|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-28-2018, 05:21 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-26-2018, 05:07 AM
|
| |
thank you, les3547!
By the way, have ever compared the 25/2 to the FA* 24/2? I have the latter lens.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-26-2018, 05:07 AM
|
| |
thank you, les3547!
By the way, have ever compared the 25/2 to the FA* 24/2? I have the latter lens.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-25-2018, 10:09 AM
|
| |
sibyrnes, did you edit your shots differently? At least, the white balance looks not the same.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-26-2018, 11:18 AM
|
| |
Good shots, sibyrnes! It looks like 21mm is a handy focal length.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-22-2018, 03:48 AM
|
| |
Fujifilm Velvia 50, Pentax Z-1p, Zeiss Distagon 35/2, f2.8, 1/45, scanned on Noritsu LS-1100.
Does anyone know the actual price of the Distagon 35/2 in mint condition? It turned out, that now I have two of them :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-27-2018, 02:37 PM
|
| |
I liked the former photo more than the latter photo :)
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-21-2018, 12:56 AM
|
| |
To me, it's not just a very good lens)) It's one of the best 35mm lenses ever made!
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-30-2017, 01:14 AM
|
| |
Yes, and there is definitely a "3D-pop" in this image. By the way, in what software did you convert this image? The colours look beautiful.
As for the 50/2 Makro, I think of it not as a macro lens but more as a general purpose lens. In this regard, it is much more useful than the 100/2 Makro.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-29-2017, 02:29 PM
|
| |
Wow! A new owner of this lens will be very lucky! I have a new* ZF.2 version for sale (which is much cheaper) but sometimes I think I should keep it along with my ZK version too (just in case) :)
It is so but it doesn't correspond to 50/2 Makro nor 100/2 Makro. I like my 50/2 Makro so much that I wouldn't even exchange it for Otus 55/1.4 (actually, maybe I would but only in order to sell it and then buy another 50/2 Makro)! :) Unfortunately, I had to send my lens to get it serviced, so now I even slowed down my shooting... I really think this lens is in its own league. These Makros must be so great that their optical formula haven't been changed in the Milvus line. Even a significantly improved 50/1.4 lens is still cheaper than the 50/2M (which is optically the same as 50/2 Makro but has an inferior rubber focusing ring).
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-07-2017, 12:59 AM
|
| |
I wouldn't say it better. Your words exactly express what I feel about it.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-06-2017, 01:56 PM
|
| |
Thank you, ivanvernon and Fenwoodian!
No, the lens I used was the Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar, not the Pentax-D FA 50mm f 2.8 (f2.5 must be a misprint from your side). I like this Pentax lens too. Maybe I would buy it but I found an almost new copy of the Zeiss for a reasonable price. What I also like about the Zeiss 50/2 Makro is its bokeh. Sure, objects in out of focus areas are not blown away, but the rendering of out of focus areas is very pleasing (along with the sharp areas that abruptly break off in the picture above I was also staring quite a time at OOF areas too). I haven't seen anything like that in pictures shot on the Pentax-D FA 50/2.8 yet (it may be my fault). Many photos from this Zeiss look inexplicably attractive to me.
As for the new photos, I'll try to keep up but nowadays the weather isn't too photogenic.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-06-2017, 11:47 AM
|
| |
K-1 + 50/2 Makro @ f2.5, 1/8, ISO3200. Do you see some sort of clarity and 3D-pop in this image that 50/2 Makro is so famous for?
 [url=https://flic.kr/p/CWqtUA]
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-02-2017, 04:15 AM
|
| |
Tas, thank you for your support!
Yes, I suspected that there is no special mode for macro shooting. Maybe there is really something wrong with my copy of the lens. However, such behavior happened to my lens only twice, now I can't replicate it. The focusing ring is rotated very very smoothly. The lens is really in like new condition. The seller shoots with a Canon. He had bought this lens to shoot with a PK to EOS adapter but then he found and bought a Canon version of the lens. As far as I understand my lens hasn't been used for a considerable amount of time. Maybe it just needs to be used more often :)
To my initial impressions. Some say that Zeiss lenses are manufactured on whole new level in comparison to Pentax lenses. I wouldn't agree with that statement. In my opinion, Pentax limited lenses are made in a similar (if not better) way. That's all for now :) I need more time to discover the nuances of the lens.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-02-2017, 12:22 AM
|
| |
Hi,
A few days ago I was asking here for a help to make the right decision on buying or not buying the Zeiss Makro Planar 50/2. Well, I purchased two of them :) At first, I bought a ZF.2 version planning to convert it with the Leitax adapter. Then I was able to find a ZK version and I decided to buy it either in order not to mess with the adapter. Of course, I'm going to sell the Nikon version. Luckily, both lenses I bought are in "like new" condition. So, I hope, the sale won't take too long.
Now I'm testing the ZK version of the 50/2 Makro and I've discovered a strange thing. I haven't figured the exact conditions so far, but yesterday this thing happened to me twice. I was testing the 50/2 Makro lens comparing it to my other lenses, mounting and unmounting it from my camera. Then, after the next mounting, I noticed that the focusing ring could not be rotated farther than for about 2m. It wasn't like the rotating was stiff, the rotating was super smooth but the ring could be rotated only from the minimal focusing distance to the 2m mark. I rotated the lens in my hands, focusing and trying to find a locking mechanism at the same time. I didn't find the lock but then somehow I was able to focus to infinity once again. The focusing between 2m and infinity was very smooth just like between 2m and shorter distances.
Later that day the situation repeated. At first, the focusing ring was "stuck" again at 2m mark. I rotated the lens, mounted and unmounted it from the camera - all in vain. Then I noticed that it was already "stuck" not at 2m mark but at 1m! :) I continued to do whatever I could (without any pressure) and then I noticed that the ring was rotating right to the infinity. Could anyone tell me what was going on? It really looks like that somehow the lens can be switched to the macro mode. As far as I remember, both times the "stucks" happened precisely at 2m and 1m marks, not somewhere in between. However, I still don't know how exactly this "mode" is switched on and what exactly I should do to switch it off again.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-24-2017, 01:25 AM
|
| |
Thank you, guys, for your kind support! It's a pleasure to talk here!
Yes, Tas, with the Leitax adapter a Zeiss lens can be switched back to Nikon and then be sold to a Nikonian. However, as far as I understand, the looks of such a lens won't be original anymore :) Of course, the lens won't look too ugly but still the price of it must be lower than before (or higher if it is sold to a Pentaxian :) ).
As for the ZK version, I think that 1) writing the right Exif information, 2) focusing with a bright focusing screen when a lens is stopped down and 3) not messing up with switching mounts - all of this is an advantage over the ZF version.
My purchased ZF2 lens is still abroad at the moment. The seller of the ZK version is abroad too on his holidays ) When they both arrive in my country I guess, I'll try to ask the seller if he would swap his ZK version for my ZF2 :) Maybe it will be a win-win scenario for both of us.
Fenwoodian, Les, why do you shoot with Pentax cameras if you primarily shoot with non-Pentax lenses? Sony cameras with WYSIWYG viewfinders are better suited to work with manual lenses. With Nikon cameras, it won't be necessary to mess with Leitaxing.
As for me, I use a Pentax camera because of three things:
1) I like "Pentax colors" very much (jpeg/PDCU), 2) I like some of the Pentax lenses, 3) I like the controls and features of Pentax cameras.
---------- Post added 10-24-17 at 12:01 PM ----------
Fenwoodian, could you share your thoughts on differences between a common Zeiss lens and a common Leica lens. Zeiss lenses are famous for their 3D-pop and what are the main features of Leica lenses (except for their great mechanical part)?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-23-2017, 01:01 PM
|
| |
It's alright. Thank you, Les!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-23-2017, 12:36 PM
|
| |
At first, I'd like to thank you that you're willing me to help. In no way, I'm saying that my understanding of all the concepts you mentioned is correct. However, you're right that my opinion is quite strong. To some conclusions I had come myself but my mind is still open.
I'm glad you raised this question, it's interesting. I tried to express my taste a few times but maybe I did in a vague way.
Now my taste is the following: I like images with rich color saturation; great clarity; when subjects in focus have very sharp edges so that they [subjects] pop out from the foreground and background; however, such subjects in focus must not be fully isolated from the background and foreground but they must naturally blend one in another; so the background shouldn't be melt away, one must understand what is going on around the subject in focus; there must be a story around the subject but not just parts of different objects without any purpose; the bokeh must be not very harsh but also not too smooth; great resolution is always good but to me sharpness at normal viewing magnification is more important. Well, something like this I guess.
