LJ - Eljot

LJ - Eljot

Lives in Berlin
Joined on Oct 17, 2010

Comments

Total: 486, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

PPierre: IMO, this teasing campaign is a failure. First because while Zeiss is teasing for its lens nobody knows, some users who need a telelens might not be patient enough to wait and see and buy one of the new telelenses from Sony (FE85f1.8 and 100f2.8 STF). Second because it raises the expectations up to a level I'm not sure a 135f2.8, however small it is, might satisfy. Last, because if indeed, it's a 135f2.8, then the main selling argument is not IQ (it'd better be incredible at this slow aperture) but the size of the lens, and nothing in this teasing campaign underlines this feature.

Honestly, I hope this lens will be small and not $1500 if it ends up being a 135f2.8 (and according to SAR, it is). And I also hope Zeiss will learn from this failure of a campaign and give us roadmaps instead of teasers on Instagram in the future. When you sell lenses that are $1000, you'd better let your customers have an idea of what they could buy a long time in advance.

@Luisifer: Nice indeed. But where is the other version shot with 2.8 for comparison?

Well, the difference between 2.0 and 2.8 could be imprtant for some. 2.8 might be enough but because there are the usual 70-200mm/2.8 already a 135mm/2.8 might lack a selling piont. I should be much cheaper and sharper (and lighter/smaller) than the 2.8 zoom and has to have a nicer bokeh.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 10:14 UTC
In reply to:

PPierre: IMO, this teasing campaign is a failure. First because while Zeiss is teasing for its lens nobody knows, some users who need a telelens might not be patient enough to wait and see and buy one of the new telelenses from Sony (FE85f1.8 and 100f2.8 STF). Second because it raises the expectations up to a level I'm not sure a 135f2.8, however small it is, might satisfy. Last, because if indeed, it's a 135f2.8, then the main selling argument is not IQ (it'd better be incredible at this slow aperture) but the size of the lens, and nothing in this teasing campaign underlines this feature.

Honestly, I hope this lens will be small and not $1500 if it ends up being a 135f2.8 (and according to SAR, it is). And I also hope Zeiss will learn from this failure of a campaign and give us roadmaps instead of teasers on Instagram in the future. When you sell lenses that are $1000, you'd better let your customers have an idea of what they could buy a long time in advance.

It may be not small, but for F-mount and EF-mount Zeiss offers the incredible Milvus 2/135, which is the classic Apo Sonnar T* 2/135 Z* in new housing. No AF though.
And yes, I used a 135mm/2. There is not that much difference between 2 und 2.8. Both is to wide in most cases.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 08:44 UTC
In reply to:

Kamox: Great article, thanks.
So I reckon that the people with 4x5" scanning backs (Betterlight et al.) have been right all along. With non-moving subjects, of course.
BTW, are they still produced?

Hm, you are right. Maybe just call and ask?

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:30 UTC
In reply to:

Earthrise: As always capturing light is about the glass not the silicon :-)

@MAubrey: Oxygen, mostly.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 15:00 UTC
In reply to:

Kamox: Great article, thanks.
So I reckon that the people with 4x5" scanning backs (Betterlight et al.) have been right all along. With non-moving subjects, of course.
BTW, are they still produced?

It seems so:
http://www.betterlight.com/superModels.html

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 14:46 UTC
In reply to:

stanislaff: So, one with m4/3 body and F0.95 lens would have the "same" DOF and DR as proud owner of MF Fuji with F2.8 lens? Picturewise, not pixelwise, of course...

The mFT-lens at f/0.95 might not be as sharp as the GFX-lens at 2.8. Lenses in general might not be as sharp at f/0.95 as they are at f/2.8.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 14:21 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: MF needs to move back to uncropped. The difference with the new 100mp Phase one XF (which for some reason was removed from the comparison tool) shows a much better performance.

Let's see it this way: To get at least the same dof with the Phase One you get with the 35mm-cameras 1.4 lens you have to close it to 2.0 anyway. And you probably will get less abberation at 2.0 than at 1.4. I always have seen it this way: Larger formats need longer exposure times.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 14:15 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

sai1: The Fuji clearly pulls ahead of the FF marketleaders. Maybe I can get a used one at some point.

Of cource it is. That the pixel pitch is wider also helps a little. The Sony suffers from the same problem as the Canon with a lens wich is a little bit more expensive. We should have samples from all the cameras with lenses at a similar price tag.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 20:14 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lyff: The pixel shift K-1 file is still quite impressive against those medium format sensors, no moiré and even more resolution.

http://imgur.com/a/QHiw9

Obviously your subject must be completely still, but for some kinds of photography it's really a good deal.

With strobes too.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 19:07 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 50S added to our studio test scene (440 comments in total)
In reply to:

sai1: The Fuji clearly pulls ahead of the FF marketleaders. Maybe I can get a used one at some point.

Canon and Sony are full of CA, visible as a purple fringing even near the center and the pictures are clearly more sharpened. The MF-cameras are clearly far ahead of the small picture kameras here. But yes, you see it only if you pixel peep.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 19:05 UTC
In reply to:

Luis Bonetti: Whats the point of shooting Macro with a MF?

Most Lenses are well corrected for reproduction ratios of 1:10 or even 1:5. For Example:
https://www.zeiss.de/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/de/downloadcenter/contax_yashica/planar_t_14_50_ger.pdf
The Zeiss Planar T* 50mm/1,4 provides reprotuction ratio of 1:6.7.
Some lenses provide greater magnification and have sometimes the term "macro" in their name. Most dedicated macro lenses provide reproduction ratios of 1:2 or 1:1. If we say macro is 1:1 to 10:1 then these lenses were no macro lenses and there were virtually no real macro lenses on the marked. The Canon MP-E 65mm would be the only macro lens I know of.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 10:34 UTC
In reply to:

Luis Bonetti: Whats the point of shooting Macro with a MF?

The old standard DIN 19040 (dokument withdrawn) says macro is between 1:10 and 10:1.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: I bet in a few hours this will be flooded with comments from some guys arguing the Leica SL is better.

Ah, thank you!

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 12:27 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: I bet in a few hours this will be flooded with comments from some guys arguing the Leica SL is better.

But why should poeple do that? That makes no sense at all. Leica S has the same sensor model as the X1D and the 645Z. Why should some compare it to a camera with a smaller sensor? And I could not find any comments of that kind so far.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Balcombe: Whatever your preferred definition of "macro", they're stretching it a bit with this lens. At MFD you can fill the frame with a subject measuring 88x66 mm !????

Well, usually macro stand for 1:10 to 10:1. There are many Lenses that provide 1:2 and also many 1:1. Greater than 1:1 is very rare. 1:2 is well in macro territory.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 16:28 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: I bet in a few hours this will be flooded with comments from some guys arguing the Leica SL is better.

Leica S, not SL. The SL ist not MF. And I absolutly don't know.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Luis Bonetti: Whats the point of shooting Macro with a MF?

Yes, with larger formats you need a higher magnification to fill the frame. This can really be a problem.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 12:35 UTC
In reply to:

Luis Bonetti: Whats the point of shooting Macro with a MF?

Does MF refers to middle format or manual focus?
@virtualreality: I know. Thats why I use my old macro gear from Contax/Yashica/Zeiss with first Olympus and now Sony alpha 7II. But I just have the cheap bellows from yashica without tilt/shift. I wish I had the better one from Contax with tilt/shift. I think I will purchase one soon via ebay. You can get those for about 400 to 500 €.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 23:40 UTC
In reply to:

Luis Bonetti: Whats the point of shooting Macro with a MF?

My Rolleiflex SL66 was almost perfect for shooting macro. All lenses can be mounted in retro position and the camera has inbuild bellows with tilt. Different viewfinders made focussing very convenient for all camera angels. All things that this Hasselblad lacks. Best for macro would be a view camera, but a rather small one. Contax had a bellows with tilt and swing. I wish I had one of those.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 22:31 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L (111 comments in total)
In reply to:

Suave: I have it and I like it well enough. But I'd rather have a 28-105/2.8.

Even a 28-85 would be fine for me. I allways miss the 85mm so much.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
Total: 486, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »