[jsherman999]

.

The shot of the woman shooting the flower bed glows with 85mm goodness. Very nice.



.

[Duplo]

Thank-you. I think for reference sake, I'd be very keen to see your ZF pics, if you have them around?

And yes, I do imagine (probably in unhealthy amounts) what those lenses will do with a 35mm sensor... someday! For now I take pride in the SR


K.

Well sure I have some around
I still need to upload some of the updated work, been shooting glaciers, icebergs and the ice cap itself (one of those dream assignments) on the first icecap hike I used the Zeiss 28mm exclusively, but I am still PPing those, so here is a 5 shots on 35mm from the archives.

85mm @ f1.4:

85mm @ f11:


28mm @ f2:


28mm @ f11:


28mm @ f22:

[thePiRaTE!!]

Thanks for sharing and I'm excited to see your hike shots with the 28. Admittedly, the 25/2.8 would be that much more interesting with /2 instead, but the ultra-close focusing and unique rendering sold me. I did play very briefly with the 28 in (and around) my local shop though and was realy, really impressed with the amount of detail it captured (and it is also a good close-focuser). It seems to do a fine job with landscapes as well from your pics. Did I recall you having first owned the 25? Just curious as to your preference for the 28 over it. I admit, I'd like to explore the 28 more, but at the price, I'll probably never get around to it again. Or probably the 18 or 35 either for that matter.

Great use of 1.4 in the portrait shot to btw, very gentle and smooth result.

My one and only 28/2 shot (@ f2) -

[k100d]

distagon reviewed
Zeiss Distagon 18mm f/3.5

[morfic]

Have you shot them on film too? Something nice like 160VC or maybe some nice slide of your liking?
Just curious, i am happier with my Nokton shots on film than on the K20D, too curious if you'd find yourself thinking something similar.

[Duplo]

Thanks for sharing and I'm excited to see your hike shots with the 28. Admittedly, the 25/2.8 would be that much more interesting with /2 instead, but the ultra-close focusing and unique rendering sold me. I did play very briefly with the 28 in (and around) my local shop though and was realy, really impressed with the amount of detail it captured (and it is also a good close-focuser). It seems to do a fine job with landscapes as well from your pics. Did I recall you having first owned the 25? Just curious as to your preference for the 28 over it. I admit, I'd like to explore the 28 more, but at the price, I'll probably never get around to it again. Or probably the 18 or 35 either for that matter.

Great use of 1.4 in the portrait shot to btw, very gentle and smooth result.

My one and only 28/2 shot (@ f2) -

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/2617821346_29d1eab0e0_o.jpg

you are most welcome and your 28mm shot looks good I think.

I had the pleasure of testing the 25, 28, 35, 50 (1.4 and 2.0) and 85mm at the same time and use them for a couple of hours a colleague which is a real zeiss lover brought them all over for some fun, thus got a chance to evaluate them for my needs.

On ff I have a lot of love for the 31mm focal length, the 35 while really, really nice was just a little too long, the 28 was a hair to wide, but better.
I did not like the 25mm as much on 35mm digital and I already have a 14-24/2.8 that sets a really high standard on UWA.

It might be my eyes playing tricks on me, but I actually like the 28 better on 35mm digital than APS-C, same goes for the 85mm btw.

[tcom]

Wow, seems the other Zeiss lenses are exceptional too.

So far, I just have the Zeiss 100/2:

[thePiRaTE!!]

Colors look nice and bright, thanks Dominique.

So far already we've seen samples from 25, 28, 85 & 100. Anyone else out there with ZKs holding out?

[morfic]

The Surgeon General warns: This thread is not good for the health of your nest egg.

I guess i am lucky Zeiss never had the idea to make a 28/2.8, i'd be much likelier in trouble than with a out of reach 28/2

Thanks for sharing all samples though, i like to know what i miss. If VL came out with a 28/2.8 that is in the same league as the 58/1.4......oh boy would be i going for it.....or a 85/1.4 or or or

[thePiRaTE!!]

The Surgeon General warns: This thread is not good for the health of your nest egg.

I guess i am lucky Zeiss never had the idea to make a 28/2.8, i'd be much likelier in trouble than with a out of reach 28/2

Thanks for sharing all samples though, i like to know what i miss. If VL came out with a 28/2.8 that is in the same league as the 58/1.4......oh boy would be i going for it.....or a 85/1.4 or or or

Well, in all fairness the 25/2.8 is $150 cheaper than the 28/2...

In all likelihood, Cosina will avoid stepping on Zeiss toes with closely overlapping lenses for a while so an 85/1.4 is probably out. There was a 35/1.2 produced in limited numbers I'd like to see in K-mount though...

