The Zeiss Look™

  • Page

    of 1

    Previous Next
  • Deleted user 28 November 2010 15:29:39
    Found a 25mm Distagon on ebay last week and finally bought it on Friday, it's been shipped now. While doing research - mostly considering a new Zeiss vs converting an older Contax/Yashica one - I've stumbled across this thread of examples:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/822469

    Loving the strong colours and contrast, almost Fujifilm Velvia like, although much more pleasant for the eye when it comes to rendering people's faces. Some amazing examples on that page and you can definitely see where the "3d look" comments come from. Mind blowing lens quality really!
  • Deleted user 28 November 2010 15:47:57
    Portrait shot with 35mm, f/1.4: O_O

    http://cyberphotographer.com/5D/CZ351.4/0805lowrez.jpg
  • mal 28 Nov 2010 15:51:02 22,456 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I don't understand how a lump of carefully shaped and coloured and coated glass can give you effects like that - tone and colour considerations are usually handled by the film/sensor - but I do agree, most of those shots look lovely. Must be magic (re Clarke's third law).

    Edit: Fantastic portrait, though like many good portraits there looks to be a proportion of trial and error - getting his eyes and mouth in focus at such a large aperture at the same time helps that shot immensely.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Deleted user 28 November 2010 16:25:53
    Indeed. I think it's a combination of fantastic micro contrast and very realistic rendering of colours and out of focus details. Just look at this basic shot:

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/93/373993.jpg
  • otto Moderator 28 Nov 2010 17:16:42 49,314 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I had a 25 Biogon, it was a lovely lens, though I traded it in for a 28 Summicron which is even nicer.

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • Deleted user 29 November 2010 13:36:32
    On a Leica body otto I presume?

    You know you can convert those lenses to most modern DSLRs? I was tempted for a bit, conversion prices were decent really but that plus the cost of an old lens was almost as much as a new fitted with my (Nikkor) mount.
  • otto Moderator 29 Nov 2010 21:32:58 49,314 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    valli, yes & yes (though I think they'd be hard to use on a DSLR given the difficulty of manual focus with DSLR viewfinders).

    say no to Eurogamer sigs

  • Jeepers 29 Nov 2010 21:40:33 13,175 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    How're you finding the M9 (and luvverly lenses) Otto? Have you had much time to get out shooting?
  • Nth 30 Nov 2010 14:03:15 3,121 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    You've gone 0.8 over the M scale there for otto :D
  • Deleted user 2 December 2010 22:19:02
    Took a few tests today, unfortunately with an ancient camera. Will do more once I get the D7000. It really is a lovely lens though:

    http://picasaweb.google.com/valli.noghin/CZDistagonTests#
  • Tonka 3 Jan 2011 12:16:59 20,222 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Post more pics please. I'm lens hunting and I need some inspiration.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Deleted user 3 January 2011 14:34:51
    What exactly are you looking for?

    Some long exposure stuff shot in bloody freezing -20 degrees night with the Distagon:
    http://picasaweb.google.com/valli.noghin/Winter2010FullMoon#

    I'm really happy with the lens, it's a bit on the heavy side though. Another purchase has been a Nikkor 55/1.2 AI which I'll receive shortly.

    Wouldn't mind having a wider, smaller alternative to the Distagon, looking right now at a Voigtländer 20mm prime or Nikkor's 20mm/2.8 AI-s. So many lovely primes out there!

    You could even go crazy with a M42 converter for your body and start hunting super cheap quality M42 lenses. Some of their output is absolutely fantastic even today like Carl Zeiss/CZ Jena or Pentax Super Takumars.
  • Tonka 3 Jan 2011 14:55:41 20,222 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I got an Olympus OM 50mm f1.8 lens that I love and got for next to nothing (still trying to get rid of the camera house I got with it...)

    I don't really need a new lens but it's fun to browse. I have a soft spot for wide angles though. Never really gotten into tele photo.

    Maybe I should get a manual tele lens then...

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Tonka 3 Jan 2011 14:58:02 20,222 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Cool pictures. Weirdly bright with the full moon on the snow.
    This one looks downright scary

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Deleted user 3 January 2011 15:05:00
    That's the only picture I tweaked, don't ask me why I wanted lower contrast. Glad it did something to you - it means it was the right move to post process it! :)

    Those Olympuses are ace, keep reading very good things about them. What body is it for?

    I'd recommend the 135/f4 CZ Jena Triotar. Costs nothing, _3_ lenses inside and magnificent OOF details:
    http://photos.ferling.net/zeiss_jena_triotar_135mm
  • mal 3 Jan 2011 15:05:52 22,456 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Wow, those long exposures with the D7000 make it look almost like daytime.

    The only problem with DX bodies (apart from the bigger DoF) is at the wide end. The only affordable Nikkor prime out wide is at 24mm, which at 36mm equivalent is wide, but not nearly as wide as it'd be on an FX body. The real benefit to DX is being able to use smaller or cheaper lenses, which makes it a bit odd that I only seem to be able to convince myself to get FX primes.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Tonka 3 Jan 2011 15:11:20 20,222 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    valli wrote:
    Those Olympuses are ace, keep reading very good things about them. What body is it for?

    My Olympus (heh) E-PL1. It's surprisingly heavy compared to my other M43 lenses. Then again it's made of real metal. Plus I need the adapter that is alos made of metal. But I love the results.

    Blåmes
    My son
    The first shot I took with it that completely blew my head off.

    I had been somewhat underwhelmed with my new camera until I took that shot, which was just me trying to figure out manual focus.


    Wait
    Did you mean the original body? Then it's the Olympus OM-10.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Deleted user 3 January 2011 15:23:47
    I meant the digital body Tonka. Wow, lovely shots, esp. 2 and 3. A bit distracting highlights in the first IMHO.

    I think you can use an M42 adapter on the E-PL1 without any stupid glass between like I have to do on the D7000. The quality of that glass is usually awful, luckily I only need it if I want to focus at infinity.

    Definitely get the Triotar then, your camera will more or less disappear behind that lens, hehe! You can even get its Western brother Sonnar for a higher price, they are supposed to be more or less identical.
  • Tonka 3 Jan 2011 15:34:54 20,222 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Cheers.

    Do you mean the bright area to the left of the bird? It is a bit distracting now that you mention it... (boots Photoshop)

    The adapter I have for th E-PL1 is just a metal tube, slightly conical with the correct mounts at each end.

    The downside is that the sensor gives me a 50% crop so wide angles are nigh on impossible to get. A 20mm becomes a 40mm ;_;

    But I'm real pleased with the Panasonic 14mm I got myself for Christmas so I got that angle (lols) covered.

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Deleted user 3 January 2011 15:44:21
    Ah, I meant all the bright spots in the background, the quality of the "bokeh" in general so to speak (I hate that word and tried to avoid it...) the out of focus highlights have this brighter edge. It's either the branches being too close to the camera or the f-stop being too wide - or both.

    x2 crop magnification is rather harsh, I agree. I thought x1.5 was a lot on my Nikon, I'm glad I'm not too fond of fisheye photography.
  • Deleted user 3 January 2011 23:34:49
    Fuck it, I've bought a Triotar myself. These 2 pictures sort of made me do it. The 2nd one is bloody amazing, never mind the lens! :D
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/litewriter/347909746/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/bw94/3641355002/
  • mal 4 Jan 2011 00:36:43 22,456 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Kitteh!

    But yeah, that's a lovely shot. Brilliant portrait.

    Re Tonka's first shot, I rather liked the messy OoF bit. The bird was definitely the first thing my eye was drawn to, but the various degrees of out of focus branches added further interest. Given they were all going in different directions (and besides, were out of focus at least a bit) didn't detract from the focal point for me.

    Cubby didn't know how to turn off sigs!

  • Deleted user 6 January 2011 18:27:56
    My first test shot with the Triotar. Amazing OOF details and beautiful colours:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/49262662@N05/5330119673/

    The build quality is ace (even though it's brushed aluminium), the aperture is clean (15 blades O_O) and the sharpness seems ace, even if it was slightly off in this shot. Very happy with it, at 60 EUR. The only issue is a bit of a stiff focusing, may consider going to a shop and ask for a clean up/lube treatment.
  • Deleted user 7 September 2011 20:59:07
    This picture DEMANDED a bump. Zeiss 100mm Macro Planar, Pentax mount using the new Sony NEX-5N body (via an adapter obviously). I could swear the damn train is coming out of my monitor:

    http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8312/dsc0206l.jpg
  • Page

    of 1

    Previous Next
Log in or register to reply