The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Zeiss 16-35/2.8: RUN don't Walk !!!!

edwardkaraa

New member
Yeah, I think you are going to like it. I can't wait to use it for something "real".

This is an important lens for my wedding work. I get crammed into small dressing rooms and bathrooms where the bride is getting ready, and I sometimes need a field of view greater than the 24-70 provides. Plus I use a wide zoom for over-all shots of the church and reception where detail is very important.

I think the build quality of these lenses is remarkable ... especially these days. I personally find them even better than the Leica R lenses like the 28-90 I recently owned, and that's saying something. Quite thoughtful design, and a delight in hand. It's been awhile since I could say that.

Now all we need is a new formula Zeiss AF 35/1.4 ASPH and we'll be all set. Well, a Zeiss APO macro would hurt either :rolleyes:. Eventually, Sony may have to offer a T/S solution to be taken seriously as a Pro system. But that is of no matter to me as I don't use a 35mm DSLR for that type work.
Wow! That's all great info! Thanks Marc.

If we believe the rumours, we should expect a Zeiss 24mm f/1.4 and a 200mm makro. They will be both on my to buy list :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
No go back to your hole and when spring comes we will call you. There are no shadows yet

Seriously though in a couple weeks i will get a chance to hold this system in my hands and i really need to do that
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Thanks for your ideas. No reason to postpone getting the 135 then I guess :)

Cheers, Bob.

PS There actually was a rumor about this in a french magazine quite some time ago, hence my question.
IMO, this is a must have lens even before the 16-35/2.8 ... IF you already have the 24-70/2.8 (24 is pretty wide on a FF camera), it's breathtaking.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Wow! That's all great info! Thanks Marc.

If we believe the rumours, we should expect a Zeiss 24mm f/1.4 and a 200mm makro. They will be both on my to buy list :)
24/1.4 would be really nice, but a 35/1.4 would be better. 200 makro would be stellar .... as I'm sure the price tag will be also. It better be APO because I won't put up with CA for that kind of work. If it's in the same league as the Zeiss/Contax 120 macro, it'll destroy every other macro out there.
 

picman

Member
IMO, this is a must have lens even before the 16-35/2.8 ... IF you already have the 24-70/2.8 (24 is pretty wide on a FF camera), it's breathtaking.
Yes, that's what I figured too, and in any case the 16-35 is still on pre-order over here. So next week I'll go get my CZ 135/1.8 :thumbup:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yea i know. I am a gear slut and fully admit it. Bringing custom made ski mask to Vegas
Tell the wifey that it's all part of the stimulus package and President Obama will give us a medal for Conspicuous Consumption ... er ... I mean Bravery. :)

Seroiusly, do NOT touch the lenses ... the camera is okay ... but the lenses will be your undoing. :lecture:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Did somebody say something about a lens?

No go back to your hole and when spring comes we will call you. There are no shadows yet
You speak to me? I can only assume that fear would make you say something quite that unkind to a loyal and hard working sycophant. . . . . I think an apology is your only way out (together with a big purchase).
:mad::eek::thumbdown::angry::cussing::scry::ROTFL:

Seriously though in a couple weeks i will get a chance to hold this system in my hands and i really need to do that
As Marc says - don't touch those Zeiss lenses . . . the camera feels a little fat and lightweight, it's charms are an acquired taste. The lenses are irresistable.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
Good news! Sony called today and they will have my lens ready to pick up on Thursday! :cool::thumbup::thumbs::)

I hope they won't release any additional Zeiss lenses soon, I need some time to mend the holes in my pocket :D
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
You speak to me? I can only assume that fear would make you say something quite that unkind to a loyal and hard working sycophant. . . . . I think an apology is your only way out (together with a big purchase).



:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL: See now you came out to play that means you have to buy one now. I was trying to save you from this fruitless attempt to hide from the 16-24 zoom. I will only think about it after you have given it a full run. :thumbs:
 

jonoslack

Active member
You speak to me? I can only assume that fear would make you say something quite that unkind to a loyal and hard working sycophant. . . . . I think an apology is your only way out (together with a big purchase).



:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL: See now you came out to play that means you have to buy one now. I was trying to save you from this fruitless attempt to hide from the 16-24 zoom. I will only think about it after you have given it a full run. :thumbs:
Well, it's all down to Peter (innerimager) or somebody else buying my 35 'cron :). Current plan is 'no new money', which means I have to sell something first.

16-35 is a nice range (nicer than Nikon's 14-24 perhaps).

I think you're going to have to jump first Guy
:p
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Hopefully I will get to play with it next week at PMA. I should NOT be going to this show. I need major size handcuffs on my wallet i can feel it already. I am such a slutty gear head
 
N

nautilus

Guest
Hopefully I will get to play with it next week at PMA. I should NOT be going to this show. I need major size handcuffs on my wallet i can feel it already. I am such a slutty gear head
Enjoy your trip to PMA and your new lens!

Should you talk to Sony people, may I ask you to ask them what CCD strategy Sony has?
They have CCD's in their entry level cameras A100/200/300/350, Konica Minolta did have CCD's in their 5D and 7D. I still like the CCD output at low ISO values better than that of my A700 CMOS sensor and hope that they use it again in a middle class or higher body.

Sony did a step back compared to KonicaMinolta with another piece of technique. The 7D's colors were better than all of Sony's later A mount cameras because they used better color filters for the bayer pattern color filtering.
Therefore, if I don't need very high resolution or autofocus I still prefer using the 7D. Sony should improve their cameras in respect of color filtering.

I thought that you may be interested in such things as well, since you seem to buy into the Sony system. Should you have some spare time at PMA and like to discuss technical issues with a manufacturer it would be great if you remember my two questions. :thumbup:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Sony did a step back compared to KonicaMinolta with another piece of technique. The 7D's colors were better than all of Sony's later A mount cameras because they used better color filters for the bayer pattern color filtering.
Therefore, if I don't need very high resolution or autofocus I still prefer using the 7D. Sony should improve their cameras in respect of color filtering.
Hi Nautilus
Colour is what affects me most. I haven't used the previous Sony CCD based cameras, but the real joy of the A900 (not just for me, but for others too) is the wonderfully subtle colour transitions, especially near to the brightest part of the image. It catches early morning and late evening light for landscapes especially well (much better than anything I've used, with the possible exception of the Olympus E1).

These things are very subjective, I've certainly seen no tests which give you a satisfactory feeling for it.

So, I wonder if you've spent a great deal of time with A900 images?
 
N

nautilus

Guest
Hi Nautilus
Colour is what affects me most. I haven't used the previous Sony CCD based cameras, but the real joy of the A900 (not just for me, but for others too) is the wonderfully subtle colour transitions, especially near to the brightest part of the image. It catches early morning and late evening light for landscapes especially well (much better than anything I've used, with the possible exception of the Olympus E1).

These things are very subjective, I've certainly seen no tests which give you a satisfactory feeling for it.

So, I wonder if you've spent a great deal of time with A900 images?
Jono,

A900's image quality looks very good for me as well.
I addressed two different topics in my previous post.

The first I call unscientifically the CCD effect that I see independent from the second topic, the colour aspect due to colour filtering.

CCD pictures look more original in the sense that they show more pure clarity compared to CMOS pictures. At low ISO values, especially when combined with a thin anti aliasing filter like the sort of the A100 has. CMOS offers the manufacturers more possibilities to improve picture quality at higher ISO values. I think that's the reason why they usually use CMOS.

Colour filtering is about allowing certain wave lenghts of light to reach the sensor or not. Differences in filtering, e.g. steep or flat curves at the corners or shifts of filtering curves could show up in the image output.
I attributed specifically KonicaMinolta's 7D with 'better' filters. Sony's later CCD cameras are worse. A700 is worse as well.

You probably have seen more A900 images than I did since you own the camera. I've seen more than a few of them and have the opinion that when watched at 100% pixel level they are very close to A700's output. Of course, due to the ammount of pixels (2x A700's pixel output) A900 pictures look much better than A700's when we see prints or screen images at the same size.

I think colour transitions and retention in highlights doesn't necessarily mean true colours, more beautiful colours.

To sum it up. A lot is a matter of taste and there are other aspects beside colour accuracy that influence the colour appearance in pictures, e.g. the preserved quality in highlights that you've mentioned.

But if I make a nature picture of the ocean, the blue sky, green plants and such I still prefer the 7D to A100 and A700. I get natural looking results out of the box that I can not photoshop out of an A100 or A700 picture.

If I make a flower picture with reds and yellows I clearly prefer the A700 because these colours go much earlier in saturation and destroy texture with the 7D.

Best of both worlds would be perfect and is the reason why I'm curious what Sony's plans in this respect are.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Nautilus
Well, as you say, it's all rather subjective.
I wasn't necessarily suggesting that the A900 was more accurate, but it does have a 'glow' about it which isn't found in very many cameras, and for me, this is more important than accuracy.
 
Top