me the oof areas in those pics was enough out of the ordinary for me to comment. If Raymond had said it was a 40 year old Cosina or whatever lens then I wouldn't have been too surprised, that it is a very expensive modern lens surprised me. :eek: If you feel they are what is to be expected for the most part though, then again, I bow to your superior knowledge. :) When I factored in the cost of the lens, then that was when I would have been really unhappy. ;)

    This leads me to think that that lens may be more name than performance when it comes to the price. But what do I know, I don't own it and never will. :)
     
  22. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,926
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Now this is how I expect the oof areas to be. For me nothing jumps out as being wrong or unusual, and so you can just enjoy the image.
     
  23. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Same lens :p
     
    twist likes this.
  24. redhed17

    redhed17

    Messages:
    4,926
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I thought it may be, ;) but nevertheless it doesn't have any of the things I was seeing in the other pics. I know they are different scenes, especially compared to the pic of the dog, but nothing in the background jars with me in the last pic.
     
  25. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Apparently canon is better and has good bokeh.

    I bet the AF is better and it's better weather sealed (never thought I'd ever say that about Sony gear!).
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  26. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Nah it's a overall better lens than sigma. Even the samyang is somewhat better than sigma only it's AF isn't reliable sometimes.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  27. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    My Zeiss 35 is coming on Thursday :banana:
    Here's to hoping it's a decent copy:banghead:
     
  28. decigallen

    decigallen

    Messages:
    836
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It's near twice the price. It would need to be twice as good to justify that, and from using it I'm not even sure it's objectively better, never mind twice as good. I've not tried the SY to comment on it but having unreliable AF would rule it out for me regardless of what else it can do.
     
  29. Raymond Lin

    Raymond Lin

    Messages:
    5,510
    Name:
    Raymond
    Edit My Images:
    No
    We all know when things, anything, gets to a certain point it’s all great and there is no twice as good for twice the price.

    You’d think some £2000 headphones is 10x as good as £200 ones?

    After a certain point it’s all about the micro details and what you prefer.
     
  30. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Sure, if you like a decentred, purple halo, only truly sharp from f2 lottery lens that's twice the price. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
    F/1.4 likes this.
  31. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    It's not like it's soft at f1.4 and like I mentioned previously if you are shooting f1.4 rendering wins over critical sharpness.

    Well I am playing the lottery again. Let see how it goes. This time it's from LCE, the chaps even tested it for me so hopefully it's good.
    Sigma has equal amount of CA apparently
     
  32. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    As Raymond pointed it out its law of diminishing returns which is especially true in photography.
    SZ as it stands now is the cheaper option for me. I can sell it back at no loss, sigma will definitely incur a loss since I'll have to buy it new.
    If I could get e-mount sigma used I'd definitely buy it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  33. F/1.4

    F/1.4

    Messages:
    1,689
    Name:
    Anthony
    Edit My Images:
    No
  34. CharleyBird

    CharleyBird

    Messages:
    144
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Have they had enough already :wave:
     
  35. trevorbray

    trevorbray

    Messages:
    4,461
    Name:
    Trevor
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    F/1.4 likes this.
  36. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    It definitely doesn't from a quick test yesterday, will do some thorough testing over the weekend. That's like saying an old vintage lens renders better because it's softer.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  37. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Old vintage lenses sometimes do render nicely and so do some older non-vintage lenses like canon 85mm/1.2L. but that's not because they are soft lol.

    No my first Zeiss was great. Someone made me an offer I couldn't refuse. A wedding dress shop owner wanting it to shoot models wearing their wedding dress. I even told them it'd cheaper to buy sigma or samyang but they wanted the Zeiss.

    I bought another because I found one in LCE and they agreed to give me a nice little discount to match the price I paid for it previously. Also they tested the lens for me on a tripod which was nice.
    I did intend to get sigma but I don't want to pay full new price for it. Rather keep the Zeiss till I find a used one at a good price.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  38. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sounds like samyang have ironed out their AF further in 24mm f2.8. it's seems nearly silent and reliable. They seem to be iteratively fixing their AF with every new lens. Here's hoping we'll see a small 85mm f1.4 like the canon EF version with good AF.
     
    stevelmx5 likes this.
  39. twist

    twist

    Messages:
    13,295
    Edit My Images:
    No
    But that doesn't mean it renders better. Nicely is not better in all cases, it renders slightly smoother OOF but as has already been proven by Raymond and my own tests it's not appealing in all situations because of other optical issues. Regarding the Samyang, within 5 minutes I preferred the Sigma but I'll run some more tests.

    Good luck with the new lens.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2018
  40. nandbytes

    nandbytes

    Messages:
    2,993
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I purposefully didn't say better. It's subjective.

    I like the Zeiss. I have nothing against sigma. I had it in a-mount and preferred it to Sony (thier a-mount 35mm/1.4 G sucks also :p )
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice