x-ray
Veteran
Both images here were with the 85 1.2 at 1.2. Note the OOF and extremely shallow DOF. Shot on my old canon 1Ds. The 85 is one of my favorite and most used lenses.
SDK
Exposing since 1969.
What would be best for an objective evaluation, would be to test the Nikon and Zeiss lenses on a Nikon pro film body vs. the Canon on a pro film body. I'd like to know about performance to the film corners, and no digital body test will tell that. As a some-time Nikon user I'd like to know how the lenses work, their full capabilities, on the bodies they were intended for.
keoj
Established
Like SDK said......I'd like to see the lenses tested as they were designed for.
keoj
keoj
x-ray
Veteran
keoj said:
I'm in full agreement but who's going to loan us an 85 ZF? Honestly I don't think any of us could tell the difference unless we made murals fom the negs. The crops that I posted from the 1DsII files would represent sections out of a very large print. The size of this 47.5 meg file at 72dpi which I cropped from would be 69.333x46.222 inches. This give an idea of how much you would have to enlarge the neg or file to see differences. How many of us actually print that size?
Olsen
Well-known
x-ray said:
- Indeed! To the Europeans; that means a print measuring 120 x 180 cm.
- But '100% in PS' has made us all optical experts, hasn't it?
It is not all about resolution with a lense like this. It is also the quality of the background blur (bukeh, as many call it) and how the lense draws the object in focus towards the background. Without having done the test, my exerience with Canon 85 mm 1,2L and lots of other Zeiss glas, I would guess that the Canon draws more in the line of what many with connect with Leica, while the Zeiss glas will give the portrayed this 3D look which makes him/her 'stand out' from the background. Not only sharp, but with this just fabulous contrast that is so typical of Carl Zeiss. - Just my guess.