Yes, you're correct I meant just this. However, by "3D" I assume more a "presence effect". it's when a viewer gets an impression as though he/she is standing right in front of a captured scene.
In order to explain my point of view a few words must be said about perspective. As you may know perspective isn't changed by a focal range of a lens, it is only changed by a distance to a subject. The closer the distance the greater the perspective, the farther it is, the perspective is less.
Look at this image -  Let's imagine this picture of an "arched door" was shot on a 24mm lens. You can see that after the first arched door there is a second one and then a third one. Now imagine that the same first arched door was shot with similar proprtions but on a 50mm lens, then on 100mm, 200mm, 300mm. It's obvious that in order to preserve the proportions of the first arched door a photographer must go further away from it. Now answer yourself: will the 2-nd and 3-rd arched doors be still visible on images with 100-200-300mm? No, they won't. When one goes away a presence effect becomes less.
On the other side, one gets too close to a subject, there appear optical distortions that also don't add to the presence effect.
Understand me correctly, I like images shot on 85/135/200mm lenses but they are not into the 3Dm they are just different.
Here is another example of how perspective (and the presence effect) changes with lenses of different focal ranges and different distance to the subject - 
As one can see in the image shot with a 24mm lens the depth of the scene is very pronounced - it's quite obvious that the closer object is bigger than the farther object. In the image shot with a 300m lens the depth of the scene is almost gone.
I do respect your opinion and always ask for a piece of advice if I'm not correct. All your lenses are really great! Maybe they are among the greatest 35mm lenses of all times. At the same time though, we are talking about opinions here. There so many characteristics of each lens every photographer choose himself what lens suits his need more. For example, the Distagon 35/2 maybe optically maybe better than the 31 Limited. However, I don't imagine how I will be able to nail focus with it looking into the viewfinder. (I can manual focus very precisely with 77-200mm lenses using a split-image screen.) Also, I like the greenish chromatic aberrations in the blurry background so much that only the 31 Limited can produce! But still, I'd like to try Zeiss lenses If I had such an opportunity. In some situations I'm sure they will be better than my Pentax lenses.
I mentioned this in a subtle way :) I asked about "an automatic aperture mechanism" on the previous page. Thank you for your addition! Another point to the ZK version over the Letaxed one.
---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 10:37 PM ----------
Yes, an automatic selection of the last used focal length would be useful.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-23-2017, 08:01 AM
|
| |
I understand this. Moreover, I do even realize that in most cases a good zoom like 28-105 will give me almost as good results as a bunch of expensive lenses. Having so many lenses as I do is redundant and I must sell some of them but it's too hard :)
Surely, I noticed it. However, a mediocre lens can't become extraordinary even in PixelShift mode. D-FA 50/2.8 must be really very good. By the way, Fenwoodian also describes this lens as "will absolutely blow your mind when it comes to clarity and sharpness! :)
No, I don't shoot in PixelShift mode very often. I aspire for lenses that give a 3D look more than just resolution. As for the Zeiss 50/2 makro, in my opinion, images shot with this lens show a great amount of somewhat clarity. It's hard to describe but there is something very special in them. At least, this is my opinion at the moment.
I've heard about this lens. It can be really good but I'm afraid its rendering will resemble the rendering of a Sigma Art 50/1.4. I had the Sigma Art lens on Nikon D750. At first, I liked it a lot but then its rendering became unbearable to me. Anyway, the D-FA HD 50 /1.4 will be huge and expensive which I don't like )
I'll wait for it, thank you in advance!
P.S. There is a lens because of which I began to think of buying the 50/2 makro. I had known before that this very Zeiss has a unique rendering but it's rather expensive, so I forgot about it. Then by accident, I acquired a Russian lens Jupiter 37A 135/3.5 for really cheap. This lens blew me away! It captures a ridiculous amount of detail even at the very edges and wide open apertures! And what I also noticed was the clarity. After I played with the lens I told myself that I must find a similar lens but with a normal focal length. And the only candidate that came to my mind was this 50/2 Makro :) (By the way if anyone needs the best-regarded version of the Jupiter 37A, I have a spare copy.)
---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 06:07 PM ----------
sibyrnes, thank you for your clarification on ZK/ZF-Leitaxed versions of Zeiss lenses. It's strange then why Fenwoodian prefers a Leitaxed version. I guess a stronger bayonet of a Leitax mount can't be the prime objective.
Did I understand correctly that even with the ZK version one has to manually set the right focal length? Why isn't it set automatically if such a lens has the corresponding contacts?
---------- Post added 10-23-17 at 06:13 PM ----------
ivanvernon, thank you for your images shot by the D-FA 50/2.8 macro! However, frankly speaking, I haven't found in them anything special in terms of the lens that was used. As usual, everything depends on a right subject that is captured. As for the 50/2 Makro lens, I saw a lot of images that were quite mediocre and only a few of them that looked incredibly good.[COLOR="Silver"]
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-22-2017, 11:17 PM
|
| |
Thank you for this comment, Fenwoodian! (As Tas, I also highly appreciate your lens reviews on PF!) Actually, I had absolutely the opposite opinion before I read your post. I was looking for the ZK version because I thought it will be possible to: 1) get correct Exif data in images; 2) change aperture via an aperture ring; 3) get better shots with flash ("A" mode). I have a few questions in this regard:
1. Is it really impossible to change aperture via an aperture ring when a ZK version is mounted on a Pentax K-1? Then why this ring is there on a lens?
2. When a ZF/ZF2 version is mounted on a K-1 exif information is not transmitted to a camera. Does it also correspond to a ZK version?
3. A ZK version has an automatic aperture mechanism (aperture is closed only during a shot). Will a Leitaxed ZF/ZF2 version also have an automatic aperture or it will be fully manual?
There is a Youtube channel where a guy who owns a lot of Nikon and Zeiss lenses said numerous times that the Distagon 35/2 is the best lens that he had ever had. He actually has several of them :) He claims it's better than the 35/1.4 that he also possesses.
To be honest, I don't care about too much. To me, the best lens is the 31 Limited. It has an absolutely beautiful out of focus a little bit greenish rendering. And the overall 3D look is gorgeous (plus AF, resolution, little distortion, etc). However, it seems we have similar thoughts on the best 3D focal length (31-35mm).
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-22-2017, 03:59 PM
|
| |
les3547, thank you for your 2 cents!
You know, now I'm also seeking for this notorious 3D look. Zeiss lenses are quite new to me and I'm not an expert in them by any means but among all images shot on Zeiss that I saw I think that it is the 50/2 Makro that is a very, very special lens in terms of "3D pop".
It is well-known that the presence effect is more pronounced when a photographer stays closer to a subject he/she photographs. So telephoto lenses are out of the list. On the other hand, when a photographer comes too close to a subject there can appear geometrical distortions which don't increase the presence effect but vice versa. In my opinion, the best 3D look is achieved by using 35-50mm. The shot of a woman on the previous page is good but the distortion of a 28mm lens is visible with a naked eye. The Voigtlander 58/1.4 is a great lens, I've heard many good words about it, but its focal length is too long for a good presence effect. Actually, my DA*55 is also too long for my taste in this regard. (By the way, I read a review somewhere when an owner of both DA*55 and Nokton 58/1.4 wrote that the DA*55 is better.)
I guess the 43mm Limited's focal length is really a happy mean. Actually, it does produce a very pronounced 3D look when one looks images at normal magnification! It has great saturation and contrast (and size)! To be honest, I'm not sure that the 50/2 Makro will be a better overall lens for me. What Zeiss does better is produce more details at edges of a frame and it has much less distortion. Edges and distortion are awful on images shot on the 43 Limited (as for distortion, it's weird because it is much worse than on 31 Limited). Also, it looks like the 50/2 Makro has a unique color rendition and a crystal look of images. All in all, I like the rendition of the 50/2 Makro much more than of the 50/1.4 Planar or even Otus in spite of the fact that the 50/2 Makro has a much busier bokeh.
I know what a field curvature is, I guess I prefer when it is flat. I also had written the article about a high/low acutance you mentioned before. Again, my position is quite the opposite to yours :) I think that it is high acutance what makes Zeiss lenses different but not the low acutance. Many Zeiss lenses are known for the effect when subjects pop out from the foreground and background. It also corresponds to the 43 Limited. However, in case of the 43, subjects are not too detailed at 100% magnification (when they are at edges), but in case of the 50/2 Makro subjects pop out and they are really very detailed! The 50/2 Makro is the only Zeiss lens that I want to own now (and I don't shoot macros).
I have many good Pentax lenses. I like all of them very much. However, among all of them, I regard the 31 Limited lens as a very special one, maybe even higher than the FA*85. I know an opinion of some people who also regard the Distagon 35/2 as the best 35mm lens of all times. But those people usually didn't try the 31 Limited :) Also, it's hard to nail focus using wide angle lenses (by the way, I changed the focusing screen of my K-1 to a split-image screen).
A few hours ago I won a lot of the 50/2 :) Unfortunately, it's a Nikon ZF2 version but the price was rather good. An almost new lens I purchased for $470. Now I'm puzzled what to do next. Should I buy a Leitax adapter or should I sell it with a premium and buy a ZK version for $695-780?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-22-2017, 07:09 AM
|
| |
This image looks more interesting to me, thank you! I'd like also to say that I contacted Rob Fischer. Unfortunately, he hadn't had an experience of shooting on a DA*55 but he praised a 50/2 Makro a lot.
Today I also found some new praising reviews of a D-FA 50/2.8 Macro that I didn't read before. One reviewer (who tested many-many lenses including 50/2 Planar Makro) even wrote that this Pentax macro lens in combination with a K-1 "blows away anything I’ve seen on this subject before" and then "The Pentax K1 continues to impress—overall image quality is simply beyond what other DSLRs or mirrorless cameras can offer—fundamentally, they cannot, since images are all interpolated (demosaicing the RGGB sensor)" (diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Church Mosaic, Sunlit (Pentax K1 SuperRes) and diglloyd blog: Pentax 50mm f/2.8 Macro Aperture Series: Tiled Water Fountain (Pentax K1 SuperRes)). So now I'm confused again. Maybe it's better to buy this rather cheap Pentax AF macro lens than an expensive MF Zeiss? Has anyone shot both on Pentax 50/2.8 Macro and Zeiss 50/2 Makro?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-15-2017, 02:17 AM
|
| |
Fenwoodian, Tas, thank you for your quick replies!
I forgot about my equipment info, it had become rather outdated (I updated it). Now I own the K-1.
As for the discussion whether DA*55 is good for a full frame or not, I'd say that the DA*55 is much more a full frame lens than, for example, the 43 Limited. On a full frame, the DA*55 is much sharper at the corners and it has a way less distortion than the 43 Lim. Without the native hood (which was designed for crop cameras) the DA*55 has visible but slight vignetting at f1.4-1.6. I'd say that the DA*55's vignetting at these apertures is not worse than the Zeiss 50 Makro's vignetting at f2.0.
What I'm looking for is a "3D look". Technically, the DA*55 is a better lens than the 43 Lim, but, in my opinion, the latter has a more pronounced "3D-effect". In some images from the 50 Makro that I saw the "3D look" was very distinct. However, I'm not sure if that look was more because of a post-processing or because of the lens itself. (Here are the images I talk about: Pantry | I love the way the light from the window streams th? | Flickr Door, table and light... | The colour and atmosphere in this? | Flickr 03/2014 | It's Sunday again, the weather is still bad and I ? | Flickr Castle Point Lighthouse | Richard Mayston | Flickr Stuttgart | Nikon F6, ZEISS Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZF.2 | SPR_SMMLX | Flickr)
Thank you, Tas! I'll check his work and will try to contact him.
Yes, I also noticed a 3D pop in that image from the Distagon 28/2.
To be honest, I'm not fond of your post-processing of your image (but it doesn't mean I'm right).
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-14-2017, 03:48 PM
|
| |
Hi!
My question is to those who had an experience of shooting both Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar and Pentax DA*55/1.4. Could you tell me your thoughts on these lenses regarding portrait and landscape photography? I have the DA*55 and I like this lens. However, I also saw some images (not macro ones) from 50/2 Makro Planar that look gorgeous. Now I wonder whether the Zeiss really does deliver a better "3D look" or it were just better PP-skills of corresponding photographers.
|