Voigtlander 35/1.2

Closer focusing would be nice on a redo for K In general, I'd like to see Cosina take Voigtlander releases in this direction (heck, I'd just like to see them do 1 more SLII this year to show they had the intent) - something different (read: wiiide aperture) now that the Zeiss line is populating the classic niches.

[David07]

My first instinct is to open a lens up - to 1.4 in this case, get as close as I can to something and make bokeh. The lens at close distances and wide open gives a diffused contrast to things, very 'dreamy'.
(...)
It was apparent to me this lens was different to anything I was used to before it. With a minimum 1m focus distance, ultra-flat distortion characteristics (hence the the name Planar, meaning plane, or flat) and ultra-wide aperture at a short telefocal range - I discovered the lens was strong at 'big bokeh', granting larger subjects the sort of background seperation normally seen with much smaller subjects and opening my eye to a wider range of subjects to inflict bokeh on than I previously knew.
(...)
My first conclusion was that the T*85 and probably most fast 85s in general seem to be more in their element spying human sized subjects. As I move closer or to smaller subjects, I'd consider the Voigtlander Nokton as the little brother in almost all respects to the Planar.

I finally did not have the chance to try the lens in Japan and compare it with my 77/1.8. Even in Japan, it seems only few shops will have this lens for Pentax K mount ! When I found a shop that had it stock in Tokyo, I did not have my 77 Ltd with me and had not enough time for this...

I am still considering the Zeiss T*85/1.4. However, I would like to understand the difference in depth of field with the 77/1.8. Since the minimal focus distance of the Zeiss is not so short (1 m, magn. ratio 1:10; 77/1.8: 0.7m, magn. ratio 1:7.1), I guess the difference in depth of field and bokeh should not be so significant at the minimal focus distance and wide open for small objects (like flowers). But since you wrote that 85/1.4 seems better for bigger objects (human size), I was wondering how much better than the 77/1.8 it would be. Anybody has an idea about his ????

I was quite impressed by your shot of tree branches. I was thinking that it would be even more wonderful when the leaves will change their colors in few weeks... Maybe I'll try some similar pics with my 77/1.8. I used to take it for small objets like flowers and tight portraits (head pics), but rarely for big objects.

David

[gtmerideth]

I have ZK 100/2, 28/2 and the 50/1.4. The attached is the 50 testing it's acutance. Not bad for sharp. My contribution to the ZK inventory.
gary

[angelodn]

.... I had an opportunity to use it under various circumstances and quickly learned its limitations and to enjoy the lens within its capabilities.
....

what kind of limitations?

[thePiRaTE!!]

what kind of limitations?

Fair question! During the period of my first 5000 images or so, it became apparent to me that close focusing improved bokeh and pronounced subject isolation, so I sort developed a habit of putting any lens in its minimum focus range and going wide open as a matter of course. The longer the focal range and the closer the focusing sort of found the limit of usefulness where you could often disintegrate backgrounds to a single shade with tele-macros.

On the other hand, I noted a good, naturally fast lens gave an individual characteristic to Bokeh that was unique. It became my natural acid test to see if a lens could offer me anything new to see the world with, the quality of this characteristic bokeh.

The T*85 forced me out of my usual way of working, rubbing noses with my subject with close focus or macro lenses. I took a chance on it simply because I'd never used such a fast tele before and enjoyed the 'dreamy' shots I'd seen of it wide open (some had panned this as a weakness, I enjoy it as a unique strength).

For me, the 1:10 scale at 3 feet with the T*85 was a limitation to my way of working and type of shot, but the speed of the lens combined with its tele aspect have created a new way for me to notice subjects. I can create the type of isolation and bokeh I was used to making with my VL58 on smaller subjects at closer ranges, now on larger subjects at farther ranges. Trees are the first thing that really caught my eye and now another scale of subject is in my sights to mash against a wall of blur. It has definately added to my way of working but is not the picture of versatility I found in the T*25 for example.

Some more 'big bokeh' (ie, not particularly close to a smaller subject, but yet creating 'severe' isolation)

T*85 @ 1.4




Thanks to Nesster here for sharing some cool viewfinder textures on flickr, embedded around this image.

And a pic showing the 'dreamy' result of falling just over or under perfect focus under f2.0

T*85 @ f1.7


This last shot also shows the 'limitation' I experienced of not being able to really close in on a subject, but I know what the T*85 does best for me and leave other capable lenses to handle what they do best in the close in dept. The 85 adds a very valuable asset to my overall capabilities and I consider it an awesome lens!

Kelly.

[angelodn]

thanks for your answer....
it's very long, I have to translate slowly lol: