surprise!

I've worked very briefly with a couple of Zeiss Sonnars, and I liked them enough that I'd buy this lens today on spec, if I could afford it, even though I already have a perfectly good Leitz 50mm f/1.4.

The ones I used gave my pictures a beautifully delicate onion-peel look that I've never gotten from any other optic.
 
it would be great to see the comparison test Joe, luckly most of us find this sort of thing very interesting.
 
>somewhat and yes

Well, I have HCB's Saint-Lazare Terminal, Paris, 1932 on my wall and when I look at it, the camera, lens, exposure, etc. used is completely unimportant (to me). It's the image that speaks -- not how it was taken.

I mean no disrespect here. I retrospect the "real photographer" wording in my first post herein was inappropriate.
 
My point is that so much energy is consumed sweating the techy details and that takes energy away from clicking shutters.

ironically, i may be the least techie guy on this forum.
 
Nachkebia said:
Can`t wait for test! congrats! I know you don`t like me but I like you so congrats! :D
Click to expand...


not true nach!

sometimes when ANYONE speaks in a harsh way that i think offends other members i will step in.
we're cool!

joe
 
back alley said:
ironically, i may be the least techie guy on this forum.
Click to expand...

(Snort) Not while I remain unbanned, you aren't.

So, where is the winding knob on an M8, anyway?
 
I like the lookie-seeie lens tests. They are interesting precisely because they aren't techie and let you see the qualitative features of the lens. They're fun, too. Why make a fuss about it? All that time spent fussing, you could be out clicking instead. :)

/Ira
 
back alley said:
i normally would agree with you except for this being a sonnar and a planar.
i hope that there IS a difference in the LOOK of the final image.
i don't care about mtf and sharpness in the corners usually but i am very interested in seeing how the 1.5 performs.
there have been some shots posted here that i have loved (1.5) and i want to see a print comparison, up close.
Click to expand...

You mean you want to check differences in BOKEH ?

:)

Congrats, Joe !

Roland.
 
>Why make a fuss about it? All that time spent fussing, you could be out
>clicking instead.

Excellent point...

Presently I am trapped at my puter scanning, scanning, and scanning negs from my 2006 travels for an upcoming show.

So I am a bit fussy and have lots of time to express it! ;)

(Again, no offense intended.)

BTW -- If anyone else is trapped by their computer, can listen to music loud while doing it, then check out www.asfradio.com for the greatest tunes online.
 
ferider said:
You mean you want to check differences in BOKEH ?

:)

Congrats, Joe !

Roland.
Click to expand...


bite your tongue rollie!
i thought we were friends!

that sonnar look has more to do with edge softness than oof areas in the background.

;)
 
Another lens, joe? :confused: What happened to your Zen status?

Heck... it's nice when a new family member comes in. I wish I could relive those moments... ahhh, the exhilaration at opening the package, the sweet smell of new gear, the feverish anticipation when you look at it and the very pleasant feeling when the lens clicks (as it should) on your camera and appears ready to photograph the world.

Ah... :), what a feeling! :D

Congratulations, joe!
 
back alley said:
bite your tongue rollie!
i thought we were friends!

that sonnar look has more to do with edge softness than oof areas in the background.

;)
Click to expand...

Just pulling your legs.

Seriously, I'm envious. The C-Sonnar pictures I have seen have been
remarkable. Looking forward to the pictures. Cheers,

Roland.
 
back alley said:
that sonnar look has more to do with edge softness than oof areas in the background.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree in one sense; I look at the Sonnar pictures in my head and I see the peculiarity of the in-focus areas. Never thought of them as soft, though; just pin-sharp, as opposed to a Summicron's knife-sharpness.
 
!

!

back alley said:
man o man, could i tell you stories...i'm a sicilian from from nyc and my step-dad worked as a collector for a private sanitation company.
Click to expand...

Say no more, I know where the bodies are buried!
 
Pin sharp vs. knife sharp? This is why you need comparison photos -- words just don't work.

But as HCB said, sharpness is a bourgeois concept. Well, guilty as charged, I guess -- I like the lens tests, and so apparently do a lot of others.
 
AusDLK said:
When you look at a photograph that you admire, does it really matter what lens was used? Or if it might have been better if it was taken with a different one?
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't really matter, but it matters to appreciate the image.

When you look at a painting does it really matter to know the medium? The artist? The period? The history? An image just being an image may serve well for those seeking frivolous pleasure (a la you know, gimme fries with that, now, now now, no time to...bye!!!), but to those who want to know more, it matters. Not really, but it does.

Why put information next to images? Let's just have images, no information. It doesn't really matter, does it? :angel:
 
KoNickon said:
Pin sharp vs. knife sharp? This is why you need comparison photos -- words just don't work.

But as HCB said, sharpness is a bourgeois concept. Well, guilty as charged, I guess -- I like the lens tests, and so apparently do a lot of others.
Click to expand...
Very true. And if an excellent image was shot through the end of an empty old glass bottle of Coca-Cola, I think it would raise some eyebrows.

Not that it really matters. Who needs information anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom